THE GAZETTE
Page A-8
Wednesday, February 12, 2014 p
Washington Gas customers may see bills increase n
Hearings on the surcharge wrapped up last week BY MARGIE HYSLOP SPECIAL TO THE GAZETTE
Washington Gas officials hope to persuade state regulators to approve their plan to charge customers an extra fee to pay for improvements to the utility’s old and leaking gas lines. Washington Gas’ proposal to the Maryland Public Service Commission calls for households to pay about 29 cents more per month in the first year of a five-year plan geared to generate about $200 million in revenue for the company to use for replacing obsolete and aging lines. Four days of hearings wrapped up Friday, to be followed by legal briefs, a preliminary order from the commission by March 21 and an order detailing the commission’s decision by May 6. In its application, Washington Gas proposes to spend $200 million in five years as part of a 22-year plan to spend $863 million on replacing 633 miles of main and 75,200 customer lines and connections. Washington Gas says it will target bare or unprotected steel as well as some copper, “pre-1975 plastic,” cast iron and obsolete mechanical couplings that are part of its infrastructure. Washington Gas provides service through about 449,000 active meters in Montgomery, Prince George’s, Charles,
Calvert, St. Mary’s and Frederick counties and 656,000 more meters in Virginia and Washington, D.C., according to its application filed Nov. 7. A law enacted last year authorizes the commission to let gas utilities charge a special fee to accelerate reasonable improvements in its infrastructure that would increase safety and reliability. The law limits the surcharge to five years, and requires that any surcharge be assessed to residential and commercial customers in a ratio proportionate to each customer class’ use. The law requires the surcharge to be capped and sets the limit at $2 per month for households. Washington Gas’ proposal calls for the surcharge to increase, based on “actual capital expenditures” over the five-year period, until the $2 cap is reached, Company Vice President Douglas A. Staebler told the commission in testimony filed with the commission. “We were hoping to find a way to give them a little more money [to improve their infrastructure],” said Del. Charles E. Barkley (D-Dist. 39) of Germantown. Last month, the commission gave Baltimore Gas and Electric conditional approval to add a surcharge to its gas customers’ bills and turned down Columbia Gas of Maryland’s surcharge request, urging the company to amend it and refile. Barkley said he thinks Washington
“Why are they not required to fully maintain the system with their money?” Imani Kazana Gas’ response in repairing its aging delivery system has been sufficient so far, but that by authorizing the commission to allow a surcharge “we hoped to get ahead of the problem.” A Washington Gas spokesman declined to discuss why the company needs the surcharge and whether it expects its request to face challenges. “…We do not comment on pending cases,” company Vice President Eric C. Grant replied in an email. Imani Kazana said she has been asking Washington Gas to fix leaks in her Avonridge neighborhood between Hyattsville and Mount Rainier for 10 years. “My neighborhood sits at the center of a major intersection of regional gas lines and we have had leaks and gas smells on a regular basis” for more than 20 years, Kazana said. Washington Gas’ proposal gives the company too much flexibility on what it
will do and where it will do it, she said. Kazana said state officials have told her that the utility doesn’t plan to make improvements in her community during the five years it wants to bill the surcharge, even though engineers have said pipes and valves there are obsolete. Sen. Victor R. Ramirez (D-Dist. 47) of Cheverly said he thinks a meeting will be set soon for Washington Gas to talk with Kazana and other residents about their concerns. “Why are they not required to fully maintain the system with their money?” Kazana said. “I don’t think we customers should be charged additional for it.” The Apartment and Office Building Association of Metropolitan Washington also objects to Washington Gas’ surcharge plan. Bruce R. Oliver, an economist who specializes in utility rates and regulation, said in testimony filed with the service commission on behalf of the apartment and office building association wrote that Washington Gas’ surcharge application does not provide enough detail tying project work and timelines to cost recovery. Oliver also estimated that Washington Gas’ replacement plan would not keep pace with the infrastructure’s projected lifespan. The Washington Post reported last month that a team of university researchers found nearly 5,900 gas leaks when they conducted a survey along Washington, D.C., streets,
According to the report, researchers said they found concentrations in 12 manholes that could have set the stage for explosions. They said they notified Washington Gas, but found similar concentrations at eight of those locations four months later. Gas dispersed at other leaks and posed no direct threat, but such leaks trap heat and can contribute to climate warming, the report said. Under a commission order issued last week, BGE will be allowed to bill households a monthly surcharge of 32 cents in 2014, 97 cents in 2015, $1.70 in 2016 and $2 in 2017 and 2018, but will not be allowed to add the charge to bills until BGE files a detailed list of projects and the Public Service Commission approves the list. The commission also ordered BGE to undergo an annual performance and cost audit of the projects and to adjust the surcharge as needed to make sure it is only recovering costs. In rejecting Columbia Gas of Maryland’s proposal to add $1.92 monthly surcharge to pay for improvements to its gas infrastructure, the service commission said Columbia Gas’ plan would not accelerate improvements. The commission urged the utility to submit a plan within 60 days that would maintain or surpass the infrastructure improvement rate it has already set. Most Columbia Gas customers are clustered around Hagerstown and Cumberland.
Food stamp recipients get relief n
New farm bill will not cut benefits
BY
SYLVIA CARIGNAN STAFF WRITER
136362G
Food stamp recipients in Maryland will be spared from the cuts once proposed in the federal farm bill. President Barack Obama signed the Agriculture Act of 2014 into law on Friday. The controversial law, formerly known as the farm bill, sets U.S. agricultural and food policy for the next five years. “Marylanders won’t see additional cuts as a result of the passage of the farm bill,” Maryland Hunger Solutions spokeswoman Brooke A. McCauley said. About 34,800 households in Montgomery County receive monthly food stamp benefits. Those households are already dealing with smaller budgets due to a cut late last year. At the end of November, food stamp recipients across the country saw a 5 percent decrease in their budgets when a federal expansion of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, expired. “There have been some families that have been affected significantly by that cut,” said JoAnn Barnes, deputy chief of the county’s Children, Youth and Family Services division. Just a few months ago, food stamp advocates worried that a draft of the Agriculture Act would deal a second blow and cut as much as $39 billion from SNAP for needy households nationwide, but the bill that became law last week does not make those changes. Households must meet certain income requirements to be eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. A single household’s gross income must be 130 percent of the federal poverty level or lower. According to Brian Schleter, spokesman for the state Department of Human Resources, the rules for eligibility for SNAP in Maryland will not change, but state funding could. The department could see a $750,000 decrease in funding for outreach. “This could significantly reduce our ability to identify and enroll eligible families in needed services,” he said in an email. The Capital Area Food Bank, which serves Montgomery, Prince George’s, and Washington counties; D.C. and northern Virginia, receives funding from the Maryland Department of Human Resources. For the calendar year 2014, the organization received $18,000 in outreach funding for Montgomery and Prince George’s counties, which it matches. It is not yet clear if the state will reduce its funding for the food bank’s outreach next year.