No
Way,
No
How
To
Pepco's
Latest
Rate
Hike
Proposal
 Pepco
is
once
again
asking
state
utility
regulators
for
a
rate
increase.
This
time,
the
$68.6
million
increase
would
mean
a
$7
per
month
hike
in
the
average
residential
bill.
This
rate
increase
is
not
justified.
This
week,
I
urged
the
Public
Service
Commission
(PSC)
to
say
no
for
three
reasons:
•
Pepco
is
asking
for
a
rate
of
return
that
is
too
high
•
Pepco
is
asking
for
the
rate
increase
to
recover
the
costs
of
reliability
improvements
it
hasn’t
yet
made
and
hadn’t
made
at
the
time
it
made
the
request
–
contrary
to
well-established
rules
of
utility
ratemaking
•
Most
importantly,
Pepco
is
making
this
request
after
failing
to
honor
a
fundamental
reliability
requirement
of
its
merger
with
Exelon
One
of
the
biggest
selling
points
of
the
merger,
an
argument
I
never
bought,
was
that
Exelon
could
significantly
improve
Pepco's
historically
abysmal
reliability
more
than
a
properly
motivated
Pepco
could
on
its
own.
And
to
bolster
their
case,
they
pledged
to
meet
certain
reliability
metrics
right
away.
The
PSC
agreed
to
the
merger
and
ordered
Pepco
to
meet
the
metrics
Exelon/Pepco
promised.
In
January,
not
more
than
three
months
after
the
last
rate
increase
went
into
effect,
Pepco
reported
to
the
PSC
that
it
failed
to
meet
its
System
Average
Interruption
Frequency
Index
target
for
2016.
In
real
terms,
this
means
Pepco
customers
in
Montgomery
and
Prince
George’s
counties
suffered
approximately
20,000
more
outages
than
they
would
have
had
Pepco
met
the
target.
A
deal
is
a
deal.
Pepco
did
not
do
what
it
pledged
to
do.
It
did
not
do
what
the
PSC
ordered
it
to
do.
It
should
not
be
awarded
with
higher
rates.
In
fact,
the
PSC
should
penalize
the
company.
The
PSC
will
be
accepting
written
comments
about
this
latest
proposed
Pepco
rate
hike
until
September
15.
Comments
can
be
mailed
to
David
J.
Collins,
Executive
Secretary,
Maryland
Public
Service
Commission,
William
Donald
Schaefer
Tower,
6
St.
Paul
Street,
16th
Floor,
Baltimore,
Maryland
21202.
Reference
“Case
No.
9443”
with
all
comments.
You
can
also
file
your
comments
electronically
at
the
PSC
website.
Georgetown
Branch
Trail
to
Close
Tuesday
for
Purple
Line
Construction
After
the
groundbreaking
for
the
Purple
Line
light-rail
project
on
Monday,
the
Maryland
Transit
Administration
and
Purple
Line
Transit
Partners
announced
the
Georgetown
Branch
Interim
Trail
will
close
on
Tuesday,
September
5
for
project
construction.
The
trail
will
be
closed
for
much
of
the
duration
of
Purple
Line
construction,
which
is
expected
to
take
four
to
five
years.
While
I
have
been
a
longtime
supporter
of
the
Purple
Line,
I
do
not
minimize
for
a
moment
what
a
loss
it
is
for
those
who
live
next
to
it,
walk
it,
or
ride
on
the
Georgetown
Branch.
We
love
the
trail
the
way
it
is.
It
has
been
a
lovely
respite
from
our
urban
environment.
And
yet
it
was
bought
for
this
very
purpose.
That
was
always
the
plan.
But
the
fact
that
this
plan
is
now
being
carried
out
doesn't
make
it
any
less
of
a
loss.
Like
almost
everyone,
I
was
surprised
by
how
soon
the
trail
would
be
closed
and
for
how
long.
I
don't
know
how
to
square
the
state's
prior
assurance
that
it
would
work
"to
minimize"
how
long
the
trail
would
be
out
of
service
with
a
timeline
that
is
commensurate
with
construction
period
for
the
project
as
a
whole.
That
was
an
important
pledge,
and
it
will
be
important
for
the
state
to
keep
its
commitments
to
the
affected
communities
in
Montgomery
County.
In
many
ways,
as
hard
as
it
has
been
to
get
this
project
to
this
point,
the
worst
part
is
now
approaching
--
construction.
Four
to
five
years
of
construction.
No
one
should
minimize
the
importance
of
making
sure
that
the
private
concessionaire
constructing
this
project
works
to
mitigate
the
disruptions
that
surrounding
neighborhoods
will
experience.
Their
private
interest
will
be
in
reducing
costs;
the
public
interest
is
in
making
sure
promises
are
kept.
To
that
end,
that
is
why
I
along
with
Councilmember
Tom
Hucker
wrote
a
letter
today
to
Maryland
Secretary
of
Transportation
Pete
Rahn
asking
several
key
questions
pertaining
to
the
trail
closure
and
construction
impacts.
You
can
read
the
letter
here.
Do
let
my
office
know
of
your
experience
when
you
believe
that
some
aspect
of
this
project
is
not
being
handled
in
a
manner
that
you
think
we
deserve.
I
see
it
as
one
of
my
responsibilities
to
do
everything
I
can
to
insist
that
as
the
state
advances
this
critically
important
project,
it
does
so
in
a
manner
that
is
sensitive
to
the
legitimate
concerns
of
impacted
neighborhoods.
Fighting
to
Reduce
Airplane
Noise
 For
far
too
long,
many
of
our
residents
have
had
the
quality
of
their
lives,
and
the
value
of
their
property,
severely
diminished
by
airplane
noise.
This
was
the
direct
consequence
of
a
decision
by
the
FAA
to
reroute
planes
without
full
consideration
of
the
impact
on
our
area.
Working
with
neighborhood
leaders
and
the
Montgomery
County
Quiet
Skies
Coalition,
I
have
urged
our
county
to
pursue
legal
action
against
the
FAA
as
other
communities
such
as
Phoenix
have
done.
In
response,
our
county
has
retained
outside
legal
counsel
that
was
involved
in
the
Phoenix
case
to
prepare
a
legal
memorandum
on
our
options.
Earlier
this
week,
Phoenix
won!
The
U.S.
Court
of
Appeals
held
that
the
FAA's
actions
were
"arbitrary
and
capricious"
and
ordered
them
to
go
back
to
the
way
it
was
before
until
a
new
plan
can
be
developed.
Equally
important,
the
Court
ruled
that
the
city
had
legal
standing
to
file
their
claim
late
because
the
city
demonstrated
good
cause.
Those
two
findings
are
equally
applicable
to
our
situation.
I
conveyed
to
our
County
Attorney
this
morning
my
belief
that
this
case
strengthens
the
argument
for
filing
an
action
against
the
FAA
and
that
we
should
request
an
expeditious
response
from
our
outside
law
firm.
He
agreed
on
both
points.
While
our
battle
has
not
been
won,
yesterday's
court
decision
was
a
very,
very
positive
development.
Fixing
Our
Residential
Parking
Permit
System
.png) I
am
happy
to
report
that
DOT
Director
Al
Roshdieh
has
agreed
to
reintroduce
paper
permits
for
residents
and
visitors
in
Residential
Parking
Permit
areas.
Our
Transportation,
Infrastructure,
Energy
&
Environment
Committee
first
took
up
the
burdensome
nature
of
the
county’s
new
digital
parking
permit
system
in
January
and
has
been
working
to
bring
back
paper
resident
and
visitor
permits
ever
since.
While
DOT
had
legitimate
reasons
for
going
to
a
paperless
system,
the
requirements
-- particularly
for
registering
guest
vehicles
-- too
often
became
a
nightmare.
Thank
you
to
DOT
Director
Roshdieh
and
my
Council
colleagues
for
helping
to
make
this
happen.
Residents
in
these
areas
should
be
getting
a
paper
permit
for
all
registered
vehicles
and
a
letter
asking
whether
you
prefer
paper
or
digital
visitor
permits
throughout
September.
Fall
Legislative
Preview
This
fall
will
be
a
busy
one
with
several
issues
before
the
Council
you
may
be
interested
in.
I
certainly
am!
Here
are
just
a
few:
Bill
28-17:
Human
Rights
and
Civil
Liberties
-
County
Minimum
Wage
-
Annual
Adjustment:
•
The
Council
will
revisit
this
very
important
topic
beginning
with
a
public
hearing
on
Tuesday,
September
26th
at
7:30
pm
before
the
bill
heads
to
the
Health
and
Human
Services
Committee
(HHS)
for
review.
The
bill
before
the
Council
would
raise
the
minimum
wage
to
$15.00/hour
by
2020
for
businesses
of
26
or
more
employees
and
by
2022
for
businesses
of
25
or
fewer
employees,
non-profit
organizations,
home
health
services
organizations,
and
organizations
that
receive
at
least
75%
of
gross
revenues
through
state
and
federal
Medicaid
programs.
If
interested
in
this
issue,
you
can
sign
up
to
testify
here
in
the
coming
days.
ZTA
17-03
Short
Term
Rentals
&
Bill
2-16
Transient
Housing
–
Licensing
and
Registration:
•
ZTA
17-03
would
establish
certain
limitations
on
short-term
residential
rentals
and
Bill
2-16
would
amend
and
update
the
licensing
and
registration
requirements
for
short-term
residential
rentals
in
the
County
Code.
The
Planning
Department
and
Planning
Board
have
been
working
on
this
set
of
topics
for
quite
some
time
and
the
Council
will
now
review
their
recommendation
beginning
with
a
public
hearing
on
Tuesday,
September
12
at
7:30
pm.
Should
you
wish
to
testify,
you
may
sign
up
here.
Rock
Spring
Master
Plan:
•
Building
upon
the
1992
North
Bethesda/Garrett
Park
Master
Plan,
the
Rock
Spring
Master
Plan
seeks
to
add
residential
and
retail
uses
to
the
area
which
is
currently
utilized
as
an
office
park.
Preserving
public
open
space,
providing
pedestrian
and
bicycle
connections
throughout
the
area,
and
implementation
of
the
North
Bethesda
Transitway
are
among
other
goals
for
the
plan.
This
summer,
the
Council
held
a
public
hearing
on
this
plan
and
the
Council’s
Planning,
Housing,
and
Economic
Development
Committee
(PHED)
reviewed
the
plan
and
made
its
recommendations
to
the
full
Council.
The
Council
will
review
those
recommendations
sometime
this
fall
(Date
TBD).
You
can
review
the
Planning
Board’s
recommended
plan
here
and
watch
the
PHED
Committee’s
work
sessions
here
if
interested.
White
Flint
2
Sector
Plan:
•
The
Planning
Board
recently
forwarded
its
recommendations
for
this
plan
to
the
Council
and
we
will
begin
our
review
and
deliberations
by
holding
a
public
hearing
on
Tuesday,
September
19th
at
7:30
pm.
This
plan
is
intended
to
complement
the
White
Flint
1
Sector
plan
approved
by
the
Council
in
2010
and
plans
for
mixed-use
infill
development,
new
infrastructure,
additional
affordable
housing,
increased
sustainability,
parks
and
open
spaces,
and
bikeways
and
pedestrian
connections.
If
you
are
interested
in
this
plan
and
wish
to
testify,
you
may
sign
up
here.
Bill
24-17
–
Burial
Sites:
•
Bill
24-17,
Land
Use
Information
–
Burial
Sites
would
require
the
Planning
Board
to
establish
and
maintain
a
burial
site
inventory
in
the
county
and
establish
a
procedure
by
which
residents
can
recommend
additions
to
the
inventory.
Subdivision
Regulation
Amendment
17-01,
Approval
Procedures
–
Burial
sites
would
require
burial
sites
identified
in
a
Planning
Board
inventory
to
be
protected
and
preserved
in
the
subdivision
approval
process.
The
public
hearing
for
the
bill
and
SRA
are
scheduled
for
September
12
at
1:30
pm.
More
information
on
these
and
other
issues
can
be
found
on
the
Council’s
website.
|