Media Silence on PATH Deafening

public utility issue front and center (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the link. The public utility issue we discussed yesterday is front and center:

I. Requests in the Joint Application
The Commission will address each of the requests of the Applicants as set forth in the Joint Application in turn:

[...]

b.Determine that Applicants are 'public utilities" under West Virginia law and make the related findings specified above;

The Commission will defer a final decision regarding the Applicants' public utility status until the final order in this matter. The question, however, is an integral component of this proceeding. The parties are on notice that the decision of whether to grant public utility status will be part of the review process in this case.

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:15:40 AM UTC

fascinating item (0.00 / 0)

This is an interesting one...

II.B. Motion to Join Monongahela Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company, Appalachian Power Company and Wheeling Power Company

On June 24, 2009, petitioner Tucker County Landowners filed a Motion to Join Monongahela Power, Potomac Edison, APCo, and WPCo (collectively "Service Providers") as parties. The Tucker County Landowners asserted that (i) Monongahela Power and Potomac Edison provide electric service to West Virginia customers using the trade name of Allegheny Power and that those entities provide service to West Virginia customers, and (ii) the inclusion of the Service Providers as parties in this case is appropriate to enable a full and
fair evaluation of the application and its supporting testimony and exhibits.

The Staff filing of June 25, 2009, and the July 6, 2009 filing by petitioner West Virginia Energy Users Group supported the position that the Commission should join the Service Providers as parties in this case.

On June 30,2009, the Applicants filed its opposition to the motion to join the Service Providers because none of those entities is seeking a certificate for the West Virginia portion of the PATH Project nor are the Service Providers unique in enjoying the reliability benefits associated with PATH.

Commission Decision
The parties should be prepared to address this question during the Status Hearing on August 10,2009.

Tucker County Landowners says, let's bring in these "other" power companies (divisions of same company, really)--actual service providers--and hear what they have to say about this project. PSC staff and West Virginia Energy Users Group agree.

Those other power companies say, I don't want to touch this with a ten-foot pole.

The commissioners say, let's talk about it on August 10.

I hope those "other" power companies get asked some hard questions about what exactly are the reliability benefits associated with PATH that they might "enjoy."

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:24:55 AM UTC

You have focused in on what I believe are some very important issues (4.00 / 1)

that must be determined before the PSC should even consider the application for the PATH line.  There are all kinds of problems with the way AEP/Allegheny Energy/PJM Interconnection are trying to hide behind front companies.  AEP and Allegheny are clearly trying to keep the construction debt off their balance sheets.  They also don't want liability for transmission failures that will become more likely on the PJM system as a result of instability caused by bigger power lines.

So who should be applying for the certificate of need?  Certainly not the four PATH front companies.

Here is how I described the situation in my petition to intervene at the PSC:

"4. PJM Interconnection is a foreign business, headquartered outside the state of West Virginia, and is a joint business venture of its member businesses in the electrical power industry engaged in the marketing and transmission of electricity among its members.
5. Testimony provided in Appendix H of the applicants' Application indicates that PJM Interconnection (a) will have "functional control" of the proposed transmission line, (b) "required" the construction of this transmission line, (c) developed the design and operational specifications for this transmission line, (d) developed and approved the formula for allocating fees for use of the transmission line by utilities in the PJM Interconnection region, (e) has determined the timetable for the start-up and operation of this transmission line, and (f) has developed the terms and conditions by which customers of this transmission line will use, account for, and pay fees for electricity passing through the line.
6. The PATH companies, as described in their Application, will have title to the physical plant of this transmission line, but will be acting only as "landlords" to PJM Interconnection, which will be the actual provider of the public service provided by the transmission line.
7. Because the PATH companies will not be providing any public service themselves and will only be providing the physical plant for PJM Interconnection to provide the public service of transmitting electricity through the proposed transmission line, the PATH companies are not eligible to be designated as public utilities by the WV PSC under Chapter 24 of the WV Code.
8. The PATH companies' application for Certificate of Convenience and Necessity should be dismissed because the applicants, as their role is described in their application, would not be providing a public service as required by West Virginia law, and that the applicants failed to join, in their application, the PJM Interconnection, the actual party at interest providing a public service, as a necessary party to their application."

In their application to the PSC, the power companies included contracts between two of the PATH front companies and AEP and Allegheny Energy.  According to the information in these contracts, AEP/Allegheny will be providing ALL of the services needed to manage and administer the PATH power line.  This even includes preparing tax forms for the PATH front companies.  Again, WV laws require that a public utility provide a public service.  It seems that the PATH front companies contracted out all the public service involved in the PATH line to AEP and Allegheny Energy.

If you are not a public utility, you can't get a certificate of need under WV law.  If the PATH front companies can never be public utilities, then why are they the applicants for a certificate of need in the first place?  PJM, AEP and Allegheny Energy should be applying for a certificate of need.  PJM isn't even licensed to do business in WV, although it has "functional control" of all major transmission lines in the state.

---

by: Calhouner @ Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:52:11 AM UTC

so, not necessarily good news... (0.00 / 0)

So, it's not necessarily good news that PSC punted on the determination of public service or not until the final verdict.

But, on the positive side, they at least put it front and center as a key issue.

It's also interesting how the front company issue plays out in the question of what financial disclosures are necessary. (It shows how the power companies are definitely trying to have it both ways.)

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:06:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The PSC granted TrAILCo, Allegheny's front company in the TrAIL line, (4.00 / 1)

public utility status in last year's TrAIL case.  It is likely that they are inclined that way in the PATH case. It is quite likely that there will be much more discussion of this issue in the PATH case, just because there are so many more intervenors and points of view.  There may actually be something like a democratic process this time.

The PJM issue is a huge one.  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, has used Regional Transmission Organizations, RTOs, like PJM to expand federal control over what used to be entirely state regulated functions in power company regulation.  PJM will really be operating TrAIL and PATH, yet the WV PSC claimed, in the TrAIL case, that it had no authority to regulate PJM because it was a regional entity.  I would argue that the WV PSC has all the authority it needs to regulate PJM, within WV.  All they have to do is assert that authority, instead of lying down and letting the feds and PJM walk all over West Virginia and its citizens.

---

by: Calhouner @ Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:16:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well today's news on PATH in The Journal (4.00 / 1)

is how they have hired the local bill medical collector as their mouthpiece.

And he spends so much of his biography boasting.

Mr. Martin is a member of the Board of Directors for the Holy Family Hospital Foundation, which is the only hospital that provides neo-natal care in Bethlehem, Palestine. He is also and president of the Washington-Baltimore Chapter of the Patrons of the Arts in the Vatican Museums. In 2000, Mr. Martin was invested in the Order of Malta as a Knight of Magisterial Grace. In 2003 he was eleced to the Federal Associations Board of Directors. In 2004 he was invested as a member of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre and the Constantinian Order of St. George. These are among the highest honors a Catholic layman can receive in recognition of service to the church, community, and his profession. It is a particular honor to have been invested in all three of these Orders.

I have always wondered whether we met the same Invisible Pink Unicorn.

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 14:44:44 PM UTC