TESTIMONY DELIVERED BY ANDREA ROSEN
JANUARY 20, 2105
Good evening Chairwoman Kane and Commissioners; than you for the opportunity to testify against the Exelon takeover of Pepco Holdings Inc.
As the owner of nuclear reactors, referred to by Crain’s Chicago Business as Exelon’s albatross, Exelon is interested in bringing Pepco’s ratepayers on board as a source of income to subsidize the risky nuclear-power side of its business. Exelon thus has no incentive to attain competitive rates for its customers. Acquiring Pepco furthers Exelon’s goals, but who else is served?
At the first hearing held by the PSC (January 6), I observed that supporters of Exelon’s takeover of Pepco fall into three categories:
Do supporters know that Exelon’s promises have expiration dates? Exelon’s share price has fallen 60 percent since 2008; how much lift can Pepco provide? Pepco customers are to be shielded from the costs of decommissioning and cleaning up nuclear reactor sites for a mere five years. Exelon has only committed to continue Pepco philanthropy for ten years.
In any case, to approve the Exelon takeover on the basis of the perks that Exelon will bestow on these special interests. . . would be to endorse the tail wagging the dog.
And Washingtonians have a dog in this fight: We live on planet Earth. Last Friday (January 16, 2015), NASA and NOAA announced that 2014 was the warmest year on record in the 135 years that global temperatures have been measured. Recognition of the fact of our fast-changing climate and the upheaval such change brings has motivated many Washingtonians to take steps to shift their energy needs to clean, renewable sources. Thus the proliferation of solar roofs and solar co-ops, and the move by retail customers to choose electricity generated by wind and other renewable sources of power over coal.
The future of a habitable planet depends on a rapid and seismic shift away from Exelon’s centralized energy model, reliant on aging, dangerous nuclear power reactors, as well as allied coal and gas-fired electricity plants, toward community-generated power from renewable sources. As much as Pepco’s executive officers and other shareholders may wish to cash in by getting out of the power-distribution business, it turns out that the majority of us--and the climate as well—would continue to benefit from the flexibility that the current model provides. There is simply no reason for us to choose to submit to a distant master whose business model depends upon thwarting our city’s green trajectory.
I hope that in its deliberations, the PSC will focus on whether a sweetheart deal between two corporations will benefit residents of the District of Columbia, the Mid-Atlantic region, and beyond, particularly in the long term. Please remember that there’s a public good to be served by our public utilities, and Exelon is bad for D.C.
Thank you.
As the owner of nuclear reactors, referred to by Crain’s Chicago Business as Exelon’s albatross, Exelon is interested in bringing Pepco’s ratepayers on board as a source of income to subsidize the risky nuclear-power side of its business. Exelon thus has no incentive to attain competitive rates for its customers. Acquiring Pepco furthers Exelon’s goals, but who else is served?
At the first hearing held by the PSC (January 6), I observed that supporters of Exelon’s takeover of Pepco fall into three categories:
- Business lobbyists, like the D.C. Chamber of Commerce, whose job it is to defend what are perceived to be business’s best interests—that is, what will maximize corporate profit and shareholder benefits in the short term;
- Minority- and women-owned small businesses who have benefitted from special outreach from Pepco and who have been promised even greater benefits from its successor; and
- Representatives of nonprofits who have received philanthropic largesse from Pepco and who have been promised continued corporate support from its successor.
Do supporters know that Exelon’s promises have expiration dates? Exelon’s share price has fallen 60 percent since 2008; how much lift can Pepco provide? Pepco customers are to be shielded from the costs of decommissioning and cleaning up nuclear reactor sites for a mere five years. Exelon has only committed to continue Pepco philanthropy for ten years.
In any case, to approve the Exelon takeover on the basis of the perks that Exelon will bestow on these special interests. . . would be to endorse the tail wagging the dog.
And Washingtonians have a dog in this fight: We live on planet Earth. Last Friday (January 16, 2015), NASA and NOAA announced that 2014 was the warmest year on record in the 135 years that global temperatures have been measured. Recognition of the fact of our fast-changing climate and the upheaval such change brings has motivated many Washingtonians to take steps to shift their energy needs to clean, renewable sources. Thus the proliferation of solar roofs and solar co-ops, and the move by retail customers to choose electricity generated by wind and other renewable sources of power over coal.
The future of a habitable planet depends on a rapid and seismic shift away from Exelon’s centralized energy model, reliant on aging, dangerous nuclear power reactors, as well as allied coal and gas-fired electricity plants, toward community-generated power from renewable sources. As much as Pepco’s executive officers and other shareholders may wish to cash in by getting out of the power-distribution business, it turns out that the majority of us--and the climate as well—would continue to benefit from the flexibility that the current model provides. There is simply no reason for us to choose to submit to a distant master whose business model depends upon thwarting our city’s green trajectory.
I hope that in its deliberations, the PSC will focus on whether a sweetheart deal between two corporations will benefit residents of the District of Columbia, the Mid-Atlantic region, and beyond, particularly in the long term. Please remember that there’s a public good to be served by our public utilities, and Exelon is bad for D.C.
Thank you.
