Nevada County Picayune and Gurdon Times Newspaper Archive

City responds to electric concerns

The Prescott City Council has called a special meeting Aug. 31 at 7 p.m. at the Nevada County Courthouse. The meeting was called during the councils regular meeting on Aug. 22 when those looking for answers regarding electric bills packed the citys meeting room. Many stood outside the doors and information was periodically relayed to those who couldnt get in.

The City of Prescott has now issued an official response to the complaints, including a statement that there appears to be clerical errors in the calculation of each citizens proportionate share of the transmission cost which is termed fuel adjustment on each citizens bill.

City Manager Billy House said two months ago that there were mistakes on the bills but Prescott Mayor Howard Taylor later said bills were correct. During the city council meeting held on Aug. 21, another city employee said the bills were wrong and House agreed. That meeting ended with the city agreeing to have an independent audit of the computer system used for electric billing.

During that meeting, Prescott City Attorney Glenn Vasser advised the council members and city officials that they should endeavor to make the facts of the issue public. He said citizens should be told this place is an open book.

Later in the week, Vassers office delivered a seven-page document to the Nevada County Picayune office. According to the document, Prescott operates under a mayor-council form of government and the city is not operated for profit. Unlike private corporations such as Exxon and Entergy, the city government will provide credits to bills or refunds if it is determined that the city has made any error on any citizens bill, and during this transition period the city commits there will be no terminations for late payment for electrical services rendered. Additionally, we will work with out citizens on payment agreements for your budget.

The fact that is seems some people are allowed to make payment arrangements while others are not given that option has been brought up in public meetings.

Erratic bills have also been discussed and the city made this statement on that topic.

As to why our electric bills for the June period of service billed in August were high, there were a combination of factors, all of which are attributable to our transition from our previous power provider Entergy to our new power providers Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation.

The statement then gives a historical account of the decision to contract with AECC. The statement indicates that Entergy submitted a market based bid that was very high.

For Entergy to now say to our citizens that they can provide power to the city at a cheaper cost than AECC means that Entergy did not make its best offer to the city when the competitive bid process occurred  The statement goes on to indicate that Entergy could be charging excessive rates for transmission of power - an issue that has come up at several of the meetings.

According to Henry Thompson, a consultant for the city with regard to electric issues, he expected Entergys first bill for transmission of AECC electricity to be around $20,000 but that bill was actually almost $100,000 and that transmission fees are a big part in the electric issue. According to the statement issued this week, Entergy refused to offer the transmission contract it holds with cooperatives in other places.

Another portion of the statement reads: Perhaps the fact that litigation and disputes are pending between AECC and Entergy accounts for part of the behavior by Entergy.

The city goes on to allege that Entergy may be engaging in competitive predatory conduct by offering to buy the system at a below market income value and now wanting to buy our system 

The city has now retained an energy regulatory attorney in North Little Rock, though the statement does not indicate when the city hired that lawyer.

The fact that the city has lost two long time employees who essentially operated the citys utility billing and that Entergys bills for transmission of services are not received until after the customer bills are produced are blamed for problems with billing. With regard to those clerical errors that apparently are appearing on customer bills, the city statement indicates that the computer audit and a search for new billing software are steps toward correcting the problem.

As a result of this internal investigative process, we believe that future billing problems for our citizens will be eliminated. Additionally, the city is exploring all other options to alleviate and mitigate what we know will continue to be higher power costs.

The statement then outlines reasons Entergys proposal to buy the citys electric company was turned down, including the fact that the city believes Entergys offer was much less than the system is worth.

Finally, the statement addresses the issue of requests for documentation, indicating that any city document is available by making a formal request. Those requesting copies may be charged a fee of 25 cents per page - a significant expense for some documents.

Like any municipal corporation in Arkansas, the city is an open book, which I do not believe is the case with private corporations like Entergy. Vasser also states that the city typically receives a clean financial bill of health and that the annual audit will be made public at the Sept. 18 council meeting.