|
by Calhouner
Back in July, there was big news in one of PATH's sister power line cases in Maryland, MAPP or Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (Power company PR people love those cute acronyms.). To quote the MD PSC's Hearing Examiner ruling dated July 15, 2009 in case number 9179:
The applicants, Potomac Electric Power Company ("Pepco"), Delmarva Power and Light Company ("Delmarva"), and Baltimore Gas and Electric Company ("BGE"), have filed a Motion to Amend the Procedural Schedule entered in this proceeding on April 15, 2009. That motion has been opposed by various parties or subject to a request that the Procedural Schedule be suspended. After considering the motion and the responses thereto, it is determined that the Procedural Schedule should be suspended. The parties are hereafter directed to engage in consultations to prepare and propose another mutually agreed upon schedule that leads to the resolution of this proceeding.
Why was the case suspended? Here is what the MD DNR's Power Plant Research Program (PPRP) (Yes, MD actually has a government agency that studies whether investment in electrical power systems is needed and what its impact will be.) said in its motion to suspend the case:
Applicants' motion also acknowledges that PJM staff recently concluded that a segment of the MAPP project is no longer required (Indian River to Salem), but then attempts to downplay the elimination of that segment by asserting, without explanation, that the eliminated segment was not the "focus" of their application, and that their request for a determination of need focuses on the Possum Point to Indian River portion of the line. Contrary to Applicants' assertion, however, it is not clear whether or not the representations as to need that have been made thus far go to the project in its original entirety or remain valid for the now reduced scope of the project.
And:
Because of the significant uncertainties that currently exist with the proposed project, PPRP moves for a suspension of the procedural schedule until the Applicants have filed their supplemental materials, and the parties have had a reasonable opportunity to conduct a preliminary review regarding the scope and character of the new materials and changes to the project. PPRP cannot continue to expend significant State time and resources to evaluate a potentially changing project.
Here is a link to the MAPP case file on the MD PSC Web site.
Maryland actually has state government agencies that are trying to figure out if new power lines are actually needed. Those agencies aren't just willing to accept whatever the power companies tell them without question.
What does the MAPP case on the eastern shore of Maryland have to do with PATH? For one thing, WV rate payers are going to pay for MAPP, just as MD rate payers will pay for PATH.
Whether the PATH line gets built or not depends on many factors, not just the WV PSC's decision on a WV certificate of need.
One of the most important factors is whether or not PJM Interconnection's engineers claim there is a need for PATH. MAPP is in such trouble now because early in 2009, PJM's engineers ran their numbers and decided that a big chunk of MAPP in Delaware was no longer needed. At the same time, PJM's engineers pushed the "needed" start up date for PATH back another year to 2014.
PJM will do another revision of its need calculations for PATH in January 2010, based on actual experience in PJM Interconnection in 2009. It is likely that the startup date for PATH could be pushed back another year or that the need for PATH, according to PJM's calculations could disappear.
It is not likely that PJM would recommend a total scrapping of PATH. It is more likely that PJM's engineers would postpone the project or eliminate a section of the line.
It may very well happen that when the WV PSC evidentiary hearings begin in February 2010, intervenors in the case will have the opportunity to make a motion to suspend or drop the case because of a decision that PJM renders in early 2010.
There is a deadline of 400 days in the WV law that does not allow the PSC to delay a decision. That does not mean that the PSC has to approve PATH. They could decide that, as the MD DNR said, the PSC "cannot continue to expend significant State time and resources to evaluate a potentially changing project" and reject the current application, telling AEP/Allegheny to re-apply when they have a project that is ready to be built. |
