StopPATH WV
  • News
  • StopPATH WV Blog
  • FAQ
  • Events
  • Fundraisers
  • Make a Donation
  • Landowner Resources
  • About PATH
  • Get Involved
  • Commercials
  • Links
  • About Us
  • Contact

Illinois Groups Ask FERC to Dismiss GBE's Request to Amend its Negotiated Rate Authority

12/29/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
There's a new filing in the on-going saga of GBE's FERC Negotiated Rate Authority.  As I wrote earlier, here and here, Grain Belt Express recently asked FERC to approve an "amendment" to its existing negotiated rate authority.  Missouri Landowners Alliance filed a protest and asked FERC to consider all the changes to the project, including its change of ownership since the original Negotiated Rate Authority was issued.  Missouri Landowners Alliance questioned whether GBE needed approval for the sale of its project to Invenergy under Sec. 203 of the Federal Power Act.  Invenergy responded saying that it didn't need permission.  But is that really true?

Yesterday, a coalition of Illinois groups filed a Motion for Summary Disposition, asking that FERC deny GBE's request for amendment to the existing negotiated rate authority.  The Illinois groups contend that when the project was sold, the negotiated rate authority issued to Clean Line expired because GBE did not get FERC approval for the sale.
In GBX’s view, the Commission has no jurisdiction over GBX’s activities until GBX hammers iron into the ground (GBX Limited Answer, pgs. 2-3); until that time, GBX is free to transfer that negotiated rate authority like a collectable baseball card. GBX’s logic makes a mockery of both the process by which the Commission determines whether an applicant should be granted negotiated rate authority and the Commission’s authority to review and approve sales, mergers and other transactions under FPA Section 203. 
20231228-5092_motion_for_summary_disposition_final_public.pdf
File Size: 8859 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

And that pretty much describes ALL of the regulatory activity on GBE since Invenergy bought the project.  GBE has treated all its approvals as collectible baseball cards.  Invenergy did not buy a transmission project, it bought a set of state and federal approvals, and then methodically set about changing the actual project that was permitted without the regulator actually examining the new project.  It simply transferred the permits to a new project without proper examination.

The Illinois groups make the case why GBE should have to get the sale of its project approved, not simply "amend" its existing authority without proper examination of changed circumstances.

When GBE filed for its NRA "amendment" in early October, it expected to sail through a mere rubber stamping of its request so it could have new authority granted by December 5.  December 5 came, and December 5 went.  FERC doesn't seem to be in any particular hurry to ink up its stamp, and now that there is considerable controversy in this case, FERC must spend more time figuring things out.  GBE cannot advertise its capacity for sale, nor sign contracts to sell it, until it has FERC approval.

This must be extremely frustrating to Invenergy CEO Michael Polsky.  In a recent interview on Bloomberg, Polsky lamented that "we don't hear much" from FERC on a number of open dockets.  Isn't that a shame?  FERC isn't dancing to Polsky's serenade.  Also in this interview Polsky says that he thinks "the government" should pay for new transmission.  Well, that would make things rather simple for GBE, wouldn't it?  Then the merchant transmission project wouldn't need customers to fund it before it is built.  In Polsky's world, anyone who wants to build a transmission project would simply shake the taxpayer piggy bank until enough money falls out. Perhaps that's the way things work in Ukraine, but that's not where Polsky is operating.  He chose to come to this country and he must abide by our laws.

And while we're thinking about the elite Mr. Polsky, perhaps this article can also shed some light on how he makes money controlling energy policy?

Meanwhile, FERC continues to do "not much" on Invenergy's numerous open dockets, and Invenergy keeps filing stuff, like this recent complaint.  It must be really frustrating not to have a federal regulatory agency under your super rich thumb.

P.S.  Nice jacket!  Where does he find them?  Nightclub yard sale?
0 Comments

Understanding NIETCs

12/29/2023

0 Comments

 
What's a NIETC (pronounced nit-zee)?  Just when you thought the energy alphabet soup couldn't get any thicker, here's another federal program meant to enable a massive buildout of high voltage electric transmission, whether we need it or not.  NIETC stands for National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors.  NIETCs were dreamed up by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as a way to give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) "backstop" permitting authority for certain transmission lines.  Transmission line siting and permitting is state jurisdictional.  It is up to the states to decide whether a new transmission line is needed and, if so, where to put it.  However, Congress wanted to give the federal government authority to permit transmission where states did not use their own authority.  In its original form, designation of a NIETC by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) would bump permitting to FERC if a state did not possess the authority to site and permit, or if it took too long, or if it burdened its permit with unworkable conditions.  Importantly, Congress did not give FERC jurisdiction to permit a transmission project if a state issued a denial within one year.  But our federal government overstepped its boundaries by interpreting the statute to mean that a state denial could be overruled by FERC.  The NIETC process was killed by two court decisions that said the government failed to consult with states in making its designations, and that it had no authority to permit if a state issued a denial.  NIETCs were shelved and we moved on.  In 2021, NIETCs were dusted off and a new Congress decided that FERC could overrule a state denial for a transmission project in a NIETC.  This overreach into areas of state jurisdiction has not yet been challenged in court, but I guarantee you it will be.

Meanwhile, the U.S. DOE has been busy re-imagining the NIETC process so that it can designate new corridors.  The purpose of a corridor is to turn FERC into an appeals court for new transmission lines in the event that a state denies a permit to build.  For its part, FERC has initiated a rulemaking to set up its new permitting authority.  After proposing the rule, FERC accepted comment on its proposal, and then let the matter die.  FERC has not yet set the rules for applying for a permit for a project in a NIETC.  Nothing can be done until this process is finished.  However, DOE is moving ahead to designate corridors.

DOE'S first proposal was to allow transmission developers to apply for NIETCs for transmission projects they wanted to build.  In order to inform its process, DOE also conducted a National Transmission Needs Study.  It came a no surprise that DOE determined that the entire U.S. is in need of lots of new transmission, although the regional transmission planners (like PJM Interconnection) have been planning the transmission we need for decades.  Although DOE does not have any authority to plan the transmission system, or decide who pays for it, DOE issued its biased report in order to enable the designation of NIETCs.  Now that the entire country needs new transmission according to DOE's report, DOE has issued what it calls a "guidance document" to create the rules for designation of NIETCs.  It's not a rulemaking (sez DOE), it's a "guidance" and there are no formal rules.  Of course, this does not comport with administrative policy rules that require public notice and comment on agency rules, but DOE isn't bothered by that.... it's simply plunging ahead.  As if that won't be litigated...

Anyhow, on December 19, DOE published its "guidance".  The guidance says that any person can suggest a NIETC anywhere, and DOE will evaluate the suggestions it receives and publish a short list of possible NIETCs by the spring of 2024.  After the list is published, DOE will accept comments on the possible NIETCs.  It doesn't look like DOE will bother to undertake any local community notice so that impacted landowners and communities will be made aware of the comment opportunity.  You're supposed to be in the dark about this (so spread this around and educate yourself).  Once DOE receives comments on its list of possibilities, it will further winnow it down to select a number of "draft" corridors.  The draft corridors will be subject to an environmental statement under the National Environmental Policy Act.  This is where DOE will finally begin "robust" public notification and invitation to comment.  However, the NEPA report only concerns itself with environmental issues, not issues of need for the project in the first place.  While you should comment on the Environmental Impact Statement, you should also comment before the draft corridor is designated.

I know the guidance document is long and perhaps confusing, but you shouldn't ignore it.  I expect that every transmission proposal that has not yet been approved by state utility commissions will be proposing a new corridor as insurance in case it cannot get the state approvals it wants.  Your goal should be to prevent designation of a NIETC in your own community.  DOE will be holding one of its silly webinars to explain its process on January 3.  You can register to attend here.  The webinar will consist of some DOE employees reading the slides of a power point presentation.  DOE rarely allows attendees to ask questions during the webinar.  When it allowed questions in the past, it never seemed to like the questions asked by real people.  Therefore, in order to avoid embarrassment for DOE, there is unlikely to be any actual interaction during the webinar.  However, if you are new to NIETCs, you may get some information from reading the slides yourself.  What the hay, it's only an hour.

DOE pretends that its "guidance" was informed by the comments it received on its initial plan.  But reality is that DOE cherry picked the comments that supported what it wanted to do, and ignored the rest.  I submitted extensive comments on this (and also all the other related rulemakings and studies at FERC and DOE), however DOE ignored everything that didn't fit in with its plan.  Here's what I found wrong with DOE's process:
doe_nietc_comments.pdf
File Size: 120 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

The U.S. DOE is like a kid with a new Christmas toy.  In the name of "clean energy" DOE has been given limited new authorities by Congress that clash with other authorities already possessed by grid planners, state regulators, NERC and FERC.  DOE doesn't know squat about transmission for reliability or economic purposes.  It is only concerned about building a bunch of transmission willy-nilly because Big Green says we need a bunch of new transmission to connect more unreliable wind and solar generators.  Wind and solar alone are not a viable means of powering our society.  But certain companies are getting very rich on all the government handouts for "clean energy" so they make up all sorts of new ways to pick our pockets, claiming that there's just one more thing we need to pay for in order to make wind and solar work.  Several years ago, they complained that wind and solar weren't working because it was too hard to connect new projects to the existing grid.  So, all the grid interconnection rules were reformed and a huge amount of new connections were approved.  But guess what?  Most of the approved projects dropped out because they were not economic or profitable.  Now Big Green says we need to build new transmission in order to connect new wind and solar.  As Rosanne Rosannadanna once said:
The U.S. DOE is not a grid planner.  It is not a grid regulator.  It's not a cost allocator.  It's just a gigantic waste of everyone's time and money... but it's a waste that we would ignore at our own peril.
Who does our government work for? If not the citizens who fund and enable it, then it is not part of a functioning democracy. DOE has been working steadily over the past several years to gaslight stakeholders to believe that new transmission and generation is the ONLY solution to a cleaner energy future. There are many other tools in the toolbox that can aid the transition that do not depend on commandeering hundreds of thousands of square miles of private property. DOE’s role is to examine all the tools available and determine which scenario, or combination of scenarios, best serves all citizens. DOE should be purposefully engaging all stakeholders in consultation and making all its actions public, instead of carrying on programs like NIETC designation in secret, lest the hoi polloi find out about it before they are supposed to and become a fly in the ointment. 
0 Comments

Lessons from a Bad Omen

12/20/2023

1 Comment

 
The Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, or PATH project died yesterday.  It was nobody's friend at the end.  I don't think anyone is going to miss it, even PATH itself.  It's been an albatross around everyone's neck, including mine, ever since FERC decided to second-guess itself on the matter in 2020.

An uncontested settlement was filed at FERC on November 17 that created a lump sum refund for PJM ratepayers of $9.5M.  The refund came as a result of the DC Circuit Opinion back in 2021 that determined PATH's advocacy and advertising costs should not have been collected from ratepayers.  Also included in the lump sum was a final accounting for money due under PATH's formula rate.  The settlement also provides for the cancellation of PATH's formula rate and cancellation of the companies themselves.  In several months, PATH will be nothing but a bad dream and a lightness in your wallet.

Because FERC had failed to act (again) on the DC Circuit remand and a paper hearing FERC opened on PATH's return on equity in 2020, the parties to the long-running formula rate and abandonment cases took it upon themselves to ink out a deal and present it to FERC for approval.  FERC allowed PATH to begin collecting money for its project beginning in 2008, and it won't stop collecting until 2024.  That's 16 years.  Much of that time came courtesy of an overworked and tone-deaf FERC simply ignoring the issues PATH created for years on end.  Two years to grant our formal challenges, 3 more years to get them to hearing, 2 more years to issue an order, 3 more years to grant rehearing and do a 180 on FERC's first decision, only a year at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals straightening that out, and then 2 more years before the settling parties, including yours truly, finally pulled the plug to short circuit another long period of waiting for FERC to act.  To its credit, FERC jumped right on the settlement when it was presented and approved it yesterday, just a mere month after it was filed.  But why did it take us doing FERC's job for them to get this resolved?

Yesterday, a public shaming of PATH, utilities, PJM, and FERC itself came courtesy of FERC Commissioner Mark Christie during the monthly Commission meeting.  You can watch it here beginning at minute 13:48 and ending at 18:24.  Just five minutes of your time to get the satisfaction you've been seeking for 16 years.  I love a happy ending like this!  PATH was a terrible idea that has caused harm to consumers.
Commissioner Christie also issued a written statement to append to the Commission's Letter Order approving the PATH settlement.  You can read it here.
Christie used PATH as a reason to take issue with FERC's overly generous incentives, formula rates, and long-term planning for transmission that is purposed to serve needs that never materialize.

Commissioner Christie has been on the warpath against certain overly-generous FERC incentives, issuing strongly worded statements in 13 cases over the past 2 years (all footnoted in yesterday's statement).  He pointed out that FERC has opened several proceedings to investigate and change the Commission's incentive rules since 2019, but still has not managed to conclude those proceedings (PL19-3, RM20-10).  Christie also noted that the Commission proposed discontinuing the CWIP incentive in its also pending Rulemaking on Transmission Planning (Docket RM21-17).

A highly politicized FERC means the agency can't get anything done and has found itself at a standoff over many issues over the past 8 years.  Commissioner Christie stands alone as the most consumer-focused Commissioner FERC has ever had.  He has tirelessly fought for consumers and will continue to do so.  Commissioner Christie came to FERC from the Virginia State Corporation Commission in 2021, and will serve until 2025.  We need more commissioners like Christie, who have a history of serving at state utility commissions, and less Commissioners from the political and special interest realms that have dominated appointments over the past 8 years.  FERC needs to go back to its  function as an impartial regulator, not a political vehicle for the policies of the administration in charge.  Sadly, I don't see things changing much in 2024.  

Commissioner Christie used yesterday's PATH settlement as a lesson and a warning, referring to it as an "omen" of more bad things to come if FERC's policies are not reformed.  He used PATH as an example of how these different policies come together to create zombie projects that can pick ratepayer pockets for decades.  According to Christie, PATH was originally part of Project Mountaineer, a PJM scheme to import electricity to eastern load centers from the Ohio River Valley's massive fleet of coal-fired generators.  Once PJM approved PATH and added the project to its regional plan, that turned on the money spigots.  Thanks to FERC's overly-generous award of every incentive possible and its use of formula rates, PATH began collecting its costs from ratepayers in 2008, during its development and permitting stage.  The Commission's policies allowed PATH to continue to collect its costs during the long period between PJM's approval and state regulatory approval.  Although PATH never received any state approval, and nothing was ever built, its formula rate continued to recover costs from consumers, even after PJM abandoned the project in 2012.  PATH is still collecting a cool million (or more) from consumers every year to this day.  The Commission's approval of the settlement yesterday shuts off the money spigot... finally.

Commissioner Christie cautioned against making long-term transmission plans based on today's generation choices. PATH demonstrates that those choices can change quickly, although the transmission projects set in motion to achieve them cannot.  It was wise advice to a Commission that is poised to pass new long-term transmission planning rules in 2024 based on today's generation choices of wind and solar.  The Commission needs to think carefully about saddling consumers with the cost of new transmission that could become obsolete before it is even built, such as PJM's recent slate of projects for the purpose of importing fossil fuel electricity to Virginia's data centers from the Ohio Valley.  PJM has acknowledged that new wind and solar additions are not keeping up with fossil fuel generator retirements in its eastern regions, but yet the generators keep closing and the data centers keep being built.  Something has to change, or the lights are going to go out.  PJM chose to approve a bunch of new PATH projects from the west, including the NextEra/FirstEnergy project from southwest Pennsylvania to Loudoun County.

We should all heed Commissioner Christie's warning, and support needed changes to FERC's incentives and transmission policy choices.  A group of consumers filed comments on FERC's transmission planning rulemaking back in 2021.  Check out the discussion of the PATH project beginning on page 21.
rm21-17_reply_comments_final.pdf
File Size: 144 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

This is the same history lesson Commissioner Christie taught yesterday.  Christie said the PATH debacle has cost consumers nearly a quarter of a billion dollars over the past 15 years... all for nothing.  Christie quoted what Willy Loman’s wife Linda said in Death of a Salesman, "attention must be paid."  Let's hope proper attention is paid to the demise of PATH.  I, for one, won't miss it.  It frees up my time to pay attention to things ahead, such as the new PATH-like projects recently approved by PJM.

Let the funeral dirge play... we beat you, PATH.  We beat you BAD.
1 Comment

How Transmission Lines are Routed

12/18/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
New transmission lines are routed by utilities using an extensive process.  The actual proposed route is unlikely to resemble preliminary maps created by PJM Interconnection, or Piedmont Environmental Council.  PEC simply laid PJM's generalized maps over an interactive map with actual detail.  These maps may have shown transmission lines cutting through homes, historic districts, and other valuable assets.  That's unlikely to happen when actual proposed routes are released by the utilities building the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link (MARL).

So, how DO utilities develop proposed routes?  Here's a look at how they developed the proposed routes for the proposed, but never built, PATH transmission project 15 years ago.  Utilities still use the same process today.
path-lre.pdf
File Size: 2736 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

Certain lands and structures are avoided.  Here's a list:
The Routing Team developed specific routing criteria in identifying, evaluating, and selecting routes, attempting to minimize:

Route length, circuity, cost, and special design requirements.

The removal or substantial interference with the use of existing residences.

The removal of existing barns, garages, commercial buildings, and other nonresidential structures. 

Substantial interference with the use and operation of existing schools, existing and recognized places of worship, existing cemeteries, and existing facilities used for cultural and historical, and recreational purposes.

Substantial interference with economic activities.

Crossing of designated public resource lands such as national and state forests and parks, large camps and other recreation lands, designated battlefields or other designated historic resources and sites, and wildlife management areas.

Crossing large lakes and large wetland complexes, critical habitat, and other scarce, distinct natural resources.
​

Substantial visual impact on residential areas and public resources.
While trying to avoid those things, the utility must also take these safety and engineering considerations into account:
Avoid double-circuiting or crossing existing 765 kV lines.

Do not parallel existing 765 kV lines for more than 1 mile in any particular location.

Minimize the crossing of 345 kV and 500 kV transmission lines.

Minimize paralleling corridors with more than one existing 345 kV or 500 kV circuit.
​

Maintain 200 feet of centerline-to-centerline separation when paralleling existing 345 kV, 500 kV, and 765 kV transmission lines.

Maintain 150 feet of centerline-to-centerline separation when paralleling 138 kV or lower voltage transmission lines.

Minimize angles greater than 65 degrees and sloping soils more than 30 degrees (20 degrees at angle points).

Do not triple-circuit lines of
345 kV or greater voltage. 
Of course, it's impossible to avoid everything in the first list.  The second list consists of engineering and safety standards and cannot be changed.  Therefore, while the utility may attempt to avoid your home, it may not be able to avoid your property.  Instead of going over top of your home and making it uninhabitable, they may go 200 ft. from your back door.  Might as well have taken your entire home, right?  I urge you to read this report carefully so you can get a feel for the things that can change transmission line routes so that you are well-armed when MARL holds public meetings in your area to present its initial proposed routes and get your feedback.

Something interesting in this report is the claim that "paralleling" existing transmission lines is somehow preferred... as if the people who live with them won't notice another gigantic transmission line across their property, or simply won't care.  Think about it... if you are unlucky enough to have a transmission line routed through your backyard, would you welcome another one?  Of course not!  A new idea has been formulated since the PATH project called "energy justice."  Energy justice means that we cannot keep forcing more and more energy infrastructure on the same people.  These unlucky people have already "taken one for the team" by hosting a transmission line (or power plant) nearby.  Isn't it someone else's turn?  Inherent in this status quo is that objectionable infrastructure projects historically end up in the backyards of populations at a disadvantage.  They are not as able as other more fortunate places to fight back and win.  Therefore, the disadvantaged communities get the infrastructure thrust upon them time after time.  This is not only unfair, it is morally reprehensible.  We ALL deserve to live safely and happily on our own property.  Nobody is a "throw away" to be ground down under the boot heel of "progress."

Another problem with paralleling is that homes and communities have been built up around old transmission lines that have been in place for decades.  In some places, the development is so thick that paralleling causes the taking of improvements made just outside the right of way, whether it is a shed, barn, fence, pool, swing set for the kiddos.  It also can include land the homeowner is using for a well and/or septic system.  None of these ordinary residential land uses are compatible with transmission easements and will have to be removed.  If a home's water and sewage disposal is made unusable, that can make the home uninhabitable.  Paralleling is an idea that needs to die.

Also interesting in this report are the routes where the utility proposed tearing down an existing transmission line and rebuilding it on new structures that include both the old circuit and the new one.  The unfortunate part of that situation is that the easement must always be expanded to house the bigger structures.  This is exactly what FirstEnergy is planning to do with its portion of the MARL -- tear down an existing 138kV line on wooden poles less than 100 ft. tall that is situated on a 75 ft. wide easement, and replace it with a 500kV/138kV 200 ft. tall double circuit on big, new lattice steel towers.  The existing easement must be expanded to accommodate this new line.  

How much?  Well, that seems to be mired in layers of murk.  When NextEra originally proposed the MARL, it said it could do this amazing rebuild with only 30 additional feet of right of way.  30 added to the existing 75 equals 105 feet.  No way they are putting this double-circuit monstrosity in 105 feet, right next to a parallel existing 500kV line.  It doesn't even meet safety code.  So, NextEra was either ignorant of the width of the existing ROW, or simply making things up in order to make its project more likely to be selected by PJM.  However, PJM decided to give that rebuild section to incumbent line owner FirstEnergy to rebuild its own line to include MARL.  FirstEnergy has not yet announced how much it would need to expand the existing ROW.  We're in the dark on the rebuild section.  However, when routing PATH 15 years ago, FirstEnergy had this to say about expanding that 138kV ROW:
In these cases, the existing transmission corridor already runs through theses areas, and in order to keep the height of the structures lower, the Applicant would work with the holders of these easements to modify them in order to acquire approximately 105 feet of additional ROW. 
PATH proposed expanding the existing 138kV easement in Northern Loudoun by 105 feet.  105 plus the existing 75 feet comes to nearly 200 ft.  200 feet is the standard easement required for a 500kV line like MARL.  I guess we can expect that FirstEnergy is going to ask landowners for another 105 feet of easement for the 36-mile section stretching from Frederick County, VA to the point in Loudoun where the line turns south towards Waterford.  This includes the section in Jefferson County, WV.  If you live along this stretch, you may want to measure an additional 105 ft. from the edge of the existing ROW to see how much of your property is going to be gobbled up by expanded ROW, and how much closer it is going to be to your home.

It is our job to educate ourselves if we're going to be successful in stopping the MARL.  Taking a look at how utilities actually route transmission lines is the next logical step.
0 Comments

NextEra Files for Transmission Rate Incentives for its MARL Project

12/16/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
On November 22, NextEra filed an application at FERC to be granted certain transmission rate incentives for its MidAtlantic Resiliency Link, or MARL transmission project.  Of course, we know that the PJM Board of Managers didn't approve the MARL project until December 11.  But somehow NextEra was so certain it would receive the assignment that it felt free to apply for incentives for its proposed project ahead of time.  And let's just leave that fact on the table to contemplate.

Here's a link to MARL's filing.  It's huge, but you may want to only pay attention to the first 17 pages and the supporting testimony... for now.  The weird-looking multi-page tables appended at the end of the filing are MARL's formula rate.  This is how MARL determines how much to charge ratepayers for the project.  The ones attached to this filing are blank, but MARL will be making future filings with the numbers filled in.  That's a whole different process that perhaps we'll examine in the future.  The request for incentives is enough complicated crap for today's menu.

FERC's transmission incentives -- a long, complicated story.  Pull up a chair and get a cup of coffee, you're going to need it.

Back in 2005, Congress decided that not enough electric transmission was being built.  They reasoned this was what caused the 2003 Northeast blackout (I beg to differ, but that's a whole different blog for another day).  Congress passed Sec. 219 of the Energy Policy Act directing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to establish, by rule, incentive-based rate treatments to promote capital investment in electric transmission infrastructure.  Over the course of several proceedings, FERC developed a number of incentives to financially reward and protect utilities who undertook new transmission projects.  The incentives have been looked at several times since, with the most recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued in 2020.  Although hundreds comments were filed by regulators, utilities, special interest groups, and consumers, FERC has not yet acted.  That docket, RM20-10, is still sitting around collecting dust.  No one seems to find this more frustrating than FERC Commissioner Mark Christie, who finds himself obligated to approve them every time, but issues virtually the same opinion every time that several of them are unjust and unreasonable and need to be reformed.  FERC is at an impasse.

FERC's incentives include ROE adders, hypothetical capital structure, pre-commercial cost recovery, accelerated depreciation and advanced technology, and two that MARL has requested, abandonment and CWIP in ratebase.  I've explained them ad nauseam in a special section of this blog, here.

MARL begins by telling FERC that it has already requested and been approved for several incentives, along with a formula rate, for an earlier transmission purchase.  Those incentives are:  
(i) recovery of all pre-commercial costs not capitalized and authorization to establish a regulatory asset that will include all such expenses that are incurred prior to the time costs first flow through to customers, including authorization to accrue carrying charges and amortize the regulatory asset over five years for cost recovery purposes (“Regulatory Asset Incentive”); (ii) use of a hypothetical capital structure of 60% equity and 40% debt until NEET MidAtlantic Indiana’s first project achieved commercial operations (“Hypothetical Capital Structure Incentive”); and (iii) use of a 50-basis point return on equity (“ROE”) adder for Regional Transmission Organization Participation (“RTO Participation Adder”). 
Now NextEra wants two additional incentives for MARL, along with the ability to use them for any subsequent projects.  
(i) recovery of 100 percent of prudently-incurred transmission-related costs of the Project if it is abandoned or canceled for reasons beyond the control of NEET MidAtlantic Indiana (“Abandoned Plant Incentive”); (ii) authorization to include 100 percent of prudently incurred Construction Work in Progress (“CWIP”) in rate base for the Project (“CWIP Incentive”); and (iii) authorization to assign the requested Abandoned Plant and CWIP Incentives, if approved, to any newly-formed PJM affiliate of NEET MidAtlantic Indiana that is involved in the development and construction of the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link Project.​

What are these two incentives, and what do they do?

First, let's look at the abandonment incentive.  It guarantees that the transmission owner (MARL) may collect all its prudently incurred costs for the project in the event that it is subsequently cancelled (abandoned) before being built.  First of all, the cancellation has to be out of the control of MARL, such as PJM cancelling the project due to an inability to get approvals or meet in-service dates.  PJM could also discover in a subsequent analysis that the project is no longer needed.  If that happens, MARL would need to make another filing with FERC detailing all the money it has spent on the project and a statement that they were all prudently incurred.  If FERC approves that filing, ratepayers would have to reimburse MARL for its costs, even though nothing is ever built.

Abandonment happens all the time.  One of the most famous is the PATH project that was abandoned in 2012 before a shovel ever hit the ground.  That debacle cost ratepayers around $500M, for a project that never happened.

In deciding whether to grant the abandonment incentive, FERC evaluates project risks.  If the project presents financial or other risks to the utility, then FERC grants it.  Therefore, MARL has told FERC that its project is extremely risky in order to be granted this incentive.  Some of the things MARL told FERC:
In addition, the Project requires construction of approximately 129-line miles of 500 kV transmission lines, 24 miles of which is located in a greenfield corridor that crosses through Loudoun County, Virginia, which is one of the wealthiest counties in America. Project opposition from residents in this County is foreseeable and may result in permitting delays, undergrounding requirements that may increase the costs associated with the Project, and/or litigation over the Project’s scope and construction. The Project also spans across four different states—West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania—which will require NEET MidAtlantic Indiana to obtain necessary permits and approvals from a large number of different state and local regulatory bodies and will subject the Project to numerous different environmental and other regulatory standards and requirements. Finally, the Project is directly reliant on the construction of a 36-mile increment of 500 kV transmission lines being developed by First Energy as the incumbent transmission owner. Delays or cancellation associated with First Energy’s construction of its 36-mile increment may impact NEET MidAtlantic Indiana’s ability to obtain permits, finalize construction, and place into service the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link Project in a timely fashion. 


Additionally, the Commission has also recognized that large, new interstate projects can face substantial risks and challenges not presented by more ordinary transmission investments. Like other large interstate projects, the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link Project will span across four different states and many more localities, each with its own regulatory permitting requirements. The Project also traverses across regions of Virginia, such as Loudon County, that have traditionally been litigious when it comes to new, significant transmission build, and similar opposition is expected here. This opposition could result in Project delays or the inability to obtain certain required permits, such as a certificate of public convenience and necessity, ultimately resulting in cancellation of the Project for reasons outside of NEET MidAtlantic Indiana’s reasonable control.
Could those things happen?  Of course, but consider that MARL is making more of them for FERC's benefit.  Perhaps it's more useful as a list of vulnerable spots for opponents to attack.

The second incentive MARL requested is CWIP in ratebase.  CWIP stands for "Construction Work in Progress."  CWIP (pronounced "quip") is the financial account where all the project's capital costs are recorded until it is completed and enters service.  It can be treated two different ways.   

The first is for the company to add interest to the account each year as it slowly builds during construction, and to begin collecting the costs (plus interest) once the project goes into service.  Utilities find this difficult because they have to handle their debt until the project is finished.  It hurts their financial health to have huge amounts of unreimbursed debt on their books.  It can also hurt ratepayers because when collection begins, it can create huge, lumpy rate increases.

The second is for the company to include CWIP balances in their ratebase and earn a return (interest) on them right away, while the project is being constructed.  With this incentive, MARL will begin earning a profit on the money it spends as it spends it.  This allows MARL to pump this profit back into the project, instead of investing more of its own money or borrowing.  It helps their finances.  It can also help ratepayers because they begin paying for the project during construction, little by little, as the costs of the project add up.  Instead of a huge rate increase all at once, ratepayers pay increasing costs over time.

What's a ratebase?  Now we're going down the rabbit hole of transmission rates.  It's extremely complicated, but I'll try to give you the Cliff's Notes version.  FERC uses formula rates for transmission.  A formula rate is a formula that determines the utility's rate each year so that rates can change without a full rate process each year.  Instead of a dollar amount, the utility's rate is the formula itself.  The formula is that set of schedules, tables, and attachments that is stuck onto the end of MARL's filing.  That's MARL's formula rate.  Each year, the formula is populated with amounts from MARL's financial records and calculated using the formula to come up with an actual dollar figure.  Ratebase is the sum of all the accounts that earn a return (interest).  Ratebase, plus return, is added to the utility's Operations and Maintenance, Administrative and General costs, plus taxes, to come up with the yearly revenue requirement.  We pay the revenue requirement each year.   It is filtered through PJM's billing system and then the billing systems of the local utilities who send us our bills.  The utility must hold public rate meetings each year to present the result of their formula rate calculations.  Interested parties, described as those that pay the rates, can ask questions and submit discovery requests to see how the rate was calculated.  Yes, that includes people like us who pay an electric bill that includes some portion of these costs.  But that's all information for later...

A very simple explanation for how ratepayers pay for transmission is to liken it to the home mortgage that we're all familiar with.  The utility pays to construct the project (like the bank pays for your home) and then we pay the utility back over time, plus interest, just like we pay our home mortgage.

Because MARL made this filing so early, before its project was even approved by PJM, the window to intervene and file comments on its request for incentives has already closed.  We cannot act on it.  However, I can pretty much tell you how it's going to end... FERC will approve it and Commissioner Christie will file a statement saying that those incentives need to be re-examined and possibly cancelled.  Therefore, I can't feel too bad about not having to write another FERC filing that does no good.  Comm. Christie has got our backs.

And, in closing, I'm going to make one more observation.  As we all saw during PJM's planning process, these utilities are falling all over themselves to be selected to build new projects.  It is a COMPETITIVE process, and that only happens when participants WANT to be selected.  FERC's incentives are meant to encourage utilities to build transmission even though they may not want to, or if it is financially risky for them to do so.  Are incentives really necessary in a competitive planning process?  Without them, would these utilities still be competing to be selected?  Transmission is still incredibly profitable, even without incentives.  Transmission owners earn hefty returns on the money they invest building them.  Transmission returns on equity are set much higher than other market returns, so that building transmission is the most profitable place the utility can invest its money.  They have been as high as 16% when interest rates are up, and as low as 9% when the markets are down.  Even then, they are still much higher than anything you can find to invest your own money.  FERC returns are loosely tied to markets, so they fluctuate, but once FERC sets the ROE for a transmission project, it is set in stone until another proceeding is opened to re-examine it.  Begin a project when the market is up, and you get a high return that can persist for years, even when the markets change.  Transmission is a long-lived asset, and it is paid for by ratepayers over its useful life.  The expected life of many transmission projects is 40 years.  It's like a 40-year mortgage that we're going to have to pay.
0 Comments

PJM Given Regulatory Authority by Federal Court

12/15/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
I'm sure even PJM's jaw dropped when it read a recent court decision that essentially says that a state MUST approve a transmission project planned by PJM.  PJM has been given new power by a judge legislating from the bench.  Surprise!

In Transource Pa. LLC v. Defrank, CIVIL 1:21-CV-01101 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 6, 2023), the court determined that the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission's denial of Transource's application to build the Independence Energy Connection market efficiency project was unconstitutional.

When I first read Transource's screwy arguments appealing the PUC's decision, I laughed.  Maybe that was because I know too much about federal laws governing transmission, how the different actors relate to each other, and how PJM's planning process works to even entertain such a ridiculous argument.

Here's a clip from the overly long opinion that sums up what's at stake here:
“Defendants also argue that the PUC's decision related to siting, and not regional planning, because it was procedurally different from PJM's transmission planning process. (Id. at 12-14.) In support of this argument, they point to various ways in which PJM's process was purportedly faulty, whether by not conducting evidentiary hearings, taking sworn testimony, permitting cross-examination, or purportedly basing the benefit-to-cost analysis on stale information. (Id.) Meanwhile, the PUC's determination was based on timely information which provides, in Defendants' words, “an important procedural check on the unlitigated, un-reviewed conclusions reached by PJM.” (Id. at 13.)

If they were not allowed this important procedural check, Defendants argue, state laws would merely be a “rubber-stamp [of] every RTO-approved transmission line application.” (Id. at 14 (internal quotation marks omitted).) Defendants argue that the court need not parse the meaning of FERC's instructions in Order 1000 “because FERC has clearly instructed that its jurisdiction did not reach siting and permitting.” (Id.) Here, the PUC's decision was made “after the transmission planning process was completed. The PUC decision, therefore, was a valid exercise of its siting authority.”
”)
But yet the Court ruled that the state PUC must accept PJM's determination of "need" for this project and substitute it for any investigation of their own.  Pennsylvania's statute that the PUC operates under requires the PUC to make the following determination:
To obtain approval for their application, public utilities must satisfy the following requirements by a preponderance of the evidence:

1) That there is a need for it.
2) That it will not create an unreasonable risk of danger to the health and safety of the public.
3) That it is in compliance with applicable statutes and regulations providing for the protection of the natural resources of this Commonwealth.
4) That it will have minimum adverse environmental impact, considering the electric power needs of the public, the state of available technology and the available alternatives.
Public utilities must satisfy these criteria in the opinion of the PUC, not PJM.  Just because PJM finds a project "needed" does not obligate the PUC to make the same finding.  Transmission permitting is state jurisdictional.  The only space for FERC-regulated PJM or federal transmission permitting is under Sec. 216 of the Federal Power Act, where the U.S. Department of Energy may designate a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor in order to give FERC backstop permitting authority.  The Transource project does NOT have a corridor, therefore permitting is entirely up to the state.  In a state proceeding without a corridor designation, PJM's opinion about the project is just that -- another opinion for the PUC to consider in its evidentiary findings.  The PUC did not find PJM credible.  It was not required by state or federal law to do so.

In fact, if this absurd decision holds, then it will never be necessary for another regionally planned transmission project to ever apply for a NIETC.  It won't need one because PJM's determination of need trumps a state determination and the only thing left for the state to do is to decide where to put it.  This court has interpreted "siting" in isolation from "permitting."  It's siting AND permitting, and under Pennsylvania law, the PUC must make a determination of need before it permits.  There is absolutely NOTHING in federal law that supersedes Pennsylvania law in this area.  Federal law cannot require the PUC to defer to PJM's findings of need.

So, the PUC has 30 days to appeal this travesty.  If it does not, this precedent will be used to cut off every state utility commission from doing anything other than rubber stamping projects PJM or another FERC-approved RTO/ISO selects.  PJM is a GRID PLANNER.  It has no authority to site and permit transmission.  There is absolutely no reason for this court to give them new authority that does not exist in the law.

​This cannot stand!
0 Comments

GBE Project Delayed Another 3 Years

12/12/2023

1 Comment

 
Grain Belt Express is complaining again.  Last week it filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission against MISO, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator.  This makes the second complaint Invenergy filed against MISO regarding GBE.  The first complaint GBE filed is still languishing more than a year later.  This one will probably suffer a worse fate.

The problem is that MISO recently notified GBE that it was changing the date for connecting GBE to the MISO transmission system from December 1, 2027 to December 1, 2030 based on MISO's determination that some of the Network Upgrades that are required by MISO for Grain Belt's interconnection may not be ready by 2027.   GBE says it will have its project built in 2028 and wants MISO to allow it to connect some smaller portion of its capacity that does not rely on the Network Upgrades at that time.

MISO's rules do not allow for this kind of "limited operation," therefore MISO cannot grant it without changing its rules.  In order to change its rules, MISO must complete its stakeholder process, which can take years to talk about the rule changes, vote on the rule changes, get the rule changes approved by FERC, before they can become effective.  That's probably going to take longer than 2030 because MISO has a lot on its plate.

GBE tries to tell FERC that other system operators permit limited operation, therefore MISO should, too.  Too bad GBE never raised this issue and asked for this rule when the rules for merchant transmission were being made.  It is what it is... GBE cannot connect to MISO until 2030.  That's 7 years from now.

But what about those "Network Upgrades" that got delayed and required pushing GBE's interconnection out until 2030?  What are those upgrades?  According to GBE's complaint:
The Ameren upgrades involve two new 345 kV Montgomery-Burns transmission lines for which GBX will pay $126.5 million. The total cost of all upgrades that GBX is funding under the TCA is $217 million. In addition to permitting the two new Ameren transmission lines, Ameren mentioned some concerns about scheduling outages in connection with these lines and coordinating with AECI, which is an Affected System. 
Well, what do you know... two MORE 345kV transmission lines caused by GBE and that GBE needs to have built in order to connect its project.  First there was the GBE itself, then there was the 40-mile Tiger connector and now TWO 345kV lines connecting the new Burns substation in Callaway County to the existing Montgomery substation to the east.  Where is the Montgomery substation?
Picture
These 2 new 345kV transmission lines are the financial responsibility of GBE, but will be built by Ameren in its service territory.  Therefore, Ameren has to get them permitted by the PSC.  More landowners are going to be affected with new transmission only made necessary because of GBE.  But will these new landowners be entitled to 150% of fair market value?  What problems are going to crop up during permitting of these new lines?  Is it going to take them as long to get permitted as all the other GBE lines?  No wonder the connection date has been pushed out until 2030.

Grain Belt Express -- spreading the misery to thousands of landowners across Missouri for at least 20 years.  Will GBE even be relevant by then?
1 Comment

PJM's Board Approved New Transmission Projects - Now What?

12/12/2023

0 Comments

 
Yesterday, PJM's Board of Managers quietly approved over $5B of new transmission designed to import electricity created by coal, gas, and nuclear to Virginia's data center alley and the Baltimore area, where thousands of megawatts of coal-fired power plants are set to close next year.  New industrial load and closure of dirty generators is being solved by importing dirty generation from other states to the DC-metro area, an area that likes to pretend it's embracing clean energy and lowering its carbon emissions.  Hardly.  Clean energy policy is all smoke and mirrors... literally.

First, let's look at PJM's announcement.
The proposed solution includes new substations, new transmission lines and improvements to existing facilities. A majority of the project components use existing facilities and rights of way (through either repurposing/rebuilding existing assets or paralleling existing rights of way, which can reduce costs and minimize impacts to local areas). There are sections that would be new construction on land without existing transmission lines, known as greenfield development.
Well, that's a complete and total lie.  Apparently I have found the weak spot.  Paralleling existing transmission lines with new transmission lines on greenfield ROWs does NOTHING to reduce costs.  How so, PJM?  A new greenfield project would cost the same no matter where it is sited.  In addition, wreck and rebuild projects that expand existing ROW have additional costs of tearing down the existing line before a new one can be built.  As far as "minimizing impacts" that is also a huge lie.  Transmission lines are not like Lay's Potato Chips where you can't just have one.  Continuing to expand existing transmission corridors is the antithesis of environmental justice.  Nobody who lives with one (or more) transmission line across their property wants another one.  Impacts can actually be GREATER when paralleling existing ROWs because ROW expansion further intrudes into the host's land and gobbles up things built outside the current ROW, such as fences, barns, playsets, swimming pools, and water wells and septic fields.  Loss of water and sewer makes a property uninhabitable.  Expansion of existing corridors is like living next to an active volcano... they slowly expand until they overtake you altogether.  Just remember, if a utility builds transmission through your property, you are subject to another, and another, and another.  Not fair for you, not fair for anyone else.
PJM does not site the facilities or transmission lines nor determine their routes. This is the next step in the process and will be completed by the developers designated by PJM to construct the projects.
That's right.  I've been saying this over and over, but here's one more for the road.  The next thing the transmission company assigned the project will do is a detailed routing study that attempts to avoid homes and other structures, parks, historic resources, public land and environmental constraints.  What comes out of that process is a collection of competing short route segments that can be pieced together to form the actual proposed route.  The transmission company expects you all to fight with each other over these route segments in order to push it out of your own backyard and into your neighbor's.  The company asks you to comment on individual segments with the hope of finding the ones with the least objections.  Tough luck for you if you live on one of them.  Once the proposed route is established, the transmission company will file an application with the jurisdictional state utility commission.  The company asks that the commission approve the route and issue a permit to build the project.  This is a long, court-like process in which impacted parties can participate, either with or without a lawyer.  It is recommended that you do participate, if nothing else simply to preserve your right to appeal a decision you don't agree with.
Picture
And take a look at those cost allocation tables in the attachments to PJM's announcement (Page 55). The lion's share (44%)  of the more than $5B cost will be paid for by Dominion's customers.  However, more than 10% will be paid for by customers in PJM's APS region, which includes not only portions of northwestern Virginia, but also more than half of West Virginia and big chunks of Pennsylvania.  Why are struggling communities in rural areas paying for a giant chunk of transmission that benefits some of the richest corporations in the world, such as Amazon, Google and Facebook?  West Virginia and Pennsylvania are not getting any benefit whatsoever, except what little bit of "reliability" leaks out from keeping the data centers and plant closures from crashing the grid altogether.  Why do others have to pay to shore up something that someone else broke?  This is not like historic load growth that came in small and widely dispersed increments and therefore affected the region at large.  This is like plunking a large city down all at once and plugging it in.  We can (and PJM has) point right to the cause of the new transmission.  Least they can do is pick up their own costs.  It is no longer just and reasonable to expect everyone to pay for the damage done by the few.  And if you think that's bad, check out the regional load ratio share allocations -- a portion of the costs that is allocated across the entire PJM region.
Picture
These are all the other utilities who have to pay a portion of the costs for new transmission to serve data centers.  You can locate these utility acronyms on this map.
Picture
Check out the ComEd region, for instance.  This utility in northern Illinois will pay for 13.39% of the shared costs, a larger load-ratio share than Dominion (13.32%).  Imagine how they feel about paying for transmission that supports new data centers in Northern Virginia and closing coal plants in Baltimore.

If you're totally confused by PJM's cost allocation system, just wait... there's bound to be some fireworks when PJM asks for FERC approval to allocate the cost this way.  More about that when it happens.  For now it's enough to know that PJM's historic cost allocation system does NOT work for these projects and therefore must be changed in order to remain just and reasonable.

PJM's White Paper (that they managed to hide until AFTER the Board meeting) pretends that your participation mattered.  Look what it said:
Project needs and recommended solutions as discussed in this report were reviewed with stakeholders during 2023, most recently at the October 31, 2023, and December 5, 2023, TEAC meetings. Written comments were requested to be submitted to PJM to communicate any concerns with project recommendations. All correspondence addressed to the PJM Board are available at the Board communications page.
All your letters to the Board got filtered through the TEAC and summarized.  The Board didn't read any of them.  I'm thinking that muzzling of stakeholders is NOT in PJM's beloved Manual of procedures.  Therefore, it most likely violates the rules it is supposed to follow that have been approved by FERC.  Anyone can file a complaint about that.

So, despite our best efforts, the PJM Board has approved the Window 3 projects.  Now what?

The real battle is just beginning.  Buckle up... it's likely to last for years.  Delay is our friend.  The enemy of our enemy is also our friend.  All of this will become crystal clear in due time.

But what should you do right now?  Reach out to your neighbor, ask them to reach out to their neighbor.  Form neighborhood groups that coalesce into town groups that coalesce into county groups that coalesce into state groups that coalesce into multi-state groups.  We're all family now.  Gather your people.  

And then circle the wagons.  Transmission opposition is as much a strategy battle as any other.  Keep your strategy discussions private.  The transmission companies will be desperate to know what you're planning so they can try to beat you to the punch.  They will infiltrate your groups and stalk you online in the creepiest way possible.  But don't be so paranoid that you aren't accessible to new folks.  There are layers to transmission opposition information dissemination.  After you meet a few of the utility wonks at transmission company public meetings you may be able to recognize them for what they are when they manage to infiltrate meetings.  I think after 15 years, I can practically SMELL them when they sneak into the room.  Once, I was guest speaking at a public meeting for a group when I noticed a guy way in the back row that positively screamed "utility guy" to me.  It wasn't so much his look as it was his behavior.  After I was done speaking, I pointed him out to the host leader and she told me he did work for a utility, but that he was secretly on their side.  Lesson:  not all utility nerds are bad guys, but there are plenty that are going to frustrate you and try your patience.  Take a deep breath.  Find the humor in the situation.  It helps.

When you've got your group together, feel free to ask me, "What's next?"  However, let's keep that out of public social media groups and out of public blogs.  I'm always available to answer questions or provide advice.

WE CAN DO THIS!

​
Picture
0 Comments

PJM Meeting Aftermath

12/7/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
Here's another letter to PJM's Board of Managers, one that comes AFTER Tuesday's 8 hour Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee meeting.

If you attended that meeting hoping your participation could affect change, you can share this attendee's pain and disillusionment.

PJM deserves every.last.word of this letter...
​Dear Board Members,

I was a phone call member for yesterday's meeting. Yep, the entire meeting. I listened to the initial acknowledgement of the hundreds of letters you received. The slight defensive tone was hard to dismiss. I heard what was said about "once the Board approves the plan" more opportunity will arise for the public to voice there concerns. I also did note, you welcomed phone calls in and then moved onto your presentation. 

I listened to the need to retire some equipment nearing the end of it's life and the need for the massive output in the near future. I heard quotes of millions of dollars being passed around like Monopoly money, if I'm honest. We all know the true source of those finances. I also heard how and why we need the additional extensions and how soon those should be in place.

What I felt was completely ignored was the elephant in the room; the people being effected by this massive build. I followed Keryn Newman's line of questioning perfectly; what happens to the folks who loose their drain fields or the viability of their wells with the expansion process? The gentleman couldn't answer. He didn't have one. Crickets. What happens to the woman off Short Hill Mountain that already puts up with these towers and now is possibly slated for an extension to run south off her property as well. Where are the studies to show the placement of these towers are safe for Indigenous wildlife, showing it's safe for children playing near by, and even equally important, how the people living in these paths are supposed to maintain their quality of life.

It was evident that more studies for an accurate path were formulating and town halls were going to be promoted, BUT, the cow will be out of the barn at that point. Once a project is passed rarely are we able to go back and discount it. I felt the meeting was merely checking boxes; you allowed public transparency, as well as opportunities to ask questions, placated opposition and now you were simply going to proceed how you initially wanted. Us be damned. 

PJM, please find another way to get your power where it needs to go. I think the township of Waterford has the most serious claim, HOWEVER, that does not make the rest of us of less value. I implore you to do the right thing. 
0 Comments

Take a Ride on PJM's Gaslight Express

12/6/2023

0 Comments

 
Yesterday, I took another ride on PJM's Gaslight Express, also known as the Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee meeting.  There's just something exhausting about an 8 hour meeting where automatons read out loud from documents you've already read to yourself.  When followed by Q&A that one participant likened to "nailing jello to the wall," you can lose all will to live. Thank goodness that farce is over for the time being!
Picture
Yesterday's meeting began with a speech by someone named Susan.  Susan did not have a last name or a job title (although we are required to say our names and affiliations each time we speak during a meeting).  Susan must be quite famous, like Cher, or Prince, although I've never heard of her in the 15 years I've been doing transmission.  Susan said that poor PJM has a problem because too much coal/gas generation is closing down in Eastern PJM and solar is not replacing it "one for one."  In other words, shutting down an 800 MW coal-fired plant in Baltimore is NOT being replaced with solar (or wind or storage or any other renewable).  Therefore, the only thing PJM can do is build transmission.

When I "asked a question" and reframed what Susan said to apply to the entire PJM region, a different PJM guy jumped in to say that was wrong.  Why was it only wrong when I said it and not the famous Susan?  Is it me?  Is it you?  Or are we all going to sit here in the dark in 10 years and say, "We should have listened to Susan!"  I stated that PJM is building transmission to existing coal and gas plants in WV and PA in order to replace the generation that is shutting down in Baltimore.  This is a game of hot potato, because the generation in WV and PA will soon follow the generation in Baltimore as we head further down the "clean energy" path.  At some point, there will be NO generation left.  What happens then?
Picture
PJM changed its tune and, according to Loudoun Now,

Seiler said they were not replacing coal fire generation with coal fire generation from somewhere else.“It’s actually coming from the entire region that includes a mixture of fuel types including wind, solar, batteries, combined cycle gas units, and nuclear power plants as well,” he said.

Except there is not enough wind, solar and batteries in any of the places the new lines go to replace the coal fired generation, just like there wasn't enough of it to replace the generation that closed in Baltimore.  Here's PJM's current fuel mix:
Picture
As usual, PJM's load is sucking up the juice produced by coal, gas and nuclear, just the kind of resources that WV and PA are producing in excess.  Baltimore is only producing solar anymore.  So, don't tell me that Baltimore is replacing its coal with solar and wind from WV and PA.  It's just not believable and it doesn't even make sense.  It's nothing but gaslighting.

I asked the age of the 500 kV transmission line in my neighborhood that FirstEnergy is going to do some work on soon.  FirstEnergy will be replacing some old station equipment that doesn't function correctly anymore.  I wondered if the entire line, including the lines (conductor), maybe could use some updating to increase its capacity.  FirstEnergy has no idea of the age of one of its largest transmission assets.  Shut down that discussion, and turn up the gas.

I asked a series of questions about several of the PJM projects in this plan.  They were simple questions that deserved simple answers.  Instead, I got at least 10 minutes of double speak and still don't know the answers I was seeking.

First, I wanted to know how many high-voltage transmission lines currently exist in the Doubs-Goose Creek transmission line corridor in Frederick and Montgomery Counties, Maryland, and how many would be added by PJM's plan.  Existing now:  1- 500kV line and 2- 230kV lines.  After PJM's new plan:  2-500kV lines and 1- 230kV line.  Maybe.  I'm really not sure because the gas was turned up so high it was hard to find an answer in the toxic cloud.  I asked this question because PJM has insinuated that the greenfield 500kV line (Project 853) through Western Loudoun may have to be re-routed east onto Doubs-Goose Creek.  If that happens, the corridor would have 3- 500kV lines and one or 2- 230kV lines.  That's like over 2000kV of electricity in one corridor that may be 250 ft. wide at the most.  This corridor runs through private property, next to homes, schools, and other parts of the built community in Frederick and Montgomery Counties, MD.  The people who live there aren't going to like it anymore than the folks in Western Loudoun like a single 500kV line.  I asked why PJM thought moving the line from VA to MD because of opposition would somehow create a different result?  And that's when PJM really turned up the gas and I lost consciousness.

I asked what PJM was ALREADY building between Aspen and Golden due to the fact that it was not only in PJM's most recent package of projects, but also being actively opposed by residents of Lansdowne.  PJM started talking about Mars and Wishing Star and a different immediate need project already in the works, but said that project had nothing to do with Aspen to Golden.  That's good news for the NoTowerson7 folks I suppose... they are opposing a transmission project that doesn't exist!  I hope somebody lets Dominion know so they stop trying to build it.  Or maybe they also need some of PJM's gas?

And finally, I asked about the new 500kV transmission line across Jefferson County, WV.  As proposed by NextEra, it would expand the easement by 30 feet.  But since PJM has now awarded that project to FirstEnergy, is FirstEnergy held to that same amount of expansion, or can they expand the easement 50 feet, 100 feet, 500 feet?  I got a lot of nonsense in response that basically indicated that FirstEnergy can build whatever it wants, but PJM also said that FirstEnergy has promised them that it can do the rebuild WITHOUT EXPANDING THE EASEMENT AT ALL.  I guess FirstEnergy has their own supply of special gas because PJM acted like they believe that, even though I remember that we found out during PATH that the existing 138kV easement is only 75 feet.  I don't see a double-circuit 500/138kV on lattice towers fitting in there without easement expansion.  When FirstEnergy bid to install a new 500kV line on that corridor, they asked for a new 165 ft. easement.  But PJM chooses to believe whatever it wants to believe for now.

I also asked PJM when we would see the cost allocation table for these new projects.  PJM indicated that would either be part of the white paper for the Board, or issued shortly after the Board approves the projects.  Then, of course, I asked where we would find the white paper.  I think it may appear in the TEAC documents, but like all "answers" PJM issued yesterday, it was about as clear as mud.  The white paper will be written by the TEAC for the education of the Board of Managers before they make their decision on December 11.  In it, the TEAC makes its recommendation and summarizes the issues for the Board.  Do you think the Board is going to read all the other reports, and all the letters you have written, or just rely on the TEAC's summary to make its decision?  Pretend you're a busy Board member when you imagine this scenario.  The TEAC guys even gaslight their own Board of Managers to manipulate the decision they want.

That said, I hope everyone paid close attention to the nonsense Sami was spewing when "answering" my question about pushing the greenfield portion of 853 over onto the Doubs corridor.  I heard that such a re-routing is almost a given at this point... but maybe it was the gas.

I thought I was done asking questions, but I couldn't resist poking the guy giving detail about the 853 project in Jefferson County.  I explained the problem with expanding existing rights-of-way into the backyards of people who live along the existing line.  Expanding into their backyard is going to take their well, septic system, and anything else they have built in their own backyard because those things are not compatible with transmission easements.  But that was jumped on by the gaslighters, who pretended they did not understand the problem with calling new greenfield easements parallel to existing ones "brownfield."  I've brought this up endlessly!  The "answer" is that we cannot assume those things are going to happen, therefore they are not an issue.  Let's pretend they won't happen!  But they WILL happen.  I know at least one person for whom that is REAL right now.  But if PJM ignores it now, it would only surface later, when there's no chance to correct it.  That's what PJM prefers.  So there is going to be a long string of homes in Jefferson County without water or sewer, or both.  Essentially, these homes will no longer be suitable to live in.  What's the compensation for that and why would ratepayers have to pay for that routing error that could have been corrected from the beginning?

I could hear someone over the phone trying to ask a question who was being ignored.  Found out who it was and put her name in the webex queue.  She asked where the turning point for 853 from brownfield to greenfield was because she suspected it was in her front yard, based on the maps and narrative.  They turned up the gas for her, too, and pretended those details haven't been worked out.  If that's not worked out, how can any of these cost estimates be anywhere near accurate?  Good question!  FirstEnergy is building the brownfield part, and NextEra is building the greenfield part.  Where one stops and the other begins is a crucial fact for cost estimates.  She never did get an answer to her question.  She's just supposed to live in limbo until the utilities and PJM work this out sometime AFTER project approval by the Board of Managers.

Like trying to nail jello to the wall.  That's a perfect description for PJM's "stakeholder engagement."  They spew a bunch of nonsense but none of it is relevant or sensible.  And that summarizes the whole of yesterday's meeting.

PJM is not going to change its mind about these projects before sending them to the Board of Managers for approval.  I didn't expect any different.  My only reason for bothering with this meeting is to try to get some clarity on certain issues.  PJM couldn't even provide that.

Next up... the Board of Managers will make their decision on December 11.  The TEAC wants you to think that's all a done deal and that the Board will simply rubber stamp whatever TEAC asks for... because the lights will go out unless they do.  Is it really that simple?  Does the independent Board ever think for themselves?  Do they ever question the gaslit nonsense they are fed by the TEAC?  At least we'll get that question answered next week.
0 Comments
<<Previous

    About the Author

    Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.
    In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history.

    About
    StopPATH Blog

    StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project.  The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

    StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view.  If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty.  People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself.  If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

    Got something to say?  Submit your own opinion for publication.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories

    All
    $$$$$$
    2023 PJM Transmission
    Aep Vs Firstenergy
    Arkansas
    Best Practices
    Best Practices
    Big Winds Big Lie
    Can Of Worms
    Carolinas
    Citizen Action
    Colorado
    Corporate Propaganda
    Data Centers
    Democracy Failures
    DOE Failure
    Emf
    Eminent Domain
    Events
    Ferc Action
    FERC Incentives Part Deux
    Ferc Transmission Noi
    Firstenergy Failure
    Good Ideas
    Illinois
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Land Agents
    Legislative Action
    Marketing To Mayberry
    MARL
    Missouri
    Mtstorm Doubs Rebuild
    Mtstormdoubs Rebuild
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    Newslinks
    NIETC
    Opinion
    Path Alternatives
    Path Failures
    Path Intimidation Attempts
    Pay To Play
    Potomac Edison Investigation
    Power Company Propaganda
    Psc Failure
    Rates
    Regulatory Capture
    Skelly Fail
    The Pjm Cartel
    Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes
    Transource
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.