Green Mountain Power in Vermont just added a new "Grid Modernization Charge" of $3.50/month for residential and $12.75/month for small commercial customers. They claim it's for replacing aging infrastructure and improving reliability. The Vermont PSB approved it as a temporary surcharge for three years. My question is whether this should be recovered through base rates instead of a separate rider. The infrastructure they're upgrading seems like basic utility service, not an enhancement. Thoughts?
Green Mountain Power's "Grid Modernization Charge" - legit or not?
Fiona, that's a classic case of utilities trying to accelerate cost recovery outside normal rate cases. Here in North Dakota, we successfully challenged a similar "system improvement" surcharge because basic infrastructure replacement should be part of normal depreciation and capital recovery. The key question is whether GMP is getting double recovery - once through depreciation in base rates and again through the special charge.
Anita, that's exactly my concern. GMP's last rate case included significant infrastructure investments in their revenue requirement. If they're now recovering additional infrastructure costs through this rider, there could be double recovery. The PSB order mentions "accelerated replacement" but doesn't clearly explain why this can't wait for the next rate case. Did you have success getting detailed cost accounting on your North Dakota case?
I'm also dealing with Vermont utilities and this charge caught my attention. The "temporary" nature is suspicious - these riders have a way of becoming permanent. Burlington Electric Department doesn't have a similar charge, which suggests GMP might be using this to fund projects that other utilities handle through normal planning. Has anyone requested the detailed project list that this surcharge is supposed to fund?
Chester, good point about BED not having a similar charge. I haven't requested the project details yet but that's my next step. The PSB order is pretty high-level and doesn't break down specific investments. If GMP is funding routine maintenance through this rider instead of proper capital planning, that's a problem. The three-year timeline also seems arbitrary - why not align with their next rate case?
The timing is definitely suspicious. Three years puts it well past their next rate case where this stuff should be reviewed properly. In our North Dakota case, we found the utility was frontloading projects to avoid regulatory lag. They wanted to collect money now for work that wouldn't be completed for years. Get those project schedules and match them against the cost recovery timeline.
Filed a data request last week asking for detailed project accounting, timelines, and justification for rider treatment versus base rate recovery. Also requested information about any similar infrastructure investments already reflected in current rates. If there's overlap or double recovery, that should be grounds for challenging the rider or at least reducing the charges.
Fiona, keep me posted on your data request results. I've got several GMP customers who are asking questions about this charge. If you find evidence of double recovery or inappropriate cost allocation, I'd be interested in joining a formal challenge. These utility rider games are getting out of hand - they need to be stopped before every utility adopts the same tactics.
GMP responded to my data request and the results are interesting. About 40% of the "grid modernization" projects are routine pole and wire replacements that should be covered by existing depreciation reserves. Another 30% are system upgrades that were already included in their last rate case capital budget. Only the remaining 30% could arguably justify special rider treatment. This looks like a clear case of double recovery.
That's smoking gun evidence right there. 70% inappropriate recovery should get the PSB's attention quickly. Are you planning to file a formal complaint or try to work with GMP directly first? Given the dollar amounts involved, this could result in significant refunds for customers if you're successful.
File the complaint, don't waste time negotiating. Utilities rarely volunteer to give back money they're already collecting. With documentation showing 70% inappropriate recovery, the PSB should order immediate refunds plus interest. Make sure to request suspension of the charges pending investigation - no point letting them keep collecting while the case is pending.
Complaint filed yesterday with request for immediate suspension of the charges and full refunds with interest. The documentation clearly shows GMP is double-recovering costs already included in base rates. Chester, I copied you on the filing - let me know if your customers want to intervene or file supporting comments.
Perfect timing with the holidays - this should get attention when PSB staff returns. I'll encourage my GMP customers to file supporting comments highlighting the impact on their businesses. This kind of documentation and advocacy is exactly what's needed to keep utilities honest about their cost recovery mechanisms.
Excellent work, Fiona and Chester. This is exactly the kind of detailed forensic analysis that stops utility overreach. The 70% inappropriate recovery finding should make this an easy win at the PSB. Cases like this create important precedents that help customers in other states challenge similar riders. Keep fighting the good fight!