This was the original Exelon Ultimatum I drafted in connection with my testimony at the DC Council Oversight Hearing on February 27, 2026.
Unfortunately, Councilmember Charles Allen (Ward 6) would rather Overlook the truth than provide meaningful Oversight of the DC Public Pepco Service Commission and the Office of the People’s Pepco’s Counsel.
I publicly challenge the DC Public Pepco Service Commission and the Office of the People’s Pepco’s Counsel to explain what they have done to advance my consumer complaint against Pepco since October 2024.
I caught Pepco red-handed inflating the electric usage on my bills by 90%. When I filed a consumer complaint with DC PSC, Pepco immediately began trying to cover it up and even issued revised billing that inflated a different bill by 90%. I had to spend hundreds of hours just to get Pepco to issue 2nd revised bills in November 2024 to correct these obvious billing errors.
Pepco says the reading displayed on my meter isn’t used for billing purposes. Pepco says the usage on My Account at Pepco.com isn’t used for billing purposes. No one has been able to explain how I can verify the meter readings or electric usage on my Pepco bills.
Pepco could come to my home today and true up its billing with the actual meter reading stored in the memory of its meter. But complying with this most fundamental obligation of a public utility would prove that Pepco is committing billing fraud.
In January 2025, DC PSC conducted an Informal Hearing. Pepco insisted it had reviewed my billing for accuracy and deemed it correct. When Pepco refused to provide proof, DC PSC insisted that I had to Petition for a Formal Hearing to get it.
In February 2025, DC PSC granted my petition and instituted Formal Hearing Case # CC9075277. DC PSC was required to hold a formal hearing in May 2025 – nearly an entire year ago.
Fast forward to September 2025 after it became apparent that I wasn’t going to give up without proof, Pepco suddenly declared all its billing had been estimated and it had no way to verify the accuracy of its billing.
Pepco claimed that because I had not provided an “alternate method of calculation,” Pepco’s billing was valid because its undisclosed “method of calculation” was “reasonable.”
Instead of enforcing my basic right to a bill based on an actual meter reading, DC PSC played along with this farce to cover up Pepco’s systemic billing fraud.
OPC pretended to stand up for my rights on the record at the Follow-Up Conference before taking Pepco’s side behind closed doors because I “must have used some electricity.” I saw it coming and recorded the meetings.
When I refused to waive my right to an accurate Pepco bill based on a verifiable meter reading, OPC offered to withdraw as my counsel. I saw that coming as well, but there was no point wasting any more of my time in a rigged game.
While OPC worked with Pepco on a strategy to sandbag me, I pieced together exactly how Pepco is manipulating meter readings to fraudulently overbill residential customers.
At the Follow-Up Conference, OPC’s Director of Litigation said he wouldn’t trust his bills if he were me:
OPC’s Director of Litigation explained that consumer complaint process is only way to enforce my right to an accurate Pepco bill:
So why has OPC let the DC PSC trap me in legal purgatory for 18 months instead of asking a single, fundamental question that impacts all customers:
Why is Pepco billing customers based on “calculations” instead of meter readings?
I refuse to just trust that Pepco “calculated” my billed usage accurately. Pepco has an accurate meter. I drafted a 368 page Formal Hearing Complaint (including exhibits) to force Pepco to do its job and actually read my meter. [RBL’s Certified Complaint]
In March 2025, simply declared its billing accurate and asked DC PSC to dismiss my Formal Hearing case. Pepco still hasn’t answered my Formal Hearing complaint on the merits. [Pepco’s Answer & Motion to Dismiss]
In April 2025, at the Pre-Hearing Conference, DC PSC Hearing Officer Noel Antonio ordered me to prepare a brief proving what my electric usage would have been if Pepco actually read its meter. When I explained that I would be at Disney World with my family the following week for Spring Break, he refused to extend my deadline because he was giving me 10 days. [RBL’s Brief]
Thankfully the schedule was pushed for other reasons because OPC blew off the briefing deadline and refused to even provide paralegal support when it learned I was drafting a brief on my own behalf.
Adding insult to injury, Pepco didn’t file a responsive brief. Instead, it filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss in June 2025 where it admitted it had “found” a 19 kWh discrepancy in its 3rd revised July 2024 bill. [Pepco’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss]
PSC Hearing Officer Antonio still hasn’t made Pepco respond to my Formal Hearing Complaint or my Brief. He refuses to rule on any motions.
PSC Hearing Officer Antonio should have held a formal hearing in May 2025. Instead, he ordered me to participate in a Follow-Up Conference in September 2025.
That was when Pepco’s Assistant General Counsel Kunle Adeyemo suddenly declared that the billing on my account was estimated and isn’t based “on a single document source like [my] meter.” [Watch on YouTube]
This was jaw dropping news to me. Then Mr. Adeyemo claimed this was “already agreed upon.” The People’s Counsel is my attorney, so why did OPC make a secret agreement with Pepco to sandbag my Formal Hearing case instead of enforcing my legal right to an accurate Pepco bill based on a verifiable meter reading?
PSC Hearing Officer Antonio ordered me to file a second brief proving what my electric usage would have been if Pepco actually read its meter. Only this time, he said he would not consider anything I filed on my own behalf because OPC was “representing” me.
PSC Hearing Officer Antonio refuses to enforce my right to information from Pepco because he now claims he doesn’t have the authority to grant the relief requested in my Formal Complaint.
I became exasperated because the 2,500 page Data Request Pepco dumped on me a week before the Follow-Up Conference proved Pepco was lying and demanded to know why Pepco wouldn’t just be transparent and talk to me about its billing.
Pepco’s Assistant General Counsel responded that Pepco can’t sit down and talk with me because “I won’t let them speak.”
The reality is that since September 2024, Pepco has spoken with me about my consumer complaint only four times:
- The Informal Hearing conducted by DC PSC in January 2025.
- The Pre-Hearing Conference conducted by DC PSC in April 2025.
- At a technical meeting ordered by DC PSC in April 2025.
- The Follow-Up Conference conducted by DC PSC in September 2025.
Nevertheless, in October 2025, I apologized to Pepco by [email] and promised to let them speak if Pepco would meet with me, but Pepco never responded.
I guess they are still mad at me for wanting answers that withstand technical and legal scrutiny. I’m sure fleecing DC residents is a lot harder when “because Pepco says so” doesn’t trump DC laws, DC PSC regulations, the laws of physics, and admissible evidence.
Now I’m not allowed to file anything on my own behalf and the DC PSC Hearing Officer refuses to issue any rulings or a decision.
In December 2025, OPC filed a Brief on my behalf where it proposed a “proxy model” be used as an “alternate method of calculation” for Pepco’s billing. It was a complete betrayal. OPC even withheld its draft until 3 days before the briefing deadline so I wouldn’t have time to propose revisions. [OPC’s Brief]
On 12/23/25, I notified Pepco Holdings Inc.’s General Counsel Anne Bancroft of Pepco’s billing fraud and that OPC was not representing my interests. Ms. Bancroft endorsed Mr. Adeyemo’s handling of my Formal Hearing case in response and said OPC was my counsel.
In January 2026, Pepco submitted its Responsive Brief and once again blatantly lied about the law and the facts to deprive me of my legal right to an accurate Pepco bill based on a verifiable meter reading. [Pepco’s Responsive Brief]
The DC PSC Hearing Officer still has not issued a decision and refuses to issue a ruling regarding the scope of my Formal Hearing case. [Email Exchange with Hearing Officer, Pepco, and OPC]
Pepco’s billing fraud on my account is ongoing, but DC PSC refuses to allow me to file a complaint because I have a pending Formal Hearing case.
At the end of the day, it is the position of the DC Public Service Commission and the Office of the People’s Counsel that they do not have the authority to make Pepco comply with the requirements of its Residential Rate Schedule, i.e., that “watt-hour meters will be read to the nearest multiple of the meter constant and bills rendered accordingly.”
That is preposterous. DC Code § § 34-702, 901 make it both illegal and unlawful for Pepco to render bills based on anything other than the Residential Rate Schedule approved by DC PSC.
The D.C. Public Service Commission and the Office of the People’s Counsel have completely abandoned their statutory mandate to regulate Pepco. They are actively conducting official business off-the-record to shield a monopoly from judicial review.
This isn’t just a billing dispute; I have uncovered a systemic regulatory failure that is causing me, a DC resident, ongoing harm. I have compiled an 18 month forensic record of meter firm-ware level meter reading data manipulation at the meter’s firm-ware level, Pepco’s Meter Data Management software level, and Pepco’s SAP IS-U billing system level.
And that is just the tip of the iceberg of the coordinated government cover-up designed to protect Exelon’s revenue stream.
I refuse to be silenced and will continue to provide recorded public testimony on my YouTube channel @rblresists.
If the DC government cannot provide a legally and mathematically sound justification for the actions documented in the unsealed DC PSC record for Rebecca Barbisch Levinson v. Pepco, Formal Hearing Case # CC9075277, and related off-the-record information that I am making publicly available in the Pepco Files, they are admitting they cannot regulate Pepco.
** I am a customer. Please excuse any errors or omissions. This site is Under Construction. Nothing contained herein is intended to be legal advice. **
Leave a Reply