Menu:

 
Petition to intervene in the Allegheny Energy/First Energy merger case before the West Virginia Public Service Commission has been filed by counsel for Jefferson County Intervenors Group.  

PATH does  not exist in a bubble.  I wonder how interested First Energy would be in Allegheny Energy without the future potential for PATH to rake in the bucks?  Hopefully, we'll soon find out.

Jackson Kelly's (PATH's counsel) response to JCIG's petition to intervene seems a bit vexed, with an undertone of "poor me" undeserved persecution.  Melick even goes so far as to show everyone how the truly evil mind works with a completely unfounded accusation that JCIG is intervening simply to delay the PATH case or to force the applicants into a bargaining situation.  Wouldn't Freud have fun with the transference going on here?  

How many specious arguments can Melick create to try to keep us out of this case?

1.  Our interests are already represented by the Consumer Advocate Division.

The response gathers JCIG members into a group of residential electric customers, despite the fact that the reason for JCIG's intervention is clearly stated in their petition as, "The members of JCIG are concerned about how the merger proposed in this proceeding relates to, or will otherwise impact, the construction and operation of PATH and future transmission facilities."  Nowhere in the petition are residential electric rates mentioned, therefore stating that CAD is already representing JCIG's interests is false.

2.  JCIG's concerns are being adequately handled in the PATH case.

In their response, counsel for joint applicants states that JCIG's concerns "may (or may not) bear on PATH's certification under W. Va. Code 24-2-11a".  Since this same counsel has denied many requests for information in the PATH case as falling in the "may not" camp, I suspect (and they actually imply) that their answer to these requests would be the same.  They reach too far in assigning motives and relevancy to JCIG's concerns... which looks like the scrabbling, death claw of the desperate.

3.  JCIG's concerns are with Federal policy, which the WV PSC has no jurisdiction over.

The classic "do as I say, not as I do".  Joint petitioners are quick in attempts to prevent other parties from raising Federal/PJM/NERC issues, while they use the same as the basis for their "need" argument and continually play the FERC card in an attempt to bully the three state commissions into granting their wishes.  This is the behavior of a petulant child and should be dealt with the same way these bratty, controlling children are disciplined in real life.  Call their bluff and try not to laugh as their supposed "power" fails to materialize!

He did get one part right, however, "Joint Petitioners acknowledge that JCIG members are sincere in their opposition to PATH".  And we're not going away either. But wasn't there a better word in their thesaurus than "sincere"?  I'm truly disappointed by the lack of creativity in the vocabulary used here.

Why is PATH so resistant to answering these questions? How can we feel that this merger will be a good thing for the average electric consumer and a good thing for potential PATH victims when their counsel gets his knickers in a knot over a simple petition to intervene in the case?  Did we hit the tender spot?  Got something to hide?  Maybe this merger is something everyone should object to rather strenuously.


Update:  Just wanted to add this link I was sent regarding First Energy's fault in the 2003 blackout.  We've got links to the bigger report referenced in this article around the website, but this article is short and sweet and worth reading.  "It wasn’t until the lights went out in the First Energy control room that the First Energy personnel had a solid indication that the problem was indeed in their service territory (and not somewhere else)."
 
 
Around a dozen citizens from West Virginia, Virginia and Maryland attended PATH's 2010 Annual Update Rate meeting in DC on July 14.  Despite PATH's dire warnings about "limited space", we were the ONLY ones who showed up, aside from the Allegheny, AEP and Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman (another one of PATH's many attorneys) representatives on the other side of the table. It sure would have been lonely without us!  We also had a bunch of citizens from the different states attend the meeting via conference call, along with some Allegheny employees, AEP employees, one guy from a PSC and someone from Old Dominion Electric Cooperative.

This meeting's purpose was "an explanation and clarification of the 2010 Annual Update of the PATH formula filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in Docket No. ER10-1363-000 and will provide meeting participants with information and clarification concerning the 2010 Annual Update, the Actual Transmission Revenue Requirement, the True-up Adjustment, input data and cost detail associated with the Annual Update."

In plain English, this is where they presented their actual PATH expenses vs. the estimate they collected for 2009, with either an under recovery being added to rates, or an over recovery being refunded to rates (both with interest).

I'm not going to get into the complicated accounting going on here.  I'm sure you don't want to read it.  But overall I got the impression that maybe it's not all that carefully done since one of the first things we were told was that a revision had just been filed the previous day to correct a $460,000 error where they moved costs to a different account (credit) without a corresponding subtraction (debit) from the original account, essentially doubling the expense which continued to reside in both accounts.  C'mon, I know mistakes happen in accounting (I worked in the field for a number of years), but that kind of mistake is ridiculous!  It was especially precious to have the accounts explained to us ignorant citizens as "buckets" where expenses are placed (because "account" is just such a hard word to comprehend?)  Oh yes, they were prepared for us.

The second half of the meeting was devoted to an explanation of the PJM Interconnection, LLC, FERC Electric Tariff's Attachment H-19B, which provides for Informal and Formal Challenges of recovered expenses by interested parties.  This seemed to be necessary because the "cost detail associated with the Annual Update" wasn't really available.  They either didn't know or didn't have the information when they were asked about specific expenses such as PATH sponsorship of sporting events and financing of astroturf front groups.

The only attendees who asked questions were the citizens, and the gentleman from Old Dominion Electric Cooperative. Seems like it would have been quite the dud without the presence of the citizen "interested parties".  There is no real oversight of how much they spend (and no definition of "prudent" cost) -- PATH spends and then has these meetings that no one attends or comments on, and if no one files a challenge, they add their costs to your electric bill.

We had a truly great group of attendees who asked pertinent questions and pretty much refrained from straying into the forbidden territory of asking questions that didn't have to do with the subject matter.  AEP's attorney, however, had to be reminded of the rules by the attendees when she began to hold forth about how much PATH is "needed".

So, who wants to go again in September for PATH's 2011 projected revenue requirement?  Someone other than the fox needs to watch the hen house.
 
 
Allegheny Energy will be holding an open meeting for interested parties regarding PATH’s 2010 Annual Update filed for informational purposes with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on June 1, 2010 in the offices of one of their attorneys in DC this Wednesday, July 14 at 10 a.m.  A copy of the meeting announcement is below. Randy Palmer, Allegheny's general counsel, has informed Patience Wait in response to her meeting RSVP via email that citizens - that's us! - can attend the meeting, but we must provide our names by 10 a.m. tomorrow (for security purposes). Several representatives from WV, VA and MD citizen groups are planning on attending this meeting in person. If you'd like to go - either with us or meeting us there - you MUST RSVP to Palmer before 10 a.m. on July 13.  If you cannot attend in person, you may attend via phone (instructions are in the meeting announcement).  Meeting materials are currently unavailable on PJM's website -- please ask Palmer for a copy when you send in your RSVP.  See this post for a link to another copy of the financial information that is the subject of this meeting. The citizens who are making the trip to DC for this meeting ask that you support us by taking advantage of the call-in option and asking questions (or simply listening in).  Allegheny Energy is spending YOUR money -- let them know that you are paying attention! 
---------------------------------------
From PJM's website, here's the meeting notice:
To Interested Parties:
 
In accordance with the formula rate implementation protocols, PATH will host an open meeting among interested parties regarding PATH’s 2010 Annual Update filed for informational purposes with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on June 1, 2010.
 
Date/Time: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 at 10 am ET
 
Location: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
2300 N Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20037-1122
 
To accommodate those who are not able to travel to DC, we are offering a call-in option. The call in number is 202-663-9333; access code 6639120#. To ensure that we have enough phone lines reserved, please RSVP to rpalmer@alleghenyenergy.com. By sending an RSVP, we can make sure you have any handouts prior to the call.
 
Should you need further assistance please contact Randall B. Palmer, Assistant General Counsel – Federal and State Regulatory and Chief Compliance Officer, at:
 
Allegheny Energy, Inc.
800 Cabin Hill Dr.
Greensburg, PA 15601
(724)-838-6894
 
 
Okay, I promise, last post tonight about Allegheny Energy's Q1 2010 Earnings Call transcript, but I've been waiting to have this thing in quotable, linkable form since May.  It's like a bottomless bag of nasty little M&M's...

Amount spent on PATH so far:  $55 - 60 million. 
Additional amount expected to be spent in 2010:  $65 million.  Total- $125 million, and they haven't even got pending applications accepted in two of the three states yet, much less constructed anything.

Sounds like we're a little off budget, doesn't it, Paul?

"So you’ll see some spending, but the big spending would be in the last two or three years of the project."

Danielle Seitz - Dudack Research: And I am assuming that when you get the date, the estimates will have changed and you will adjust the estimate?

Paul J. Evanson - Chairman, President and CEO: We will, yes. And we’ll get much and we’ll start kind of fine tuning the estimate. I mean, that a billion two costs that we have was done two, two and a half years ago. So that’s brings the change. And we’ve learned a lot in building out the TrAIL project. So that may turn out to be a little conservative number.

HOW MUCH IS THIS GOING TO COST THE RATEPAYERS, PAUL?