West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
I can't believe I'm going to say this, but ... PATH is on life support! It actually may be dead, but the companies are trying to maintain the fiction just a little longer.
The Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) was a 765-kV line that would have run from the John Amos coal-fired generation plant in Putnam County all the way to Frederick County, MD - 275 miles, three states, destroying 7,000 acres of forest, and affecting the homes and land of thousands of West Virginians.
Opponents of PATH - and I am very proud to count myself as one of them - have been pointing out for more than two years that the project was not needed. We've documented many ways that the power companies were distorting the truth, and we've had some victories along the way.
But now! PJM, the regional transmission overseer, decided Friday to "suspend" the project, and AEP and FirstEnergy/Allegheny have now filed motions to withdraw their applications in all three states.
The public reason for the change? The drop in electricity demand forecasts because of the Great Recession - that's just one of the reasons we've been shouting for the past two years.
Less visible, but just as much a reason, is the change in national energy policy. Now that we actually have grown-ups in charge, building more transmission lines doesn't seem like the best way to address U.S. energy needs. And the success and spread of demand management programs in many states has helped immensely.
I say that PATH is on life support because the companies are reserving the right to re-file an application some time in the future. But the rules will be different this time around - they will have to formally notify EVERY SINGLE LANDOWNER that would be affected by a proposed new line. And instead of having 250 or so intervenors (still the greatest number ever to file in a PSC case), we will have a thousand!
Sorry to go on so long - though I've barely scratched the surface of everything I could say!
But one last thing: I am so proud of the hundreds of citizens who worked hard, contributed money and time, and STOOD UP! This is how we change things, by working for the change we believe in.
Before I get into the exciting news, an apology: I have been sorely remiss in keeping folks up to date on developments w/r/t the Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH). And there have been lots of developments!
Rather than exhaust you with a complete recap, I'll concentrate on the highlights.
Yesterday (Dec. 20), PATH filed a request with the WV Public Service Commission, asking that the application process be delayed ("tolled") 194 days; that's more than six months!
PATH also said it will be asking for the same delay in the Maryland and Virginia application processes. Here's a link to their request: http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scr...
Why such a humongous delay? Well, PATH (which is a partnership of convenience and necessity between AEP and Allegheny Power) sez there's a NEW 2011 "load forecast" coming that "may have an impact on the current in-service date for PATH."
Putting that into normal English: There's a new forecast coming that will show PATH isn't needed by 2015 after all. Good thing that needed-by date is moving, since PATH didn't stand a snowball's chance of getting done by then!
But here's the real story: On Dec. 10, the PSC staff filed a motion asking the commission to dismiss or significantly toll the application because
It is ludicrous to continue to move forward with the PATH project while major changes are being contemplated for critical transmission infrastructure that should be factored into assessment of the need for PATH. (emphasis added)
Any time the word "ludicrous" is used in a legal document, you know the other side has screwed up! (Here's the link to the staff motion: http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scr...
I bet you've been trying to figure out what's going on with PATH - the headlines in the newspapers for the last week or so make it sound like the project is dead.
The answer to that is ... NO! PATH is NOT dead! We are experiencing a fleeting moment of victory, a chance to catch our collective breath, but the fight is not over!
Here's where things stand:
PATH's application in West Virginia is on hold for the moment. The Public Service Commission has ordered parties to the case (the power companies, intervenors, and the PSC staff , including the Consumer Advocate Division) to submit final motions arguing whether to dismiss the application or to delay ("toll") it for several months, to give the applicants time to (a) file a new application in Maryland and (b) submit new need information based on economic and electricity demand forecasts that will be released in the next couple of months. These motions must be submitted to the PSC by noon on Tuesday, Nov. 17. The commission is likely to make a decision pretty quickly - maybe by the end of the week, though I personally would bet that it will be released during Thanksgiving week. So far, we have only seen motions for dismissal or tolling; nothing is final until the Commissioners issue their decision.
If the PATH application is dismissed without prejudice, that is NOT the same thing as being denied. The companies will be free to submit a new application, and when they do, the process starts over again.
Meanwhile, right now there is no PATH application in Maryland. The companies submitted a letter to the Maryland PSC stating that Potomac Edison will be submitting a new application by Dec. 31.
And here's your call to action: The Virginia State Corporation Commission is considering a staff motion to dismiss, similar to the West Virginia motion. There is a public hearing set for 7 p.m. on Thursday, Nov. 19, at the Lovettsville Community Center. Lovettsville is only about 3 miles from Brunswick, Md., across the Route 17 bridge over the Potomac.
The SCC has ordered the participants to make oral arguments on the motion to dismiss at 6 p.m. that night in Lovettsville.
THIS IS A CHANCE TO MAKE OUR OPPOSITION HEARD!
West Virginia residents can testify at the Virginia hearing. WV intervenors - who were not allowed to speak at our own public hearings - can testify at the Virginia hearing. And we can demonstrate outside the community center.
This hearing is likely to get a lot of media attention. We need a good turnout, to show the public that the residents of all three states are united in opposition. If you go, wear/bring your StopPATH gear -- t-shirts, protest signs and whatever else you may have that will show your opposition both inside the hearing (no protest signs inside the hearing -- we need to use our courtroom manners) and out. We will have some protest signs available as well as t-shirts for sale.
WE NEED YOU THERE!!
The address of the community center is 57 E. Broad Way, Lovettsville, VA 20180. MapQuest and Google both give good directions.
PLEASE JOIN YOUR VOICE TO OURS IN OPPOSITION!!
Update: If you want to speak at the public hearing, you do not have to be there before 7 p.m. The SCC runs a sign-up list and calls on people to speak in order. If you can't get there until after it starts, you'll still be able to sign up!
The staff of the West Virginia Public Service Commission filed a motion today that either (1) the PSC dismiss the PATH application, or (2) the applicants agree to "tolling" (putting it on hold) until two conditions are met:
- that the companies file an application in Maryland (where it already was dismissed because of "a technicality"); and
- that the companies provide new economic and electricity demand forecasts, plus the 2010 Regional Transmission Expansion Plan now being worked on.
First came a significant change in the Maryland situation. In early September the commission in that state dismissed the application without prejudice - meaning it can be re-filed - because the PATH companies do not meet the Maryland definition of an "electric utility." The original application had been filed by Potomac Edison "on behalf of" the PATH companies. PotEd does meet the definition, but wasn't supposed to be doing any of the work or providing any of the services. When the application was dismissed, the various PATH spokesmen waved it off as a technicality and said it would be re-filed.
But the Maryland PSC gave them a 30-day deadline to re-file, or at least provide a time line for when it would be re-filed. On the 30th day, the companies submitted a letter basically saying, "We're thinking, we're thinking." (I keep hearing Jack Benny's voice in my head...) No specific information was provided.
So then in early October the staff of the Virginia State Corporation Commission filed a motion to dismiss in that state, arguing that as long as there is no application in Maryland, they couldn't evaluate the Virginia application because the line has no terminus.
The companies filed a response to the Virginia motion that said, "No, no, don't do that, and if you do it we'll go nuclear - we'll ask the federal government to step in and take over."
[BTW, that's fine with us - to do that they'll have to appeal to the Supreme Court, since the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Virginia and West Virginia, already rejected the provision in the 2005 energy act that gave the feds jurisdiction. Talk about tying it up in litigation for years!]
Today the staff of our own PSC not only echoed the argument of the Virginia staff in their motion, they actually stepped up the heat on the companies by pointing out that new forecasts for the economy and energy demand may show there's no need for PATH at all!
The staff also pointed out the possible farce that might ensue if the WV application is allowed to stand, with "stale" and "outdated" forecasts, while any new application in Maryland will have to include the new forecasts.
And they even offered a defense of the intervenors in West Virginia, who would be required to spend scarce resources analyzing and arguing the merits of out-of-date information. (Thank you, staff, for looking out for us!)
I've said it before and I'll say it again - PATH is in trouble here ...
It seems that PATH (the Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline) is not exactly experiencing a smooth road to approval.
The staff of the Virginia State Corporation Commission, counterpart to our own Public Service Commission, filed a motion today to dismiss the PATH application, because:
[T]here now exists such a level of uncertainty as to the termination point of the PATH Project that the Staff cannot discharge its duty to analyze the application and to advise the Commission on whether the project should be approved and, if approved, where it should be routed.
What could possibly have caused such a roadblock? The rejection of the PATH application by the Maryland Public Service Commission in early September, followed by PATH's failure to re-file the application - or at least make its intentions known - within 30 days.
The staff motion points out that the SCC is spending scarce resources trying to process the application, that Frederick and Loudoun counties are spending scarce resources preparing for hearings, and that citizens are spending scarce resources trying to fight it. In other words, lots of money on something that's becoming more uncertain by the day.
Now let's see if our own PSC staff will take any action.
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.
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.
Yesterday the first public PATH hearings were held in Jefferson County. So far the news coverage is limited. (I expect this will change tomorrow as only one of the three local hearings had occurred before yesterday's news deadline.)
The public hearings on the proposed Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline, PATH, will continue in Jefferson County on Wednesday morning before moving to other parts of West Virginia starting next week.
Members of the state Public Service Commission are hearing public comments about the 765 kilovolt power line project ahead of a formal evidentiary hearing which will start in February in Charleston.
About 100 people from Maryland, Virginia and all across West Virginia were on hand for the first public hearing on Tuesday afternoon at the Frank Arts Center at Shepherd University in Shepherdstown.
American Electric Power and Allegheny Energy must be very pleased with MetroNews coverage. The article says the power line will end at "a proposed Kemptown site near New Market", but fails to mention that Maryland rejected the PATH application.
The MetroNews reinforces the "not in my backyard" concerns of residences with this quote:
State Consumer Advocate Byron Harris was on hand to listen. He says a lot of useful comments were made. However, he says, the specific comments about people's homes are especially important.
"You want to make sure all of your information is correct. So those kinds of specific comments are very helpful," Harris said.
What The State Consumer Advocate Should Be Saying
Now, I have no way of knowing what else Byron Harris might have said. This is just one single quote in what may have been a much longer interview. But... if this quote is in any way representative of the State Consumer Advocate's primary concerns, we have a big problem.
The State Consumer Advocate seems interested only in whether or not individual property owners are justly compensated for a loss of property value. That's a very narrow concern--one that AEP and Allegheny Energy will just throw more rate-payer money at.
The real issue the State Consumer Advocate should be concerned about is if all of the consumer is the state--each and every one of us--need this power line or not. What compelling public interest does this power line meet?
Concerns about PATH
From what I've read about PATH, there are a number of legitimate concerns the Public Service Commission needs to take serious consideration of in decided if this project should be approved at all. The more people who raise these concerns in public meetings, the more seriously the PSC will consider them:
*Is it necessary? Since the PATH project was originally envisioned major changes have occurred in the East Coast electricity market. Some of these changes are cyclical--the recession dramatically reduced demand for electricity. Other changes are structural--nationally, we have made major investments in efficiency; much of that demand will never return. Even more important for this project the states to the East of W.Va. are making commitments to cleaner energy sources. The demand for electricity from the coal plants near the start of PATH is dropping and will continue to drop.
*How will it benefit West Virginia consumers? The power companies have provided no compelling rationale for how this power line will help West Virginia consumers. They have no evidence it will help with power line congestion or reliability. They do have strong evidence that it will increase the cost of our electricity. As a West Virginia rate payer, I think that's a really raw deal.
Finally, the State Consumer Advocate also wants to hear from individual property owners about their concerns about how the project will impact them. Be aware, though, this will do nothing to stop PATH from being built.
If you make enough noise about the value of, say, timber on your property the best you can hope for is the line will move elsewhere. If you believe PATH is unnecessary and not in the public interest, make that your first argument to the Public Service Commission, the State Consumer Advocate, the Governor, and your state representatives.
(Bumped for reminder of informational meeting Sunday afternoon. - promoted by Clem Guttata)
by blonde moment
The roadshow is hitting Shepherdstown next week, folks!
The WV Public Service Commission has scheduled two days of hearings in the Eastern Panhandle - the Frank Arts Center on the campus of Shepherd University, to be exact - for Tuesday, Sept. 22 (12:30 and 6:30 p.m.) and Wednesday, Sept. 23. (8:30 a.m.) on the power companies' application to build the Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline.
The approximately 140 intervenors out of Jefferson County, including the Jefferson County Commission, are not allowed to testify, according to the PSC. (I guess they believe the intervenors already have a place in the process, even though the procedures do not allow us any opportunity to speak directly to the commission. Go figure...)
That means it's imperative that as many citizens as possible show up to speak! Please, please, please consider taking off Tuesday afternoon or Wednesday morning to come testify. I ask for those times because the evening session is likely to be the most popular - and it does no good to have hundreds of people show up if they're not all going to get time to speak or the hearing drags on until the wee hours of the morning.
Important: If you think you don't know enough about PATH to testify, we're holding a Citizens Information Meeting on Sunday, Sept. 20, from 3-5 p.m. at the Sam Michaels Park community center. We will have maps of the PATH route through Jefferson County and other materials available, and folks involved in the fight to answer your questions.
The MD PSC has rejected the PATH application. At their meeting in Baltimore yesterday, the MD PSC ruled that Potomac Edison could not apply in the place of the PATH front companies, because Potomac Edison, a subsidiary of Allegheny Energy, was not going to be operating the PATH line. At the same time, the PSC ruled that the PATH companies were not "electric companies" as specified under MD law, and were therefore not eligible to apply for a certificate of need for the PATH line.
Here is what the PSC said in its order:
As set forth below, we find first that ยง 7-207(b)(3) of the Public Utility Companies ("PUC") Article authorizes us to issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ("CPCN") only to an "electric company,"3 a status PATH undeniably lacks, and that the law does not allow us to ignore or circumvent this requirement by granting a CPCN to Potomac Edison "on behalf of" PATH when Potomac Edison will neither construct nor operate the proposed line. Second, as a result of this holding, we find that no application to construct the proposed transmission line has properly been filed with the Commission, and thus that any time periods pertaining to possible federal siting authority have not yet begun to run and will not begin to run until a proper electric company has filed a complete application with the Commission.
Wow. Stay tuned to see what happens next. Will AEP/Allegheny have to completely reorganize their phony front companies? Somehow they have to figure out how to get a real "electric company" in a position to operate the MD section of PATH. Or, they could chop off the end of PATH and put the end of the line in VA or WV. Or, they could use the MD rejection to forget the whole PATH project?
West Virginians should consider what would happen if AEP/Allegheny pulled out of Maryland completely and ended the line in Jefferson County. The planned substation that is currently the eastern end of PATH at Kemptown, MD, is planned to take in about 50 acres, and would be one of the largest substations of its kind in the world. That would be a great addition to historic Shepherdstown.
The MD PSC also put off ruling on whether the local zoning board had control over the siting of the huge substation near Kemptown, MD. The power companies had been claiming that if the PSC gave them their certificate of need for PATH, then the local zoning board would have no say in whether or where the substation was built. The PSC did not rule on this issue yesterday.
Today, the WV Public Service Commission issued an order setting public hearings in the PATH case.
Tell your friends and neighbors. If you think PATH is a bad idea, and you haven't intervened in the case, this is the time to come an speak your mind to the PSC and the power companies.
You will not get another chance.
Here's the schedule:
Tuesday, 9/22/2009, 12:30 pm & 6:30 pm & Wednesday 9/23/2009, 8:30 am in Shepherdstown, WV at Shepherd University, Frank Arts Center, 260 University Drive
Monday, 9/28/2009, 12:30 pm & 6:30 pm in Sutton, WV at Days Hotel & Conference Center in Flatwoods, 2000 Sutton Lane, 1-79, Exit 67
Friday, 10/2/2009, 12:30 pm & 6:30 pm in Charleston, WV at Culture Center State Theater, Plaza Level of the Culture Center, State Capitol Complex, 1900 Kanawha Blvd E
Tuesday, 10/13/2009, 12:30 pm & 6:30 pm in Davis, WV at Canaan Valley Resort & Conference Center, Spruce Room, Route 32 N, Canaan Valley State Park
Thursday, 10/22/2009, 12:30 pm & 6:30 pm in Buckhannon, WV at West Virginia Wesleyan College, Campus Center Social , Hall, 59 College Avenue
The PSC only requires that this schedule be advertised as a legal ad in local newspapers. It is up to you to copy this schedule and post it everywhere in your county as soon as possible. Write letters to the editor. Tell everyone you know. Call your local radio station and get them to run your local information on the radio.
It is up to you. The PSC and the power companies don't want a lot of people at these hearings.
If you don't get the word out, no one else will.
Note: PATH will raise the electric bill of every customer in West Virginia, but the PSC is not holding hearings in every part of West Virginia. If you have friends or family living in Huntington or Wheeling or Beckley, call them and tell them that they should attend the nearest hearing to voice their opposition to paying for PATH. The power companies and the PSC think this is a local issue just for the areas directly affected by PATH. It is important to show them that everyone in the state opposes PATH, for lots of different reasons.
AEP/Allegheny say we need PATH to stop brownouts and blackouts. Is this true? Will PATH prevent blackouts?
The simple answer is "no."
In fact, if PATH were to be built, the likelihood that West Virginia electrical consumers would be part of the kind of massive blackout that hit Ontario, Ohio and the Northeast in 2003 would rise dramatically. Why? Because PATH would be a huge conduit for waves of unstable current flows if a massive event began in the eastern section of the PJM Interconnection. Right now, without PATH, West Virginia power users are relatively isolated from these cascading blackout events on the east coast.
Electrical engineer George Loehr is Chair of the Executive Committee of the New York State Reliability Council and has been deeply involved in analyzes of most of the major blackouts in the Northeast since 1965. Here is what this national expert on blackouts has to say:
Blackouts are usually caused by contingencies more severe than standards/criteria, by equipment failures, control system problems, human error, or by some combination of these. They always involve a break-up of the bulk power transmission system. Blackouts are not caused by shortages of generating capacity. Nor are they caused by an inability to transfer as much power as some might wish from remote locations to load centers. Blackouts can rarely be anticipated. They are almost always unexpected, and can happen at any time - few have occurred at or near peak load, for example, or coincident with a shortage of generating capacity. They develop in seconds or fractions of seconds rather than hours or days. [emphasis mine]
In their justification for PATH and TrAIL, PJM engineers have created computer models that stress the PJM system under peak load conditions and simulate loss of power plants from the system. These models generate problems, but those problems have nothing to do with blackouts and little to do with real world operating conditions.
Note what Mr. Loehr said in his Senate testimony last year, quoted above. Blackouts rarely happen under peak load conditions. They are never caused by generating plants dropping off the system. Blackouts can rarely be anticipated. In other words, you can't model real world blackouts on computers. Blackouts are not caused by problems with transmitting enough power from one place to another.
In his Senate testimony, Mr. Loehr stated that
[S]ome misguided proposals have been made to advance corporate agendas rather than serve the well-being of ordinary customers - mainly by trying to get proposed high voltage transmission lines approved as essential to reliability.
He identified one of those "misguided proposals" as
Blackout "scare tactics" intended to frighten customers and public officials, compelling them to endorse the construction of facilities or implementation of policies which are not required to preserve or enhance reliability.
So, what about these "brownouts" that are mentioned by power company PR people? Brownouts are not "little blackouts."
In his responses to further questions from Senators in last year's hearing, Mr. Loehr shed some light on brownouts:
"Rolling blackouts" are not blackouts in the sense of November 9, 1965, or August 14, 2003. They involve rotating feeder outages, voltage reductions ("brownouts"), and public appeals; they do not involve instability, system separations, and total loss of power supply over large geoelectrical areas. Also, "rolling blackouts" are caused by inadequate generating and related resources (DSM etc.), not by a lack of transmission. Of course, insufficient transmission can sometimes contribute to a resource availability problem, but in recent years I have seen very few examples.
And
NERC Standards permit controlled load shedding for unlikely combinations of contingencies and operating conditions. Some refer to these as "rolling blackouts," a scare technique. The significant difference between controlled load shedding and a cascading failure (blackout) is that controlled load shedding is normally done for only short periods, after which service is restored.
Brownouts are voltage reductions that are created by system operators in response to a variety of problems. Brownouts are accepted operating procedure as allowed under NERC standards that govern allowable operator behavior. They are caused by a number of factors but, Mr. Loehr says "not by a lack of transmission."
So, what do blackouts and brownouts have to do with the need for PATH? In a word -- nothing. As Mr. Loehr says, they are only used as scare tactics by power companies trying to get electricity rate payers and regulators to support their latest profit making ventures.
Talk of brownouts and blackouts has a lot to do with AEP/Allegheny's economic wants, but nothing to do with the electrical grid's needs.
In a decision that could significantly hamper efforts to build major new transmission facilities nationwide, a divided three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit on Aug. 6 overturned a FERC order signing off on the PJM Interconnection LLC's postage-stamp rate design for new transmission lines operating at voltages of 500-kV or more.
And:
After reviewing the arguments, the majority said the stakes are high, noting, for example, that under FERC's decision, Commonwealth Edison Co. [an Illinois utility] may be required to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to help pay for the proposed "Project Mountaineer," when under the old policy it wouldn't have had to pay a dime.
The problem, according to Judge Richard Posner, who penned the court's decision in which Judge John Tinder joined, is that FERC never looked at the consequences of switching to the new pricing policy. "No particulars are presented concerning the contribution that very high-voltage facilities are likely to make to the reliability of PJM's network. Not even the roughest estimate of likely benefits to the objecting utilities is presented," Posner recalled.
Posner suggested that the new policy is unfair to customers in the western portion of PJM, where power plants are located relatively close to their customers and relatively low-voltage, mainly 345-kV, transmission facilities are used. In contrast, generating plants that serve the eastern portions of PJM are generally located long distances from load, and therefore 500-kV and even higher-voltage transmission facilities are used to deliver the power.
Yet, FERC never took this disparity into consideration, Posner maintained. Instead, he said, the agency relied on the fact that the eastern utilities that created PJM many years ago agreed to share the costs of certain facilities through pro rata sharing agreements.
"The fact that these utilities thought it appropriate to share costs in 1967 says nothing about the advantages and disadvantages of such an arrangement in the larger, modern PJM network," the judge wrote. "The fact that one group of utilities desires to be subsidized by another is no reason in itself for giving them their way."
The case was in the Seventh Circuit Federal Court in Minnesota because public utilities commissions in Illinois and Ohio had sued PJM over their rate scheme for Project Mountaineer, which included both TrAIL and PATH lines.
As noted on Who Pays for PATH, more than 40% of the costs of TrAIL and PATH will be paid for by rate payers west of the Allegheny Mountains. The Seventh Circuit says that can't happen. There are two alternatives. Either only east coast utilities pay for PATH and TrAIL because they are getting the power, or AEP and Allegheny Energy pay for PATH and TrAIL because they are getting the profit.
This is good news indeed. Read the whole SNL article here.
I was rummaging through the photographs in old email and I found one from a coworker who is no longer with us. It is a fake satellite picture of the blackout in the northeast at 23:15 EST 14 AUG 2003 . It was actually visible and noted by NOAA.
In his blissfully brief speech, Bush, who mistakenly referred to the Northeast event as a "rolling blackout" (ie., a planned shut off), also pointed to the anachronistic grid as a problem. "We'll have time to look at it and determine whether or not our grid needs to be modernized," mumbled Bush. "I happen to think it does, and have said so all along."
Energy markets played a hand in the recall of Gov. Davis in California in 2003. There were traders on tape treating the elderly in California as a joke. What, death panel you say? Then the East Coast blackout. Coincidence?
PUHCA/WUHCA: The Public Utility Holding Company Act was passed during the 1930's "New Deal" era of Franklin Roosevelt when government action to protect the public's interest from huge corporate interest was viewed as good citizenship. The legislation put some parameters and restrictions on the urges to merge electric utilities into large multi-state conglomerates with little accountability. The Congress passed a Bush supported Energy Bill in which PUCHA was repealed.
I am starting to see pattern here. Undo Glass-Stegal from the 1930s with the "financial innovation" that got used the mess that started to unwind in September 2007. The "public" part of public utility goes, and energy is traded as a financial instrument, and we get "sheet-happens" blackouts. And this justifies these FERC'S energy corridors?
1. Will the commissioners attend public hearings? Ken Ward, Jr. and Calhouner had a discussion about this in the comments over at Coal Tattoo. From what I gather, typically commissioners do not attend PSC hearings. But, Gov. Manchin has specifically asked that they attend public hearings about PATH.
Does this sentence on pg.7 imply they intend to?
As described in the Commission Order of July 17, 2009, the Commission will hold (i) public comment hearings in various locations along the proposed route of the project so that the Commission can hear public comment regarding the PATH Project.
2. It's clear the PSC and staff are struggling with how to deal with such a large number of intervenors. It is a difficult logistical problem. Most of the adapted procedures look pretty reasonable. One area (also discussion over at Coal Tattoo) ripe for confusion is the role of the PSC-imposed county intervenor groups. The PSC is arbitrarily grouping together intervenors by county. My reading of the order is this will matter the most during the final stages when in-person cross-examination occurs. The PSC wants to limit the number of "spokespeople" who may can cross-examine. (I should double check, but I think they allow for all the individual intervenors to act individually in other steps such as discovery and opening statements.)
If indeed managing the logistical challenges of cross-examination is the primary rationale for creating these intervenor groups, I find the following request (on pg. 21) unreasonable:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within twenty days of the Commission Executive Secretary sending the service list the various County Intervenor Groups shall file with the Commission and serve on other parties (pursuant to Section 1V.d of this Order) the name of the spokesperson for each group.
That sounds arbitrary to me. You get notice on some day in the future--there's no telling when--and then you have less than three weeks to get all the other intervenors in your county together to name a spokesperson. (You have to have a couple days buffer time for the filing with the Commission to get there on time.)
3. Is there anyone in the legislature who will step up to the plate and work on changing this law (pg. 20)?
Several intervenors requested that either the Commission or the Applicants be required to pay for legal representation for those unrepresented by legal counsel. The Commission is limited in its actions by the laws of this state, and those laws do not authorize the Commission to undertake or require that type of arrangement.
Copyright 2011 West Virginia Blue
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, dedicated volunteers and participation by members of this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong solely to their respective authors.
