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

FirstEnergy Scheme to Pass Risk to West Virginians

8/6/2016

1 Comment

 
It's a risk hot potato.  While some states have deregulated electricity generation, others have not.  This makes for two different economic schemes for power plants.  In the deregulated scenario, plants compete with each other to sell power in electric markets.  A deregulated plant's income is derived from what it earns.  Earnings minus the cost of producing power equals profit.  But a regulated plant comes with a guaranteed profit.  Regulation takes the place of a competitive market to guarantee a generator a fair return (but no more).  A regulated plant is guaranteed to collect its cost of producing power, plus a fair return, to generate a set amount of profit.

When power market prices are high, deregulated plants earn more, because there is no regulated cap on the amount they can earn.  However, when power market prices are low, regulated plants earn more, because they are guaranteed to earn a certain amount over their cost of service.

A deregulated plant must cover its own operation costs, everything it earns above its cost to produce power is profit.  The owner of the plant shoulders all the risk of operating a plant that doesn't produce adequate profit.  If a plant cannot produce adequate profit, it fails economically and will likely close.

A regulated plant's operation costs are covered by ratepayers.  If the plant fails to produce an adequate profit margin, it can continue to operate because it is guaranteed to collect its operating costs and a small profit from ratepayers.  The ratepayers shoulder all risk of operating a plant that doesn't produce adequate profit.  It cannot fail economically because the ratepayers are there to make up any shortfalls between the cost to produce power, and the market price of that power.

It's all about who shoulders the economic risk. 

FirstEnergy used to love deregulated plants when power prices were high.  FirstEnergy made huge profits.  But then power prices started falling because generators that were cheaper to operate entered the market.  FirstEnergy's plants use coal for fuel.  New plants use cheaper natural gas for fuel.  Suddenly, FirstEnergy's deregulated coal-fired plants weren't economic any longer and couldn't cover their operating costs and still generate a profit.  In a pure market situation, these plants would close.  However, FirstEnergy has been looking for ways to transfer their deregulated plants into a regulated system, so they can continue to operate at a loss, courtesy of electric ratepayers.  FirstEnergy wants to transfer its risk from the company to ratepayers.
“We cannot put investors and our company at risk.”
So said FirstEnergy CEO Chatty Chuck Jones during a conference with the company's stockholders.  The company is planning to transfer its unprofitable Pleasants coal-fired plant into West Virginia's regulated system so that the company no longer has any risk associated with owning it.

If it's too risky for FirstEnergy's shareholders, it's too risky for West Virginia consumers.  We simply cannot afford to shoulder more risk for the Ohio power conglomerate.  Several years ago, FirstEnergy was successful in transferring its failing Harrison Power Station into West Virginia's regulated system.  West Virginians are now paying above-market prices to operate it, and sell excess power into the regional market.  Electric bills increased to cover the cost of owning and operating the plant (and paying for a whole bunch of maintenance on the plant that FirstEnergy deferred because the plant was losing money), plus a guaranteed profit for FirstEnergy.

Late last year, FirstEnergy filed its Integrated Resource Plan with the WV Public Service Commission.  The IRP is a long-range plan by the company detailing how it plans to acquire the generation resources necessary to meet the needs of West Virginia customers.  In its plan, it contended that buying another coal-fired power plant from its parent company was the best option for the customers.  Other parties intervened to argue against it, but the Commission ultimately approved the plan, noting that actually buying the coal-fired plant would necessitate another filing and review by the Commission and parties could argue against it at that time.

However, during the last coal-fired power plant purchase case for Harrison, the company contended that there wasn't time to issue a request for proposals to solicit power supply contracts from other generators that may compete with Harrison to produce the lowest cost for West Virginia ratepayers.  Therefore, Harrison stood alone as the only "solution."

Since the PSC neglected to require the company to solicit competitive bids for supply as part of its IRP, when is an RFP supposed to happen?  It can't happen during the IRP, because it's too early in the process.  But yet it can't happen when supply is needed, because it's too late in the process.

The Staff of the PSC and the West Virginia Consumer Advocate say the time is now.  They have jointly filed a request that the company be required to file RFPs for all future capacity and energy requirements above a certain threshold.  If West Virginians deserve to pay the cheapest prices for the power they need, then the company should be required to solicit competitive bids.

But the company doesn't want to.  FirstEnergy wants to sell its Pleasants power station to West Virginians without any competition.  That's not fair, or in the best interests of West Virginia ratepayers.  FirstEnergy is whining that it shouldn't have to bear the risk of its unprofitable Pleasants plant, because it still has "life left in it."
“Is it frustrating that we’re shutting down tens of thousands of megawatts of generation in our country that’s got life left in it because of the way this market is working?” Jones said. “That is very frustrating to me.”
While the plant may still have physical "life" in it, it doesn't have any economic "life" left.

West Virginia can't afford to bail FirstEnergy out of its bad economic decisions any longer.  Subsidizing FirstEnergy is "frustrating" to West Virginians, too, who sometimes have to make a choice between paying their electric bill and buying food.  Go peddle your lemon somewhere else, FirstEnergy.
1 Comment

Southern Cross Transmission - Just One More Attempt to Take Private Property for Corporate Gain

7/31/2016

1 Comment

 
It's not about where to put the Southern Cross Transmission line, it's about whether to build it at all.

Here we go again...
However, most the attendees at the Bell Schoolhouse Fire Station meeting opposed the project. Dennis Daniels, who organized the meeting, said he has already been a victim of eminent domain once and does not want to go through the process again.
 
"Honestly I don't have any questions for (representatives)," he said. "I just don't want them to come through my property."
 
He's concerned that the power line will decrease property values, restrict further development on his land and be an eyesore.
 
"It bothers me most that it's a private, for-profit company," he said. "They're going to use eminent domain to take our property rights away to give to a company in San Francisco to make millions of dollars off of each year."

The Southern Cross transmission project is another unneeded HVDC merchant project intended to ship renewable energy into higher priced markets for corporate profit.  But this one isn't owned by Houston-based Clean Line Energy.  It's owned by a different company, San Francisco-based Pattern Energy.  Pattern proposes that it shall build a 400-mile HVDC transmission project across Louisiana and Mississippi in order to serve energy markets in "the southeast electric grid" with wind energy generated in Texas.

The Texas wind market is tapped out.  They've built so much wind generation and transmission to ship it around the state that sometimes they have to give it away for free. 
But yet, Texas wants to be its own little electric grid, islanded from the rest of the nation's power grid.  Except when all its renewable energy goodness tanks prices.  Then Texas wants to connect to the rest of the grid in order to export its excess wind generation into other markets where it will fetch higher prices.  And that's the only purpose for Southern Cross.

This project has been in the works for years, but was only recently sprung on landowners along its 400-mile route.  And chaos ensued.  Of course the landowners don't want to be forced to sacrifice their property, personal wealth and peace of mind for the benefit of electricity consumers in other states in "the southeast."  Southern Cross will only interconnect with the rest of the grid serving Louisiana and Mississippi at two converter stations, one near the Texas-Louisiana border, and the second near the Mississippi-Alabama border.  What's in it for all the residents of Louisiana and Mississippi in between?  Not much.

And to make matters worse, landowners in Mississippi are getting smoke blown in their faces by one of their PSC Commissioners, who is urging them to communicate with Pattern Energy instead of the PSC.
In a public meeting at the Bell Schoolhouse Fire Station just outside Starkville Thursday, Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley urged residents to reach out to representatives from Southern Cross Transmission if they have questions about the company's proposed wind energy transmission line.
 
"Let it not be said of you that you didn't call on these people and that you didn't file an objection," Presley said at the meeting.

While eminent domain is not out of the question, Presley said he believes the company will do everything in its power to avoid having to use it. Southern Cross representatives have told him they have put in similar lines in other parts of the country without resorting to eminent domain.

Presley said his office received a plethora of letters, emails and phone calls from property owners who received letters. In a meeting with company representatives, Presley said someone from the company has to meet with property owners one-on-one at the time and place of the landowner's choosing.
 
In an interview with The Dispatch Thursday, Presley said a Southern Cross representative had already begun meeting with landowners individually. Presley also had the company designate a point of contact for landowners to call. Since then, his office has received fewer calls from concerned citizens.
 
In June, Southern Cross Transmission sent letters to landowners whose property is within 500 feet of one of the proposed routes and promised to hold meetings and answer questions from landowners. The company then hosted an open house for property owners, but many left that meeting with more questions than answers, Presley said.
 
Legally, Southern Cross Transmission doesn't have to communicate with the public at all until it has decided on a route and filed a proposal with the Public Service Commission. But Presley wants to ensure that the company shows landowners the dignity and respect they deserve.

Sure, that makes Presley's job easier if all the landowners have folded and granted easements to Pattern Energy before it files its application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and eminent domain authority in the state.  But, for the landowners, it's not simply about where to put the line, but whether or not to build it in the first place.

Pattern is misleading landowners about FERC's authority to permit this project.
FERC has previously found that the interconnection of the Southern Cross Project to the ERCOT transmission system is in the public interest and that the Project will create substantial benefits both for the ERCOT and the Southeast regions.
But FERC has no authority to permit this transmission project, or to grant eminent domain authority over private property to Pattern Energy.  Only the states do.  Both Louisiana and Mississippi will have to find need and public benefit for the project in their respective states.

Landowners can make a big difference by participating in the PSC process, and that's where they should be directing their energies right now, not wasting their time discussing where to put the project with Pattern Energy.
Southern Cross Transmission plans to settle on a route and file its proposal with the commission this fall. Once that happens, Presley said, citizens have 20 days to file an objection, which gives them legal rights in the case.
Not much time, opponents need to prepare to file objections, or better yet to intervene in the case.
He requested landowners write down whatever questions they have, take those questions directly to the company and wait until they had met with Southern Cross representatives before deciding whether to oppose the project.
Don't waste your time, landowners.  Begin crafting your "fact-based" arguments now, but the only facts you need to begin is that Southern Cross's proposal will affect your interest in real property located on or near a proposed route.  And don't think if your property is on a proposed route that is later taken off the table that you're safe.  Until an actual siting permit is granted, routes can and will change, with very little notice.  In fact, the companies like it better if landowners don't know anything about the project until the bulldozers show up.  How can you cause trouble for them if you're unaware?

Exactly... and that's why landowners are getting such late notice about this project.  But there's still plenty of time to organize and legally intervene.  The bigger the stink, the better the chances the project will be cancelled.
Presley has also said he will not approve the project unless the company can prove it has some benefit to Mississippi.
 
"I'm as much for clean air and clean energy as the next guy, but it's got to be about more than renewable energy," he said. "For us, that's a plus, but there has to be other things."
I'm sure Commissioner Presley is "for clean air and clean energy."  After all, the Sierra Club was a big donor to his campaign to be elected to the PSC.  And Sierra Club has never seen a transmission project "for wind" that it didn't love.
"At the end of the day, the ability to connect into wind energy, which does not cost anything as far as burning coal, burning natural gas, (is) obviously an energy source that could have a benefit to the state," Presley said.
 
"That's the benefit," he added. "But also obviously if this electricity is low cost, I'm not going to be supporting trucking it through Mississippi to pump it to Atlanta, Georgia, and our people have cheap electricity ran over the top of their property and not being able to take advantage of it."
That's nice to hear, but Commissioner Presley has coyly avoided the elephant in the room.  Eminent domain.  While eminent domain has historically been used to construct transmission lines for which there is some reliability need, using that authority to build transmission lines for the sole purpose of moving renewable energy to higher priced eastern electric markets is an issue of first impression.  In the case of transmission solely for profit, eminent domain takes on a whole new purpose:  Eminent domain for the private gain of a company located in San Francisco.  And that's just the rub.
1 Comment

What's Beyond Coal?  More Coal!

7/23/2016

1 Comment

 
Block Clean Line in Arkansas made a stunning discovery the other day.  In testimony filed at the Georgia Public Service Commission, Clean Line Vice President David Berry informed that his Plains & Eastern "Clean" Line project could be used to "deliver bulk power from the SPP system" when it's not being used to deliver "wind generation."  That's right, "Clean" Line is now being marketed as just another transmission line to transport "bulk" fossil fuel electricity between regions.

And in its recent application to the Missouri PSC for its Grain Belt Express transmission project, "Clean" Line's Berry said that service from Missouri to Indiana on his project could be used to "provide opportunities for Missouri load-serving entities to earn additional revenue from off-system sales."

Cutting through the jargon, Berry says that his "Clean" Lines can now be used to ship fossil fuel generation.  In its desperate search for customers to financially support the project, Clean Line is dropping its "clean" purpose.  Clean Line is now "clean" in name only.

This isn't really surprising to me.  For years, opposition to the projects have been telling everyone who will listen that "Clean" Lines are a fantasy that only works on paper.  All electric transmission lines are "open access" to all customers, no matter what fuel they use to generate electricity.  And now that the rubber has hit the road, Clean Line has dropped its "clean" mask to reveal its true purpose -- to make money transmitting any kind of electricity.

Will environmental groups continue to support transmission projects that breathe new life into old Midwestern coal plants by creating new markets for their generation?  The Sierra Club and other groups supporting "Clean" Lines should have been on notice that new transmission lines supposedly "for wind" would ultimately be used "for coal."  However it looks like they got snowed by a fast-talking front man to forget what they already knew and believe in the fantasy of "clean" transmission lines.  And what was it the environmental groups knew?

As far back as 2009, The Sierra Club was wondering about the true purpose of new long-distance electric transmission lines:

Is the project just an excuse to expand the reach of coal-fired power plants rather than supporting a clean energy project?
In the case of Clean Line, the answer is now an unequivocal "yes."  The Sierra Club has been had.

Back around the time Clean Line created its corporation around the idea of "green" transmission lines, it was common knowledge that transmission lines being marketed as a way to increase the penetration of renewable energy would end up being used to increase the penetration of coal-fired power instead.

In May of 2010, a presentation was made at the National Coal Council's Spring Meeting entitled POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS OF “GREEN TRANSMISSION” FOR
COAL POWER GENERATION
.  The presentation was made by Roger H. Bezdek, Ph.D., President of Management Information Services, Inc.  Dr. Bezdek also co-authored an article on the same subject in industry magazine Fortnightly in 2012.

Dr. Bezdek proposed that new transmission "for renewables" would instead be used to increase use of existing "middle U.S." coal generators.
Existing coal fleet utilization currently ~ 72% -74%

Can increase to ~ 85% with adequate load & transmission

Most underutilized coal capacity in Middle U.S.

Current U.S. coal capacity ~ 310 GW, furnishes ~ 2 trillion kWh annually, U.S. consumes ~ 1.1B tons of coal

If new transmission increases existing coal fleet utilization 10%, then:
--Coal could provide additional 200B kWh
--Coal demand would increase by 100M tons
--Even assuming no new coal plants are built
--However, new transmission could facilitate new coal plants

Bezdek summarized:  "Thus, RES transmission could enable expansion of coal-fired generation by equivalent of 30 new plants by 2020."

And he put the idea that new transmission could be restricted to "clean" energy firmly to bed with this simple quote:
“Restricting new transmission to green electrons is as bad as restricting a new highway to only electric vehicles.”
You can't restrict transmission lines to renewable energy.  The environmental groups have denied this in the case of "Clean" Line, believing that because the transmission line is HVDC, building additional converter stations to load coal-fired power along the way would be prohibitively expensive.  But Clean Line's recent marketing of itself as a pipeline for coal-fired power proves that if coal-fired generators can get their power to the planned end-point or midpoint converter stations, then "Clean" Line shall carry coal-fired power.  Siting the end point converter in a "renewable energy zone" is no guarantee of cleanliness, especially when combined with midpoint converters in Missouri and Arkansas that will pick up dirty power on the line's way east. 

Instead of "shutting down coal plants," Clean Line will actually be breathing new life into existing coal plants in the Midwest that may otherwise be displaced by increased in-state use of renewables, and end up shipping dirty generation to other regions.

Will the environmental groups continue to support "Clean" Lines that they know aren't really "clean?"  Will they equivocate to make trade-offs to imagine the "clean" energy will balance out the "dirty" energy on the Clean Line? 

The environmental groups need to admit the truth -- "Clean" Line isn't about "clean" energy at all.  It's only about the money to be made owning transmission lines, no matter what kind of electricity they will ultimately carry.
1 Comment

U.S. DOE Spends Billions of Your Tax Dollars Carrying Water for Big Business

7/6/2016

0 Comments

 
Mainstream media reports that the U.S. Department of Energy has paid out $5B in legal claims to the energy industry in the last decade.
...the DOE is among the most prominent defendants requiring payment from the Judgment Fund, which pays for claims against the government. The department paid out more in legal claims than any other agency last year and the year before, according to the fund's records — more than $5 billion over the last decade.

And according to the department itself, the bloodletting as far from over. The DOE has failed to make good on some of its most important contractual obligations for years, and its private partners have been collecting billions in damages.
And where does the DOE's billions come from?  Your pocket, little taxpayer, your pocket.

So, how did the DOE get you into this predicament?
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 requires that the DOE dispose of nuclear waste being produced at civilian energy plants around the country, which in turn pay fees for a long-term storage facility. The department's contracts with dozens of energy companies said it would start disposing of the waste in 1998.

The companies held up their end, feeding about $750 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund each year. But the department did not manage to set up any facility to receive the waste, forcing energy companies to store it themselves on-site.
Why was the DOE carrying the nuclear industry's water to set up a facility for nuclear waste?  Is it because the nuclear industry hasn't made enough money from consumers over the years to dispose of its own waste?  Or is it because the nuclear industry can't be trusted to properly dispose of its own waste safely?  After all, look at what the coal-fired power industry has done with its waste and how many times that has turned into disaster.  No, it's because
The hang-up has been in finding a location for the centralized storage facility. For decades, Yucca Mountain in Nevada was the only location that could legally be considered, despite fierce opposition from state and local groups. The Obama administration eventually abandoned the site as "unworkable" in 2011.
Who wants a nuclear waste dump in their neighborhood?  Nobody.  So the DOE was tasked to carry the industry's water by using its federal power to force a dump on an unlucky community.

Sound familiar to any of you regular blog readers?  That's exactly what the DOE is doing "partnering" with filthy rich investors to dump a humongous electric transmission line across Midwestern states that receive no benefit from it.  When the affected states said "no," DOE hefted the industry's water and ran with it to forcefully dump the project on communities fiercely opposed.

Why?  Because the U.S. DOE is a politically influenced entity run by a political appointee.  And political agencies are controlled by lobbyists for industry.  DOE has no business trying to regulate the energy industry in the public interest.  It's not about what's best for consumers and citizens, it's about bought and paid for political influence.

But here they are, trying "to transform America's electrical grid to handle much larger quantities of renewable energy" at a taxpayer cost of $220M.  DOE is not a grid planner, it's a political water carrier and there's buckets of money to be made building renewable energy generators and a special, separate electrical grid to serve them.  But only if the DOE uses federal muscle to force it to happen.

How does DOE square this
How will a grid that provides a two-way street to carry and store more renewable energy help resolve this situation? DOE's Hannegan responds with a sports analogy. On a mesh-like grid, the problem, whether it is a computer hacker, a big forest fire or a battery failure, is a threat that can be quickly isolated, allowing the rest of the surrounding grid to operate normally using better controls and quickly dispatched stored electricity.
with "partnering" on a 750-mile DC transmission line that requires obscenely expensive converter stations to connect into the existing grid?  Because the converters are so expensive there are very few of them.  It can't "allow the rest of the surrounding grid" to operate normally and recover.  Because it's not connected to the grid that surrounds it.  It's an entirely separate grid, only connected at a few points.  The surrounding grid continues to operate normally without any help from the DC line bypassing it.  And if this DC transmission line "closes coal-fired power plants" like the Sierra Club idiots believe, the surrounding grid cannot recover.

The "two-way energy street mesh-like grid" of the future is dependent upon many small, local energy sources that can back each other up to "allow the rest of the surrounding grid to operate normally" when trouble happens.  That's distributed generation, the complete opposite of centralized generation and long distance transmission.  When there's no energy source in your community and a major, imported, centralized generation source fails, there's nothing there to pick up the slack.

DOE needs to quit carrying the industry's water.  We can't afford it anymore.
0 Comments

When It Is About The Eminent Domain

7/2/2016

9 Comments

 
Clean Line Grain Belt Express spokesman Mark Lawlor, when discussing his company's recent re-application to the Missouri Public Service Commission, told KMBZ:
Lawlor says this "isn't about eminent domain," which is one of the worries of many who live along the proposed route.  

"We will sit down with every single landowner and negotiate with them on the unique nature of their property. In fact we've been doing that for a couple years now."
If that were true, then there would be no need for eminent domain authority. 

Except the application GBE filed on Thursday stated:
What happens if a landowner doesn’t want to negotiate with Grain Belt Express?

The Company is allowing sufficient time for negotiations with each individual landowner along the route. Grain Belt Express is committed to conducting easement negotiations in a manner that respects the private property rights of landowners and achieves a voluntary easement acquisition. The Company is also committed to working with landowners to minimize the impacts of the Project upon their property. In order to ensure that infrastructure projects in the public interest can be completed, the entities building them need the right to condemn certain easements, particularly in cases of parcels that have title issues, parcels with missing or unlocatable landowners or heirs, or parcels where landowners refuse all reasonable attempts at contact or negotiation. Grain Belt Express views the use of eminent domain as a last resort that is appropriate only after exhausting all reasonable attempts at voluntary easement acquisition and title curative work. In all cases, landowners are entitled to due process and payment of fair market value for any easement acquired, and will retain ownership of their land.


So, no matter how many "landowner protections" Clean Line pretends to dream up, there's only one landowner protection that actually protects the landowner.

THE RIGHT TO SAY NO.

And IT IS ABOUT THE EMINENT DOMAIN to the landowners.

In fact, the eminent domain is at the heart of the opposition to this project.

Without eminent domain, Clean Line would have to:
...sit down with every single landowner and negotiate with them on the unique nature of their property.
But Clean Line doesn't even want to attempt that without having the right to condemn to use as leverage.

None of Clean Line's "landowner protections" will protect you.
9 Comments

Martha Peine:  Artist or Retired Hippie?

6/28/2016

5 Comments

 
Picture
Only a community of "artists and retired hippies" would laugh about being characterized as such in a news story.  I asked Martha which one she was last night, and she said she was a "wannabe" of both.

It must have been the retired hippie who became an activist for a town threatened by a transmission project that was later determined to be unnecessary.  But it was definitely the artist who negotiated a $4.2M transmission rate refund from "behemoth" energy company American Electric Power.

RTO Insider is running a story today that may be the finish line for Martha's media victory lap.

Against All Odds: Ratepayer Wins $4.2M Refund from AEP chronicles Martha as remarkable, and I'd have to agree.  She waded through hell and high water, and jumped every hurdle erected in her path, to right the wrongs in AEP's transmission rate filings.  And she persevered to victory.  She's one in more than 18 million... the only ratepayer in the Southwest Power Pool who took the time and invested the effort to challenge AEP's rates.

While RTO Insider's coverage may be the final story, it's not my favorite.  While attempting to wade into the technical weeds, the reporter got some things wrong (but, hey, at least Ali's name got spelled right this time!)

A story in a retired hippie and artist newspaper, The Eureka Springs Independent, did a great job with accurate coverage.  Local woman wins $4.2 million settlement for power users says Martha will now "relax into the Eureka Springs tempo for the time being."

Looking forward to joining her later this summer!  I'll bring my tie-dye duds and my sketch pad... and a case of Raging Bitch!

Congratulations, Martha, it's been a gift to meet you and call you friend.
5 Comments

Potomac Edison Says No One Was Harmed by its Failure to Read Electric Meters in Maryland

6/24/2016

0 Comments

 
Wahhhhhhhh.

I could end this blog post there, but I won't.

In May, a Maryland PSC administrative law judge proposed ordering Potomac Edison to change its meter reading frequency to monthly and fined the company a piddly $25K.

That followed an earlier proposed order issued in April, in which the same ALJ said no harm, no foul, and did nothing to punish the company for its transgressions.  The Commission pulled that proposed order and said it was "inadvertently issued."  I guess the judge didn't check with his boss before filing it.  Therefore, the revised order was issued a month later.

Now Potomac Edison and the Maryland Office of People's Counsel are appealing that decision, and basing it on the illegality of the ALJ's sudden change of heart.  The OPC doesn't think monthly meter reading is a solution to a problem that has since solved itself, and that ratepayers shouldn't have to shoulder the financial burden of this company's despicable actions (or lack of action, as the case may be).

You can find all the above filings here.

I guess OPC has a point, why should ratepayers pay to fix Potomac Edison's failure?  That's what happened in West Virginia, where meters are now read every single month.  Buh-bye incorrect estimated bills and huge "catch-up" bills.  Hello wacky bill schedule!  Since a reading must be done before a bill is issued, bills are never issued and due on the same day each month.  This presents a problem for folks who are only paid monthly, such as social security recipients, where they may receive two bills due within the same pay period.

But the anger is nowhere near that displayed across three states in the wake of Allegheny Energy's merger with Ohio dimwits FirstEnergy.  Perhaps if Maryland's Staff and OPC had paid attention to the West Virginia proceeding several years ago, they'd know that the meter reading failure was directly tied to the company's post-merger actions.  FirstEnergy insisted that Allegheny Energy toss out its perfectly good bill estimation methods designed to mesh with its alternate month reading schedule.  It had been working in WV for 30 years.  Instead, FirstEnergy insisted Allegheny adopt its own estimation routine, which was designed for missed reads in a system based on monthly reads.  That's right, while it may have worked fine for FirstEnergy subsidiaries that read meters monthly, it did NOT work for Allegheny's bi-monthly read system.  Combine that with FirstEnergy's "reorganization" of Allegheny's meter reading department and switch to "contract" meter readers who are paid less and must use their own vehicles, instead of a company-maintained motor pool, and disaster ensued. 

Whose fault was this?  FirstEnergy's!!

Only because of the scrutiny received in West Virginia (and to a lesser extent in Maryland, since the MD PSC was quite effective in preventing the customers from being heard during the heat of the moment) did the company take action to fix their mess.  Because Maryland waited so long to actually DO anything, the problems are long since over.

Now Potomac Edison says their actions didn't actually hurt anyone in Maryland because there's nothing in the record.  And there's nothing in the record because the MD PSC cancelled the public hearing it initially scheduled on this matter.  Then shoved the case off to mediation for years.  Then held a hearing.  Then issued two orders FIVE YEARS after the damage was done.  Justice delayed is justice denied, in this instance.

Potomac Edison also whines about the measly $25K fine the ALJ imposed.  $25K probably wouldn't even pay for two seats in the FirstEnergy CEO's special "luxury suite" at FirstEnergy stadium.  And yet this company has the nerve to cry like a baby over $25K.

So, hot potato passes to the MD PSC Commissioners, who seem to be responsible for the amended proposed order, so we'll assume it's to their liking.  Who knows, maybe Chatty Chuck will invite the Commissioners to watch a game in his luxury suite!  Woo Hoo!
0 Comments

How Much Does a "Clean" Line Cost?

6/19/2016

1 Comment

 
At the beginning of the month, Clean Line issued a press release touting a "contract," or "agreement" with some Missouri municipal electric providers.  But Clean Line neglected to share this wonderful agreement.

Here it is.

What's in the agreement?

Up to 200 MW of transmission service from Clean Line's proposed southwestern Kansas converter station to a proposed DC/AC converter station in Ralls County, Missouri, available in 2 separate, differently priced 100 MW tranches.  Or even any other amount of transmission between 0 and 200 MW.  That's right, zero.  Because this isn't a firm contract at all.  Customer (MJMEUC) can change its mind at any time up to 60 days before "the date on which the Project begins commercial
operations and is capable of providing [...] Transmission Service" and elect not to purchase any transmission at all.  None.  Zero.

Price for transmission service from Kansas to Ralls County, MO: 
$1,167 per MW/month, escalating at 2 percent (2%) annually beginning as of the  Commencement Date for the first 100 MW tranche.

$1,667 per MW/month, escalating at 2 percent (2%) annually beginning as of the Commencement Date for the second 100 MW tranche.
That's $1.167 per kwh, and $1.667 per kwh.  Per month.  With a guaranteed 2% price increase each year.

But that's not all the contract proposes to sell to MJMEUC, if its future "Notice of Decision" is to proceed with the contract.

The contract also proposes that MJMEUC will purchase up to 50 MW of transmission service between Ralls County, Missouri, and Clean Line's proposed converter station in Sullivan, Indiana (in the PJM RTO electricity market).  What is MJMEUC going to be loading onto this "clean" line to sell to customers in PJM?  Will it be "clean" electrons? 

Price for transmission service from Ralls County, MO to PJM:
$2,500 per MW /month.  For the first two years, after which time the contract may be extended for a period up to 26 years.
The contract also requires MJMEUC "to file an
intervention and comments supporting FERC's acceptance of Transmission Provider's FERC [compliance] filing without modification or condition."

As well
the Parties shall cooperate with
each other to obtain all Governmental Approvals that are required for Transmission Provider to construct and operate the Project and put this Agreement fully into effect, including making any filing in support of another Party's application for any such approval as requested by the Party
seeking such approval. From and after the Execution Date, the Parties shall not take any action, or seek any relief, before any other Governmental Authority that is inconsistent with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
Be a good witness.

So how much would it cost to transmit electricity all the way from Kansas to PJM on a "clean" line?

Add it up.

There is no actual electricity priced in this contract.  Customer shall enter into a separate power purchase agreement with a third party vendor at some future date.  Clean Line cannot sell electricity.
1 Comment

Ratepayer Complaint Nets $4.2 Million Refund for Arkansas Electric Customers

6/14/2016

5 Comments

 
Eureka Springs, Arkansas – Martha Peine, a local electric customer and non-practicing attorney, went to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to challenge the transmission rates of a large, regional electric supplier.  After lengthy negotiations and two trips to Washington, D.C., by Ms. Peine, regional electric customers can now expect a $4.2M refund.
 
In 2013, Ms. Peine decided to learn how Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO) makes money from its transmission business. Using the transparent, but complicated, processes in place to review transmission rates, Ms. Peine set to work. 
 
After examining the expenses SWEPCO recovered in its 2013 and 2014 FERC-filed formula rate updates, Ms. Peine filed a legal challenge to SWEPCO’s recovery of certain expenses, including what she claimed were improperly recovered charitable and lobbying items. Last August, the Commission determined her challenges raised material issues and set the complaint for hearing. 
 
As Ms. Peine and the other parties prepared for a hearing before a FERC Administrative Law Judge, discussions about settling the case were also taking place.  These negotiations among Ms. Peine, SWEPCO, and FERC lawyers eventually proved successful.
 
On Monday, June 13, 2016, without the necessity of a hearing, Ms. Peine and American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEP), on behalf of its subsidiaries SWEPCO and the Public Service Company of Oklahoma, filed a settlement agreement with the Commission that includes a $4.2 million refund to ratepayers in the region. The agreement also limits the amount of litigation expenses related to Ms. Peine’s challenges, and clarifies that certain expenses, including charitable and lobbying related expenses, cannot be charged to ratepayers by SWEPCO in the future.
 
“While the end result in my case is a win for ratepayers, I will always wonder what mistakes there may be in the years to come,” said Ms. Peine. “The review process is complicated and time consuming. There is no person, entity, or agency that meaningfully reviews the rate updates on a regular basis, so there is always the potential for significant overcharges.”
 
”On behalf of Save the Ozarks, we congratulate Martha for her accomplishment,” said Pat Costner, STO Director. “Every SWEPCO electric customer owes a debt of gratitude to this remarkable woman, who has shown us that one person can make a big difference.”
 
The refund will show up as a one-time credit on ratepayers’ electric bills within 90 days of the Commission’s approval of the settlement, which should be a routine matter.  A copy of the settlement can be downloaded from the Commission’s website here.
 
Background:  The transmission of electricity in interstate commerce is nationally regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  FERC allows regulated transmission companies to utilize what are known as “Formula Rates” to recover their cost of service from electric consumers.  A Formula Rate is a mathematical formula for calculating a rate from yearly expense totals.  While the formula stays the same year after year, the rate changes depending on how much a company spends.  Not all company expenses are recoverable from ratepayers.  FERC regulations and legal precedent prohibit the recovery of charitable contributions, as well as the cost of lobbying to influence the decisions of public officials.  Formula Rate updates are informational filings.  FERC does not review them for accuracy, but relies on those who pay the rates to raise the red flag if it is not calculated correctly.
5 Comments

Maryland Judge Fines Potomac Edison For Not Reading Electric Meters

5/7/2016

0 Comments

 
On Thursday, Maryland Public Service Commission Administrative Law Judge Dennis H. Sober fined Potomac Edison $25,000 for its 2011-2012 failure to read electric meters according to its tariff.

It's been a long time since Potomac Edison's outrageous billing failure caused its customers to receive astronomical bills resulting from the company's neglect of its duty to read meters in a timely fashion.  The West Virginia PSC investigation and subsequent hearing into the same problem resulted in a requirement that the company switch to monthly meter readings back in 2014.

The judge's Proposed Order in Maryland also requires Potomac Edison to increase its meter reading frequency to monthly in that state.

The judge found:
that PE’s initial acknowledgment of the substandard meter reading history was an appropriate and an accurate reply to the Commission's correspondence. Its later reversal on the issue of accepting some responsibility for the substandard performance is troubling and counterproductive for the proper resolution of these issues.
And
It is not a legitimate excuse to blame the weather (which PE can’t control) or the staffing issues it faced (which it can control), as neither of these factors is unique to PE as an electrical utility, nor are they unusual or unknown factors.

PE is obligated to make its decisions as to how to manage and staff its Meter Reading Division in a manner and to a level of industry standards, and I find that PE failed to do so during the time period under review.

I find that the facts demonstrate that the meter reading rate of Potomac fell below an acceptable level of reading for the years 2011-2012, and that was in violation of its tariff and of good engineering practices as required of a utility. I conclude that the failings were due to an inadequate level of staffing and of a failure to have adequate contingency plans in place when PE faced unusual weather events.

The Maryland PSC staff recommended a penalty of $300,000, based on PE's cost of missed meter readings.  Why should the company collect from ratepayers for services it never performed?  While this makes perfect sense to me (and probably to you as well), the judge found that "the basis for the formulation of the financial penalty Staff would impose is not valid and has no basis upon which to rely."  Therefore, the judge pulled a number out of nowhere to impose a much lower, arbitrary penalty of $25,000.  Even a $300,000 penalty is nothing more than a minor annoyance to a company with annual revenue in the neighborhood of $15B.  A penalty of $25,000 is an insult to ratepayers who were harmed by Potomac Edison's failure to abide by its tariff.  But, hey, it's more than the WV PSC fined the company for the same practices, which was a big fat goose egg.  Instead, the WV PSC ordered monthly meter reading at an additional cost to ratepayers of more than $7M annually.  It remains to be seen if Potomac Edison will file a new base rate case in Maryland in order to collect the additional costs it faces for increasing its meter reading to a monthly basis.  Potomac Edison currently enjoys an 11.9% return on equity in Maryland, a rate much higher than that allowed in neighboring states.  A new base rate filing will most likely result in a new, much lower ROE.  In fact, PE would probably lose money in such a deal as the lower ROE would cost them more than they could make collecting a higher cost for monthly meter reading.  But, never fear, Marylanders, FirstEnegy will probably do something like apply for a supplemental rate rider to cover the cost of additional meter reading without having to file a base rate case.  This ain't over until FirstEnergy takes even more money out of your pocket...

And speaking of... the judge's Proposed Order isn't final until June 7, and only then if no party files an appeal.  Do you think Potomac Edison will appeal the Proposed Order, since all its costs to do so come out of ratepayer pockets?

Justice sure is funny in a regulated environment, isn't it?
0 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    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

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    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
    Valley Link Transmission
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.