By Suzanne Herel

WILMINGTON, Del. — The Members Committee overwhelmingly agreed last week to fund a $450,000 budget for the Consumer Advocates of the PJM States (CAPS), in part through an assessment on electric customers.

According to the proposal, the charge to a residential customer using 12,000 kWh annually will be eight-tenths of a cent. The group also would receive a one-time infusion of $350,000 from Exelon if the D.C. Public Service Commission approves its acquisition of Pepco Holdings Inc., under a settlement brokered with D.C.’s mayor.

“The consumer advocates designated by state statute are in a position of having to be in two places at once — the state where there’s always lots to do, and here at PJM, where most of the charges are coming from,” said CAPS Executive Director Dan Griffiths. That, he said, has stretched the advocates’ resources, making it difficult to monitor the “hundreds” of meetings the RTO holds each year.

“This is something we think is a serious problem because the voice of the retail folks who are ultimately paying the bills is absent.”

Griffiths said the group modeled its budget and funding request on that of the Organization of PJM States Inc. (OPSI), which is funded through a charge in Schedule 9 of the RTO’s Tariff.

The proposal passed with slightly more than 81% of a sector-weighted vote, receiving unanimous support from End Use Customers and 89% from Other Suppliers. About 79% of Electric Distributors supported the funding, along with 71% of Generation Owners and two-thirds of Transmission Owners.

At the Members Committee meeting earlier this month where the plan was introduced, it met resistance from some suppliers, most notably Direct Energy, Talen Energy and Dynegy. Last week, Direct Energy abstained from the vote, while Talen and Dynegy opposed it. (See Consumer Advocates’ Funding Request Sparks Sharp Words.)

Jesse Dillon, assistant general counsel for Talen, repeated his argument that the proposal runs afoul of the First Amendment prohibition against “compelled speech.”

“I’ve already made the policy point that no member should have to fund the advocacy voting of another member, period,” he said. “This one group is receiving treatment that others aren’t. Their voices are no more relevant in the marketplace of ideas than other entities.”

In response to the free speech argument, the consumer advocates penned an Oct. 13 memo to the heads of the Members Committee defending the proposal, saying in part that the doctrine doesn’t apply to government entities, “which the members of CAPS clearly are.”

The memo cites FERC’s approval of OPSI funding in 2006 over a similar objection by Public Service Enterprise Group (ER06-78).

In that case, FERC ruled, “PJM is providing funding to make its job of working with the states easier and more efficient. The ability of any participant to express its views will not be constrained by this proposal.”

Dillon disputed the classification of CAPS as a government entity, noting that the group is a 501c tax-exempt nonprofit organization.

CAPS, made up of consumer advocates from PJM states and D.C., was formed in 2012 with start-up funding from a FERC enforcement settlement with Constellation Energy (IN12-7-00).

West Virginia Consumer Advocate Jackie Roberts pointed out that a portion of electric customers’ bills already go toward having the companies — Appalachian Power, in her case — represented at PJM.

“All we’re asking is that the customers we represent have an opportunity to pay less than a cent a year to have us have a seat at the stakeholder table,” she said.