CHARLESTON – An appeal of Appalachian Power’s proposed $40 million electric rate hikes through an “experimental inflation-based” rate mechanism and surcharges now has been filed with the West Virginia Supreme Court.
Beckley attorney Steve New originally filed the appeal with the state Intermediate Court of Appeals earlier this month, but the ICA dismissed it the next day saying it belonged with the Supreme Court instead.
New
New filed with the higher court May 18, the last day of the Public Service Commission’s 30-day appeal period on the matter. He is representing a group of ApCo customers 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. Apco says the rate hike would raise customer bills by $4.84 per 1,000 kilowatts used.
New says he has heard from customers across the state, and he says the appeal is the “right things to do.”
“I have been contacted by well over a thousand West Virginians from all 55 counties who just cannot live with their current utility rates,” New told MetroNews last week. “Utility rates have risen by 53 percent in West Virginia the past 10 years. That also coincides with about the time the Legislature decided to take a more hands-off approach to the regulation of public utilities.
“Our utility bills are the highest in the nation, and that’s the reason why.”
The rate hike is scheduled to go into effect June 1. New is asking the Supreme Court and the PSC to “stay” any rate hikes.
“I think this is an important issue for people, businesses, and the governmental entities of the state of West Virginia,” New said. “I’m looking forward to litigating this case.”
In the filings, several of the petitioners say they already are struggling to keep current on their electric bills and face the risk of disconnection.
“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 when he filed the ICA appeal. “This appeal seeks transparency, accountability and judicial review to ensure that utility rates are fair and supported by evidence.”
The appeal seeks review of 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.
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.
