The Trump administration could help by pushing for an infrastructure package that would see the government “buying down a portion of the capacity” on big transmission projects so they can enter construction more quickly, or perhaps through an investment tax credit, Skelly suggests.

“All the ideas come down to a temporary underwriting of the project so you can get these things over the top, or some sort of tax mechanism.”

Plains & Eastern is “pretty much fully developed at this point”, Skelly says. “We’re now in the commercialisation phase, matching chippers – that is wind developers – with utilities in the southeast.”

“It’s still a bit early to tell exactly what the administration will do to stimulate more infrastructure investment,” Skelly says. “But in terms of the things they’re talking about, with private-sector-led projects, it forms a pretty nice Venn diagram with transmission.”

Our Mission

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) is the association that represents all U.S. investor-owned electric companies. Our members provide electricity for 220 million Americans, and operate in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a whole, the electric power industry supports more than 7 million jobs in communities across the United States. In addition to our U.S. members, EEI has more than 60 international electric companies as International Members, and hundreds of industry suppliers and related organizations as Associate Members.
 
Organized in 1933, EEI provides public policy leadership, strategic business intelligence, and essential conferences and forums.

Our Vision
EEI will be the best trade association.

We will be the best because we are committed to knowing our members and their needs. We will provide leadership and deliver services that consistently meet or exceed their expectations.

We will be the best because we will attract and retain employees who have the ambition to serve and will empower them to work effectively as individuals and in teams.

Above all, we will be the best trade association because, in the tradition of Thomas Edison, we will make a significant and positive contribution to the long-term success of the electric power industry in its vital mission to provide electricity to foster economic progress and improve the quality of life.

When third-party organizations or public service commission staffs have attempted to protect ratepayers from funding political organizations in recent years, their attempts have met with fierce resistance from the utility companies.

This report explores how regulated utility companies are including their Edison Electric Institute (EEI) annual payments, along with payments to other trade associations, in their operating expenses. The widespread practice forces ratepayers to pay for political and public relations activities with which they may not agree, and from which they do not benefit. It also has the effect of ratepayers subsidizing the political activities of EEI and other trade associations. Utility commissions have a responsibility to protect ratepayers from paying for industry groups and their political work along with public relations activities. But utilities have become adroit at using EEI, and other organizations, to effectively and quietly influence policy while sheltering their shareholders from the bulk of the associated costs. Almost no other political organizations have the luxury of subsidization enjoyed by EEI and other representatives of the regulated utility industry.

The evidence in this report reveals that EEI is primarily and inherently a political organization, and that much of its work targets policymakers throughout all levels of government to build influence, specifically for their member companies but also for the industry at large. While many states have their established practices of how to code trade association dues, they should revisit outdated guidelines due to the nature of EEI’s modern activities to ensure that they are adequately protecting ratepayers. Throughout the past three decades, some regulators and consumer advocates have acted to protect ratepayers, but scrutiny has waned dramatically. Precedent exists for public officials to act in every state to investigate whether or not EEI’s inherently political work ought to be funded by ratepayers.

For years the citizens of Maryland have been waiting to find out whether the Public Service Commission really cares about justice and protecting the public. We have our answer. The answer is NO!

The Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) in their recent Order has taken a position in support of Potomac Edison (PE) on the major issue, against ratepayers’ interests. The Commissioners’ decision is in conflict with both their own Judge’s determination and the West Virginia Public Service Commissioners on the same issue.

The most important decision on this matter was whether or not to require PE to read meters monthly. The PSC Commissioners, as usual, supported the utility company when they overturned the Order issued by the Judge who heard the case.

This should have been expected because in every meeting and mediation, PE’s attorney would declare that PE will not do monthly reads! Apparently lawyers and attorneys trump justice every time! We now know our PSC stands for money in politicians’ and big businesses’ pockets without concern for the problems and concerns of the people or justice at all.

As a brief history, in May 2012, as President of Sugarloaf Conservancy (Doug) filed a formal complaint with the PSC asking them to “establish a formal case to investigate this matter” in response to members’ complaints about PE meter reading practices.  These practices included the failure of the company to read meters bimonthly as required, using inaccurate estimations, which caused substantial over and under billings. Both situations have negative ramifications causing harm to those who can least afford to pay overcharges or large catch-up bills.

A case was finally opened in April 2013. After years of delay the Judge in May 2016 ruled against PE. In part of his Order he stated, “I find that PE's meter reading tariff must be modified to require an actual reading on a monthly schedule...” (as is the case with all other electric utilities in Maryland).  PE appealed the Judge’s Order. A year passed without any decision by the Commissioners. On May 16th, in a letter sent to the PSC, we insisted they fulfill their obligation. Finally on June 19th, the PSC issued an Order.

The Order upholds most of the findings of the Judge’s ruling, including that PE must submit a monthly report for 24 months; pay a minor penalty of $25,000; offer a payment plan to those customers who receive a substantially low estimate bill, followed by a substantial catch up bill the following month; modify their bill to clearly show when an estimate occurs and the reason for not reading the meter.  The reversal of the Judge’s Order to require PE to read meters monthly is in stark contrast to a similar case in West Virginia. West Virginia took less than a month to open a case after the issue was raised whereas the Maryland PSC waited a year after we asked for an investigation; Maryland dragged out the case for four years before the Commissioners issued a final Order; West Virginia issued a comprehensive ruling against PE including the requirement that they read meters on a monthly basis after only a year.  Maryland PSC Order required PE address only 4 areas of concern whereas in West Virginia their PSC hit PE on twelve major requirements.

There is great concern that this slap on the wrist will embolden PE to resume their past business practices, which have caused severe harm to so many.  Unfortunately the losers will be the senior citizens on a fixed income and the poor who can least afford to either pay for electricity they have not consumed or be hit with a sizable catch-up bill.  The Commissioners, through this Order, confirmed their past history of supporting utility companies at the expense of ratepayers in Maryland. This pattern should be disturbing to everyone and unfortunately will not likely change.

Slane acknowledged, though, he didn’t know about the legal dispute between Minnesota and North Dakota.

Other high-profile projects listed from around the country are entangled in legal and political problems, too.

A proposed high-power transmission line that would deliver wind energy from Oklahoma to several southeastern states is under fire. The federal government approved the line in 2016 despite objections from landowners and the Arkansas Congressional delegation.

Since then, several landowners have sued to stop the line and several members of Congress introduced legislation that would require projects to receive state approval. Officials representing the company believe the line will be approved.

And private investors are not going to build the projects without a return on investment, which might come from tolls for a new road or higher utility rates for an energy project, for example.

Greg DiLoreto with the American Society of Civil Engineers says that difference is important.

“Financing infrastructure is not the funding of infrastructure,” he said. “Financing is access to capital to do that funding, but at the end of the day you have to have cold, hard cash to build these projects that need building…”

The PSC said the two projects are expected to yield more than $1.8 billion of in-state spending. The agency says the projects are estimated to create nearly 9,700 new direct and indirect jobs and contribute $74 million in state tax revenues over 20 years.

The PSC's decision is contingent on approval by the federal government of the developers' site assessment plans, as well as construction and operations plans.

The plan includes a focus on developing port facilities in the Baltimore area and Ocean City. It calls for developers to invest at least $76 million in a steel fabrication plant in Maryland and at least $39.6 million for upgrades at Baltimore County's Tradepoint Atlantic shipyard, formerly Sparrows Point.

Commissioner Michael Richard said the wind farms will "enables us to meet our clean, renewable energy goals using energy generated within the state while conditioning our approval on holding project developers to their promises of creating jobs and spurring economic growth."

Congress should create legislative authority for siting major electricity transmission lines that follows the authority it has already granted to siting major gas lines.

For starters, there is this claim: “With more than 640,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines across the three interconnected electric transmission grids … the lower 48 states’ power grid is at full capacity, with many lines operating well beyond their design.”

The fact is that 0 (zero) transmission lines are being operated beyond their design capacity. The grid has been and continues to be designed and constructed to cover projected peak demand years in advance. And every line is operated within its design limits. The ASCE claim is alarmist and wrong.

When Donald Trump and Mike Pence met this month to discuss a promised $1 trillion infrastructure plan, the Cabinet Room was filled with half a dozen billionaire executives, from Tesla’s Elon Musk to Steve Roth, a New York developer and longtime friend to the president.

One person who wasn’t there? The man who worked for months to line up priority infrastructure projects for the Trump transition team.

Just a few weeks earlier, Dan Slane had been jetting around the country — on his own dime — to meet with governors, contractors, investors, labor union officials and others eager to influence Trump’s infrastructure plan. He developed a 50-project proposal filled with exactly the kind of “shovel-ready” investments the White House wanted – the kind that needed regulatory relief, not federal dollars.

But as Trump’s attention turns to infrastructure after suffering defeat on his first policy priority, the White House will not even acknowledge Slane, except to say he has “no official or unofficial role” in the administration. He says his infrastructure plan, and indeed his very connection to the president, has become the victim of a power struggle for control of this big-ticket infrastructure agenda between Peter Navarro, a Trump loyalist and economic populist who advised his campaign, and Gary Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs president who now runs the National Economic Council.

Anderson’s company had compiled a list of 100 top infrastructure projects with input from senior-level investors, engineers and developers. The list would have been offered to whichever presidential candidate had won in November, Anderson said.

A week after Trump’s unexpected win, Anderson found a white paper online that Navarro and now-Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had written for the Trump campaign. It proposed tax credits to fund infrastructure. He emailed Navarro, and offered some suggestions.

“Navarro asked Dan to talk to me the next day,” Anderson said.

Slane, who was working without a staff, asked Anderson to help him screen a list of projects Navarro wanted for the administration. Anderson in turn hired Boston Consulting Group to analyze how many direct and indirect jobs each project would create.

Playing the liaison

Leaders at the state and local level, and executives at the National Governors Association, thought they had been working with the White House, through Slane.

Paul Aucoin, executive director of the Southern Louisiana Port, said he assumed Slane was a shoo-in for a White House infrastructure job when he met him at Anderson’s offices in Washington in December.

Aucoin made the trip to DC to promote his port and try to secure federal assistance to dredge the mouth of the Mississippi River.

The meeting with Slane had been arranged for Aucoin by the public relations firm of Gary Meltz, a former aide to Democratic Rep. Eliot L. Engel of New York.

Slane introduced himself as a member of the Trump transition, and Aucoin made his pitch.

Slane promised to get the dredging project on the list he and Anderson were compiling for the transition.

“They were very receptive, they got it, they understood what I was saying, they asked all the right questions,” Aucoin said. “It wasn’t like I was talking to a wall. I was finally talking to some one who understood what I was trying to say.”

Later Slane would visit the port and meet with Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards. He reassured Edwards and Aucoin that congressional Republicans would pledge money to the project from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. That promise that has yet to be fulfilled.

Aucoin said he’s since hired a lobbying firm in Washington that was working on getting him a meeting with Gribbin.

“It was a blow for us to lose Dan,” Aucoin said.

"When the Trump campaign was looking at infrastructure, we thought it was a good thing to mention. We're just happy to be part of the conversation."

Sean McGarvey, president of North America’s Building Trades Unions, said his organization consulted with Slane on his plan. His union delivered to the White House its own list of priority infrastructure projects in February, after meeting with Trump.

“The way Dan framed it was really good because Dan took projects that had all funding but lacked permitting or some who had permitting,” McGarvey said.

“He did a lot of thoughtful work on the initial ready-to-go, out-of-the gate stuff,” he said. “The projects that Dan was talking about really don’t require a new infrastructure bill. Those are ones that exist, that are both private and public, and have the three elements you need: the financing, the engineering, and permitting. And some of them will happen this year.”

Based on PJM’s assessment of the contribution to the need for, and benefits expected to be derived from, the facilities, the zonal percentage cost allocation for 2017 (January 1, 2017 through April 15, 2017) is...

Opposition to Va. Tx Line May Trigger Unintended Consequences

Sometimes the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.

Protesters of a 500-kV transmission line across the James River might soon learn that the hard way. PJM is responding to the delay in the project’s approval by instituting a multilayered strategy likely to hurt ratepayers in Virginia’s middle peninsula disproportionate to any perceived benefits that could come from blocking construction of the line.

At a series of committee meetings last week, PJM staff detailed several other changes for the area that will have consequences protesters likely haven’t imagined.

Acting as a neutral, independent party, PJM operates a competitive wholesale electricity market and manages the high-voltage electricity grid to ensure reliability for more than 65 million people.

PJM works closely with stakeholders throughout the development of the RTEP. Stakeholder input is a key part of the PJM planning process. The Skiffes Creek project was reviewed in numerous open meetings of the PJM Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee where public comment was sought prior to approval of the project by the PJM Board. As part of that process, Dominion transmission staff provided PJM its own thorough and comprehensive analysis of system needs as well as potential solutions for PJM consideration. Most importantly however, the Dominion analysis, which itself was based on PJM’s initial determination of reliability criteria violations that needed to be addressed, was then independently validated by PJM and publicly vetted through the PJM stakeholder process prior to PJM recommending Board approval of the Skiffes Creek project.