CHARLESTON – A group of Appalachian Power customers are appealing a recent Public Service Commission order that allows the company to raise electric bills through what it calls an “experimental inflation-based” rate mechanism and surcharges.
The ratepayers filed the petition May 14 with the state Intermediate Court of Appeals, asking the court to review and undo key parts of the April 16 PSC order, which would affect Appalachian Power and Wheeling Power customers. The appellants say they are directly affected by repeated increases in electric rates and surcharges. Several petitioners say they already are struggling to keep current on their electric bills and face the risk of disconnection.
Beckley attorney Steve New is representing the appellants, who are led by Jessica Thaxton, Tesa Higginbotham and Stacey Nelson. He said the appeal underscores growing concern over the affordability of electricity in West Virginia.
New
“West Virginians are being asked to shoulder ever-increasing utility costs without a clear and legally sufficient explanation for why those charges are necessary,” New said. “This appeal seeks transparency, accountability and judicial review to ensure that utility rates are fair and supported by evidence.”
The appeal asks the ICA to review the PSC’s April 16 order entered in four consolidated proceedings involving modified rate base costs, vegetation management charges, broadband surcharges and the newly approved inflation-based base rate adjustment mechanism, which would increase electric bills beginning June 1. That includes a 4% increase for residential and commercial customers and a 2.5% increase for industrial customers.
The petitioners say the mechanism was approved without adequate findings or substantial evidence demonstrating that the resulting rates are “just and reasonable,” as required by West Virginia law.
The appeal also challenges the PSC’s authorization of recovery for MRBC, ENEC, vegetation management, broadband and securitization-related costs, contending that the order fails to explain the methodology, evidentiary basis and customer impacts of these charges.
The petitioners say the PSC exceeded or improperly exercised its statutory authority, approved rate increases without substantial evidentiary support, failed to provide sufficient reasoning to permit meaningful judicial review, authorized charges that may impose significant hardship on families and businesses and entered findings that are arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.
In the petition, Nelson says she has faced recurring delinquencies, enrollment in the company’s Average Monthly Payment plan and multiple disconnection notices despite efforts to stay current. This, the filing claims, shows “concrete economic vulnerability” under current rates that will worsen if the new increases take effect by deepening delinquencies, increasing payment‑plan burdens and heightening the risk of service shutoffs.
The customers say the PSC leaned heavily on Producer Price Index data for electric power distribution and certain construction and materials indices, but focused almost entirely on a truncated two‑year trend from 2024 to 2025 while dismissing longer historical data as too variable.
They argue the PSC then picked 4% and 2.5% as the adjustment factors without explaining why those numbers – rather than lower figures the record also referenced – meet West Virginia’s just-and-reasonable standard or balance interests of customers and utilities as required by statute.
The order conditions the inflation-based increase on securitization compliance, withdrawal of Appalachian Power’s pending notice of intent for a new base rate case, and a one‑year “stay‑out” from filing another such case. But the appellants insist those conditions do not cure what they characterize as a lack of independent evidentiary support and reasoned analysis for the level of the increase itself.
The customers say the PSC’s findings and directives are “arbitrary, capricious” and unsupported by substantial evidence, and say the order is contrary to statute, beyond the PSC’s authority and violative of due process. They ask the ICA to reverse, vacate or remand portions of the PSC order that authorize the inflation-based rate mechanism and related cost‑recovery determinations.
They also want the court to direct the commission to issue additional findings, evidentiary support and methodological explanations sufficient to permit “meaningful judicial review” of the increases and surcharges.
They also seek a stay blocking implementation of the challenged increases and recovery mechanisms while the appeal is pending, arguing they can show likely success on the merits, irreparable harm to ratepayers, no substantial harm to other parties and that the public interest favors a stay.
