I''m just putting this narrative here because it is easier for me to find after the many changes to what is accessible on Facebook.
Although there were two (but now only one) local media outlets that were doing a good job of keeping the community informed on the factual events regarding their Glasgow Electric Plant Board, they have a lot of other work to do, and keeping up is hard. As a result, many questions about the events come to me, and, frankly, there are so many events that even I am losing track of the timeline. This document is furnished, without any sort of opinion or editorial comment, to establish the chronological list of events, and give me a place to refer folks to when they have questions. I will attempt to edit this as the situation continues to unfold.
In the beginning, circa 2013, my team and I began to do big data analyses of the hourly electric power consumption data that was becoming available to us through modernized electric metering devices. We began to compare individual customer consumption data to the retail billing and wholesale billing from TVA. We began to make very big discoveries.
We learned that the century-old electric rate habits of 3000 utilities in the United States, and also used locally in Glasgow, were faulty. We found that actual comparison of retail billing vs. wholesale costs revealed that some classes of customers were being under-charged (when compared to real costs of service) and other classes were being over charged and were being forced to subsidize the below-cost rates of others.
After many months of examining the data and the study results, the EPB Board was ethically driven to ask my team to develop new retail rates that assured no customer is served at a loss, and no customer is over-charged so as to force them to subsidize others.
That sounds simple, but the work was completed, approved by the EPB and TVA, and implemented on 1.1.2016. After that, it wasn't long until those who were formerly being subsidized began to demand my head on a platter...as if that would change the solid scientific and mathematical basis for the changes.
There were many events in this story that happened, in the pursuit of removing my head, beginning in February 2019, but this listing will mainly concentrate on the 2020 events, beginning in May. Going back to the beginning, when D.T. Froedge first presented himself in my office, asking for my resignation and telling me that he and two other board members had already agreed to fire me (a violation of Kentucky Open Meetings law) should I refuse to resign, is just too much research for me to accomplish at this time, and it would be too much for you to read!
May 5, 2020 – This was the first of Froedge’s attempts to convene a Special Meeting with an agenda that had 7 or 8 items, which included electing new Board officers, Hiring consultants and law firms to accomplish reviews of the TVA power supply agreement, and removing me as Superintendent. The call for a meeting was not recognized by the EPB officers, due to their belief that Froedge had resigned from the Board in 2019, so there was no official notice of a Special Meeting of EPB, but three members did meet in the EPB parking lot in an attempt to act on the proposed agenda.
May 14, 2020 – D.T. Froedge engaged counsel and filed a complaint against the Glasgow EPB and the four confirmed Board members, seeking a declaratory judgement on whether he was still a board member.
May 18-20, 2020 – I was not copied on it, but somewhere in this date range, Tag Taylor contacted Cole and Moore, PSC, who had already done litigation work for EPB, and they filed a response, on behalf of the EPB, to the Froedge complaint.
May 19, 2020 – Froedge, through his attorneys at Bell, Orr, Ayers, and Moore, PSC, filed an Emergency Motion for Early Relief relative to his May 14 complaint.
May 26, 2020 – Through my counsel at Broderick and Davenport, PLLC, I filed a Motion to Intervene in the Froedge complaint, and to expand the complaint to also ask for a ruling on the legality of the May 5 meeting.
That evening the regular meeting of Glasgow EPB was held, but no business could be conducted due to the absence of all members except Taylor and Short.
May 28, 2020 – The first hearing before Judge John Alexander in Barren Circuit Court was conducted via Zoom. All motions filed relative to the complaint filed by Froedge were argued.
May 29, 2020 – Judge Alexander issued the first Order relative to the matter, which allowed me to intervene in a limited fashion.
June 3, 2020 – Judge Alexander issues the second Order on the matter, setting June 18 as deadline for briefs to be filed by the parties to the complaint and action.
June 23, 2020 – The June regular meeting of the EPB was held. Again, no business was conducted due to the absence of all members but Taylor and Short.
June 30, 2020 – A Special Meeting of EPB was called and conducted, to accomplish essential business before the end of the 2020 fiscal year.
July 2, 2020 – Judge Alexander issued a ruling based on the original hearing and the briefs filed by counsel for all parties. The ruling concluded that D.T. Froedge remains a member of the EPB, and that the May 5, 2020 Special Meeting was not legally noticed and held, such that all actions taken were moot.
July 7, 2020 – Another Special Meeting was requested by D.T. Froedge, to consider the same agenda items called for in the May 5, 2020 meeting. The meeting was not noticed by an officer of the EPB and was not held.
On the same day, attorneys for Cole and Moore filed a motion on behalf of EPB amend the July 2 ruling and order by Judge Alexander, or to vacate same.
July 10, 2020 – Judge Alexander issues Order for a hearing on motions for July 24, 2020.
July 10-22, 2020 – Lots of motions filed by counsel to all parties in the action.
July 24, 2020 – Second hearing held in front of Judge John Alexander. All motions were argued and considered by the parties. No official Order yet written from that hearing.
July 28, 2020 – The regular meeting of the Glasgow EPB was convened, but even though the proposed agenda had been delivered to the members a week earlier, inviting suggested changes or additions, and none being offered, Froedge attempted to add two agenda items that night. He asked to hold an election of Board officers and he wanted to consider the dismissal of Cole and Moore, PSC, counsel to the EPB. Discussion ensued relative to the legality of such an action. Eventually, after there was no successful vote to approve an agenda, the meeting adjourned without business being conducted.
July 29, 2020 – Motion filed by EPB counsel to stop further attempts by Froedge to call Special Meetings or otherwise circumvent the perceived law on meetings and agendas during the pandemic state of emergency in Kentucky.
August 3, 2020 – Another Special Meeting was called by Froedge, Witcher, and Pritchard, with the agenda items of Board Officer elections and consideration of the dismissal of Cole and Moore as EPB counsel. While the officer election motion was not recognized by Chairman Taylor, the Cole and Moore matter proceeded with a 3-2 vote to dismiss Cole and Moore as counsel.
August 6, 2020 – Hearing in front of Judge John Alexander to consider additional motions since last hearing. Arguments held on all motions, including the motion of Cole and Moore to withdraw its representation of EPB, due to the action of the Board. Cole and Moore informed the court that they would continue to represent Taylor and Short as individuals.
An Order was issued by Judge Alexander granting the motion of Cole and Moore to withdraw, and directing EPB to engage new counsel for their representation within 60 days.
August 7, 2020 – Another call for a Special Meeting was proposed by Froedge, Witcher, and Pritchard, with three agenda items, all related to the intent of removing Taylor as EPB Chairman and replacing him. This call was not noticed by an EPB officer until after the 24-hour minimum notice before the proposed 4:00 pm meeting had elapsed. The meeting was not held.
Judge Alexander issued an Order resulting from the July 24 hearing. He re-confirmed that Froedge is a member, he issued a stay to prevent additional Special Meeting calls unless something of a very large significance materializes, and he directed the parties to go into binding mediation in Executive Session. That mediation was scheduled for October 20, 2020.
August 11, 2020 – Froedge, Witcher, and Pritchard, again requested a Special meeting at 4:00 pm on this date, to consider the same items proposed for the August 7 meeting, however the Order entered as described above caused cancellation and withdrawal of the request.
August 25, 2020 - The regular meeting of EPB was held via Zoom. At this meeting Froedge tried repeatedly to add certain items to the agenda, especially items relating to a new election of board officers. This effort was not allowed by Chairman Taylor, who repeatedly stated his contention that the October 20 scheduled mediation between the parties to the lawsuit filed by Froedge, would be the proper venue to hammer out such matters. Eventually the Board did take up the printed agenda and a relatively normal meeting ensued.
September 22, 2020 - The regular meeting of EPB was held via Zoom. The agenda was approved in a normal fashion. Under the agenda item of considering EPB’s required annual review of retail rate effectiveness, things got bizarre. As I tried to explain why we recommended another annual step toward accomplishing 100% non-volumetric collection of revenue to cover fixed costs, and as I also began to explain another optional approach to this end -- an approach with a dramatically reduced Customer Charge (because that was the request of a member of the Board at the August meeting), Froedge interjected his personal ideas for a rate architecture that would socialize all costs for five tariffs, dividing kWh consumption into the socialized sum and producing a new tariff wherein all costs would be shared volumetrically by nearly 100% of EPB electric customers. He also proposed the dissolution of the variable rate tariffs that are enjoyed by 68% of the residential customers and 80% of the small commercial customers. I also reminded him of the graphic, shared with the Board many times, which shows how volumetric sales are in a continuous and long-lasting slide, making volumetric collection of fixed costs a death spiral for EPB. Undaunted by these facts, they forged ahead and voted to submit Froedge’s rate outline to TVA for approval.
October 20, 2020 - A Special Board meeting was held to facilitate, and make legal, the board assembling to conduct mediation, in compliance with the Order of Judge Alexander. Discussion in closed session lasted for hours, but nothing that could be voted on in open session was found through the process. The meeting was called back in to open session and then adjourned.
October 27, 2020 Regular Meeting - Days before this meeting six different motions seeking different kinds of relief were filed by attorneys representing me, the minority group of the Board, and even one from the majority’s attorney asking to be allowed to withdraw from representing them! Due to time crunch within the Court system, only one of those motions was considered and granted before the meeting. This ruling granted a restraining order to prevent the Board majority from taking employment actions against me during the meeting. The order lasts until the Court can find time to hear and rule on the other five motions.
During the meeting Lanny White with CRI CPAs delivered a stunningly good report on the financial operations of EPB during fiscal 2020. The Board also approved our recommendation for restarting non-payment disconnections of service according to a recent Executive Order from the Governor, and directed me to continue to work with TVA in pursuit of the radical changes to EPB retail electric rates proposed by Froedge and approved by the Board on a 3-2 vote. The Board majority also moved to elect a new Chairperson - DT Froedge.
November 19, 2020 Special Meeting - Just four days prior to the regular meeting for November, Chairman Froedge called a Special Meeting of EPB to consider two motions he wanted to make, relative to Counsel for EPB, and the Long Term Partnership Agreement between TVA and EPB. During the meeting held via Zoom, one member lost connection to the meeting, causing the meeting to be ended without actions taken.
November 24, 2020 Regular Meeting - The meeting proceeded in a normal fashion, with Matt Baker being appointed counsel to the Board relative to the ongoing litigation filed originally by Froedge.
November 30, 2020 - A status conference was held among the parties to the litigation before Judge Alexander via Zoom. After discussion of the issues and how Matt Baker could take over representing EPB in the litigation, even though he had previously filed a motion with the Court on behalf of Froedge, an evidentiary hearing was scheduled for December 11, to discuss and hear testimony on all of the outstanding motions relative to this litigation.
December 18, 2020. Circuit Court Judge John Alexander issued a ruling and order relative to the motions heard on November 30. The ruling found Froedge in Contempt of Court, and directed the parties to resume mediation on the contentious issues. The Court also directed Froedge to personally pay the new costs associated with the resumed mediation.
December 22, 2020. At the regular EPB meeting, Froedge led the board majority to hire a law firm to act against TVA in the matter regarding the Flexibilty Agreement. Copious warnings were given to the three about how this agreement had been a lynchpin in the effort to attract CATL to acquire the old RRD/LSC plant and build their US products in Glasgow. These warnings were clear, factual, and passionate. They voted to go after TVA anyway.
Then they discussed the recent Circuit Court ruling, finding Froedge in contempt of court. They decided to hire Matt Baker to help arrange the mandated mediation...at Froedge's expense.
Luckily, the Board voted to approve my 2021 Pay Plan, but declined to consider my salary. This was no surprise, but the important business was approving the pay plan for the EPB team.
There was discussion of TVA's disapproval of a new retail electric rate architecture imagined by Froedge. The board then voted to have me design a finished rate plan using the very architecture that TVA had already rejected. That was about it.
January 5, 2021. Instead of proceeding with the resumption of mediation, as ordered by Judge Alexander, attorney for the board filed a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition. This is an appeal to Kentucky Court of Appeals, seeking to have Judge Alexander's rulings in this matter overturned. It is unknown how this Writ might impact the process of Justice in this matter.
January 19, 2021. Judge Alexander entered an order, amending his previous order, which stipulated that no Special EPB Meetings could be called to consider anything other than emergency business. The new order removed that restriction.
January 26, 20121. The Regular EPB meeting was held and, well, I cannot really describe it. Just look for yourself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd70FE2S5J0...
February 8, 2021. At a "special" meeting of Glasgow Common Council, Mayor Armstrong first nominated Mark Lane to a position on EPB Board. The nomination was rejected by a majority of the Council. Next, a joint letter from BCEA and Glasgow Barren County Chamber of Commerce was read aloud. The joint letter urged the elected officials to use their influence to return wisdom and order to EPB decisions as they relate to Glasgow's economy. The letter resulted in a resolution proposed by Terry Bunnell, urging the Mayor to use his powers as requested by the joint letter. This resolution passed unanimously.
February 11, 2021. In a Special Meeting of the EPB, Court-ordered mediation relative to my employment was conducted. A settlement agreement was reached that provided for my stepping down from my position as Superintendent and my assuming a temporary role as Advisor/Consultant to EPB.
February 12, 2021. Another Special Meeting was held with only one thing on the agenda. The board reconsidered its action to authorize Frost Brown Todd to take action against TVA. The previously authorized complaint which sought to dissolve the Long Term Agreement with TVA, was retracted and FBT was directed to immediately withdraw the lawsuit.
