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

Potomac Edison/Mon Power Investigation Briefs Summarize Lessons Unlearned by FirstEnergy

2/4/2014

10 Comments

 
It appears that FirstEnergy didn't learn a thing from its recent trip to the PSC hot seat over the company's shocking disregard for its customers who were trampled on the way to "merger synergy savings."  FirstEnergy maintains that it never did anything wrong, but has magnanimously offered a few ineffectual parting gifts for its customers as a fig leaf to cover its hoped-for ruling by the Commission that would let the company off scot-free.

The PSC Staff and the Consumer Advocate Division have different ideas, and the Staff, in particular, rakes FirstEnergy over the coals in its own blistering brief.  That's all fine and good, but I hope a bunch of scathing words in a brief isn't all we get out of this.  Staff says:
The Companies responding to this General Investigation proceeding have provided a lot of excuses to the Commission as to why so many customers received multiple consecutive poorly estimated bills that led to dramatically high “true up” bills.
Originally, the Companies tried to convince the Commission and the public the problems
were mainly caused by the timing and size of the Derecho and Super Storm Sandy.
When the problems continued, the Companies started providing further excuses, but did
not take responsibility for their role in creating many of the problems themselves
and compounded the problem further by making unreasonable demands for payments from the impacted customers. In Staffs opinion, they still have not taken that responsibility.
The Derecho and Super Storm Sandy undeniably played a significant role in the problems underlying this case. However, all along the way, the Companies made poor decision after poor decision with little to no thought as to how it might impact their customers.
These poor decisions lead to multiple and continued violations of their tariffs. Staff takes
these violations very seriously and believes it is time the Companies own up to their mistakes and provide the Commission with concrete evidence these types of problems
will not reoccur. Further, the Companies should be required to either correct the ongoing problems with their estimation routine or switch from bi-monthly to monthly meter reading.
Oh, so it really wasn't about storms after all?  But FirstEnergy continues the storm drama charade.  Know how I know it's being over dramatized?  Because FirstEnergy included one too many adjectives in its brief:
Hurricane Sandy struck the service territories with large amounts of heavy, salt-laden, snow that tore down trees and power lines...
Really, FirstEnergy?  That's a meteorological first -- it snowed heavy "salt-laden" snow on the trees and power lines?  What the heck, FirstEnergy?  How does that happen?  How does the salt get into the atmosphere and how does it become encapsulated in snowflakes?  When "salt-laden" snow melts, does it leave a residue behind?  That defies common sense!  Got a little carried away there, didn't you?

So, what was the REAL cause of the problems?  Staff says:
It is easy, and some may say unfair, to play Monday morning quarterback with the decisions of the Companies. Staff does not believe it is unfair to do so in this circumstance. A poor decision here or there is just that, a decision that did not work out.
What we have here is something completely different, poor decision on top of poor
decision on top of devastating storms on top of more poor decisions with no management
thought of potential impacts to customers. This is a pattern of behavior. It appears FirstEnergy had a plan for integration and was determined to follow through with that
plan no matter the result. Little consideration was given to the customers, “merger
synergy savings”
had to be captured. Indeed the Companies suspected as early as
September of 2012 there may be problems, but did nothing to attempt to resolve them
until April 2013. At that point, the problems had become so widespread the Companies
had no choice but to try and address them. However, shockingly, the Companies
continue to act as though they were simply a victim of circumstance
. Generally, Staff believes the Commission should send a strong message to the Companies that this type of behavior will not be tolerated, that the Commission believes the Companies did indeed violate their tariff in multiple ways and that continued violations will be looked upon
very unfavorably.
The Consumer Advocate's brief was not kind either.  The Consumer Advocate is still requesting that FirstEnergy be ordered to read every meter, every month, for one year
Bad historical usage data begets bad data and, thus, CAD believes the only way to correct the problem caused by the Companies’ failure to conduct bi-monthly reads of residential meters is to obtain one year’s worth of reliable data from actual monthly meter reads. It is the goal of the CAD that this matter be resolved in the best possible manner for customers of MP and PE, who have undeniably suffered - and, in some instances, continue to suffer - the ill effects of the Companies’ meter reading and billing practices.
The Consumer Advocate also thinks the companies' storm excuses are a feeble attempt to pretend that the real culprit isn't the company's merger:
Throughout the course of this proceeding, the Companies have attempted to place the
majority of the blame for their billing and meter reading problems on the Derecho that occurred in June 2012 and Superstorm Sandy, which occurred in October 2012. However, while the storms may have exacerbated the Companies’ existing problem, it is inaccurate to contend that the storms caused the billing problems so many customers have faced. In actuality, the evidence shows that the merger of Allegheny Power into FirstEnergy in 2011 and subsequent transition issues in the wake of the merger, including understaffing, transitioning from the Allegheny billing system to the FirstEnergy billing system, and the questionable timing of the meter route “renumbering” project, created this problem.
The Consumer Advocate also noted that, contrary to the company's contentions, customer complaints have been trending up again this winter.  We ain't seen nothin' yet!  Underestimations in January bills, combined with this month's prolonged frigid temperatures, are sure to cause a charlie foxtrot of unprecedented proportions in February.  Enough is enough.

Even though FirstEnergy's EPRI report still seems to be suspiciously missing, it's time for the Commission to act, if nothing else than from a position of self-preservation.  I'm starting to lose track of all the "let's punish the PSC" legislation that's been introduced in Charleston this session.  Although we'd rather see the company punished for its transgressions, I guess someone has to take the fall for this.
10 Comments

AEP Earnings Call a Block and Tackle Bunch of Bull

1/29/2014

1 Comment

 
Ever listened to an investor owned utility's earnings call?  They're an acquired taste, because your first one sounds like complete and utter gibberish.  Are these people speaking English?  Is there some fancy 1% business speak language that they didn't teach you in school?  Nope.  I think company management just plain ol' makes crap up to keep the investment analysts guessing.

Case in point -- Nick Akins and his "block and tackle spending." 
And then, when you look at the other capital that we're spending, it's block and tackle spending that typically is recovered from a regulated standpoint.
Blink.  Blink.  What?  Just for shits and giggles I plugged "block and tackle spending" into google.  I got a wikipedia description of block and tackle that describes it thus:  "...a system of two or more pulleys with a rope or cable threaded between them, usually used to lift or pull heavy loads," and a whole bunch of boating websites.  So, Nick is going to rig up some contraption that spends money using a system of pulleys and rope?  Sounds complicated.  I guess that's why they pay him the big bucks!

Anyhow... once you realize that the emperor has no clothes and that these corporate elitists are really not speaking in some special language, like pig latin, that your plebeian self doesn't understand, earnings calls are quite entertaining.  AEP's 4Q 2013 call on Monday was no exception.

AEP's CFO finally gets around to admitting that energy efficiency has flattened out residential demand growth and it's not expected to recover.
Residential sales, shown in the upper left quadrant, were up 0.9% for the quarter, which brings the annual sales flat to 2012. We continue to see modest customer growth in our Western service areas, while our East customer accounts were essentially flat. Average usage per customer has been impacted by home energy efficiency programs. For these reasons, we are expecting normalized residential sales to be down nearly 1% in 2014.
Too bad he's arriving late for the party.  How much do they pay this guy to make these brilliant conclusions?

AEP also got some apt questions about its planned "transmission spend," such as what it's going to take to make AEP fall out of love with transmission as an investment vehicle... oh, say, maybe as a little section 206 complaint or two:
Michael J. Lapides - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division
Yes, 2 questions unrelated. First, on the transmission side. We've seen in the MISO and in New England dockets where interveners are seeking lower transmission base ROEs. If same things happens in some of -- whether it's the Southwest Power Pool, whether it's in PJM, how -- what do you think that tipping point is where we change or, I don't know, you're incentive or your desire to be a sizable investor in transmission in the U.S.?

Nicholas K. Akins - Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President, Member of Executive Committee and Member of Policy Committee
I think, as long as transmission is, at a premium or equal to the state rates, we're in good shape. And I think, clearly, there is an incentive being placed on building transmission. We're happy with that. And if -- really, once again, the FERC needs to send some messages here that from a policy perspective that we want to continue building transmission in this country. And as long as that premium is at or above the state rates, then we're in good shape.

Brian X. Tierney - Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President
FERC was clearly, Michael, looking to attract a capital into this space. And what they've done with their ROEs has done exactly what FERC wanted to happen. So as long as they, as Nick was saying, as long as they continue to send a signal that they want increased investment in this area, we'll respond to that signal.

Nicholas K. Akins - Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President, Member of Executive Committee and Member of Policy Committee
Okay, I think it's good -- I think, it continues to be part and parcel to the overall grid expansion that's going on in the resilience of the grid. And there's going to continue to be spin regardless. The question is, do you really want to satisfy that precursor of transmission being build out to respond to the generation retirements and so forth to optimize the grid so that you can do that as a prerequisite and then focus on the rest of the underlying system. That's what key. I think you got to get through this transitional process we're at in this industry. So transmission needs to be incentivized in that regard because that will provide the greatest benefit in terms of resiliency of the grid, but also in terms of the optimization of the resources that are attached to the grid.
Blah, blah, blah, grid expansion, transmission build out, blah, blah, what could go wrong?

What about fierce, organized opposition to AEP's transmission plans?  The people have spoken and their action has seriously complicated or delayed many of AEP's transmission plans, in the past, currently, and in the future.  In fact, opposition is getting more organized and more knowledgeable.  And we're not going away.

AEP needs a new business plan.  Transmission is not the carefree investment vehicle Nick thinks it is...
1 Comment

Wisconsin Ratepayers Ask States to Consider Non-Transmission Alternatives in Planning for Peak Load

1/27/2014

0 Comments

 
Rob Danielson of SOUL of Wisconsin, and Deb Severson of Citizens' Energy Task Force, are asking state regulators to join them in supporting financially and environmentally sustainable energy solutions.

In a recent editorial in The Wisconsin State Journal, the pair of ratepayer advocates is asking the Wisconsin Public Service Commission to make utilities accountable for the financial and community costs of building more transmission, and for using the term “reliability” so loosely that ratepayers are led to think these lines are about “keeping the lights on.”

Danielson and Severson contend that energy efficiency contributes to grid reliability by reducing stress on the grid. Efficiency is also the best way to save ratepayers’ money and reduce our carbon footprint. It has no negative impacts, other than reducing utility profits.

Utilities and state regulators need to acknowledge how cost-effective it is to shave peak-demand during those very limited hours in the summer or winter when demand spikes — and that this, too, increases grid reliability. Paying customers to turn off their air conditioners for 15 minutes, or an industrial customer to use back-up diesel, makes far more economic sense than spending billions to add wires to bring in rarely needed extra power. Energy spikes can also be addressed by adding local renewables, which have the added benefit of creating additional local, ongoing jobs.

There are many ways to address need without building new transmmission, and Danielson and Severson are asking for equal consideration of them. Consumers are demanding that ratepayer and community interests — not utility and Wall Street profits — drive our future transmission planning decisions.

0 Comments

Will Midwest States Become the Next West Virginia?

1/23/2014

0 Comments

 
The West Virginia water crisis has generated a whole bunch of national media attention on West Virginia's status as the east coast's dumping ground.

This isn't a new story, it's actually a very old story.  The long and short of it is that the people and environment of West Virginia have been prostituted to out-of-state business interests by their own elected officials.  The people of West Virginia have long sacrificed for the needs of others, and all they have to show for it is crushing poverty and a fouled environment.  All the money ends up in the pockets of its out-of-state overlords.  I told this story to the people of Illinois during a public hearing on the Rock Island Clean Line project last fall.

Now, Salon tells West Virginia's story to the rest of the country.

Is there a lesson to be learned here?  How easily could wind-rich Midwest states be substituted for West Virginia in this article?
The people of West Virginia had made clear demands: put land and people first.  The companies did neither, but continued on their profit-driven rampage destroying huge swaths of the West Virginia mountains – one of the world’s most beautiful landscapes – with mountaintop removal for cheaper access to coal, exposing residents to toxic air pollution in order to provide the rest of the nation with cheap energy.  The decisions made in the early 1970s are what got us here today, with hundreds of thousands of people spending days unsure when they would be able to drink their water again, with many remaining unsure as pipe flushing and other cleanup procedures have been ineffective.
Think huge industrial wind farms and miles and miles of high voltage transmission lines are harmless?

Wind farms could endanger small aircraft
Wind turbines throw ice
Wind farms can drive you crazy
Wind farms have a multitude of adverse effects

New high voltage transmission lines also have adverse effects and will take thousands of acres of the nation's most productive farm land out of production.


The people of Illinois, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri have made clear demands:  put the land and people first.  Clean Line Energy Partners have done neither, but continue on their profit-driven rampage intent on destroying huge swaths of America's farmland -- one of the world's most productive food producers -- with acres of wind farms and miles of transmission lines for cheaper access to renewable electricity, exposing residents to economic and health risks in order to provide the rest of the nation with cheap energy.  The decisions made today will be the history of tomorrow.

And if we don't learn from history, we are bound to repeat it.

0 Comments

FirstEnergy Slashes Dividend - Sigh, Scribble, UT-OH!

1/22/2014

0 Comments

 
Sometimes it's worth getting to work early to enjoy a little schadenfreude!  FirstEnergy put on a special show for investment analysts this morning in the wake of the company's announcement yesterday that it would FINALLY be cutting its dividend to reflect the mess our pal Tony the Trickster has made of the company.

Investors have long used the services of voice analysts to pick up clues that indicate CEO lying.  In response, companies have done a better job preparing their CEOs to mask verbal tells.  And then there was today's FirstEnergy call...  no fancy voice analyst needed!  It was obvious to anyone tuning in that Tony was very put upon to be there and have to answer questions.  Very pointed questions.

The call began with much heavy sighing and attitude, and if that wasn't enough, once the questions from analysts began, the sound of someone scribbling furiously on a piece of paper to feed answers to company officials kept getting louder... and louder... and louder.  Right.... that's the sound of a healthy company poised for enormous growth....

So, what's Tony's next great plan?  Betting on guaranteed earnings from FirstEnergy's regulated business.  If you've been listening in on the earnings calls of Ohio's utility Tweedledum and Tweedledee over the past few years, you may note that Tony the Trickster was so focused on "beating" rival AEP in the Ohio retail market, that he didn't see what was sneaking up behind him.  AEP was forced to retreat from its competitive business a lot sooner, because FirstEnergy was so willing to take quantity over quality in order to sign up the most customers in Ohio.  Fortunately for AEP, concentrating on its regulated business a lot sooner than FirstEnergy saved it from a lot of sighing and scribbling.

Oh, that competition thing... it can make smart men do really stupid things.  Tony the Trickster got all offended when asked if the company would need to continue to inject cash in its loser competitive business segment, or if that part of the business would begin supporting itself.  Truth hurts, doesn't it?

FirstEnergy finds itself squarely behind the curve now, so the next great plan is to start pumping money (i.e. "investing") into its regulated transmission business.  What can go wrong with this plan?  Lots. 

FirstEnergy also plans to file base rate cases in West Virginia and Pennsylvania this year, despite the fact that its JCP&L rate case in New Jersey hasn't actually "derisked" the company.  Tony forgot to tell analysts that it must file a West Virginia rate case as a result of its dumping of the Harrison power station into West Virginia's regulated system, not that it wants to file a rate case to increase earnings.

Tony says that "reality" caused the company to most effectively "reposition" itself because now is the time to make a move to eliminate uncertainty, speculation and rumors by refocusing the company.

You believe him, don't you?
0 Comments

Wind Wars - Talking Dollars and Sense

1/16/2014

10 Comments

 
The battle between renewables and fossil fuel generation has taught us all that it's good to be "green."  However, "green" comes in many shades.  There are also many internal battles going on inside the renewables world.  One of the most concerning is the "big wind" battle pitting onshore wind companies against offshore wind companies.

There's lots of money to be made by harnessing the wind.  It's a "free" resource, and our green-hungry society is clamoring to feel good about themselves by financially supporting it.

But all wind isn't good wind.  The idea behind "green" is that it's a sustainable resource.  A sustainable resource is one that is defined as "conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources."

Onshore wind is not sustainable.  It requires the depletion of one of our most valuable resources, the  productive farmland that feeds and sustains us. It requires taking something from those less economically advantaged and politically connected and giving it to others with the right economic and political connections. Centralized onshore wind generation is taking over our farming communities with turbines and huge new transmission lines to feed it to far flung coastal cities thousands of miles away.  There, arrogant, urban environmentalists can feast hungrily on their expensive "green" energy, believing that they are helping sustain the planet.  Nothing could be further from the truth!

Offshore wind doesn't require new transmission rights of way across privately-held land.  It doesn't require much new land-based transmission at all.  The development will take place miles offshore and be fed to the coastal cities via a few new radial lines.  However, offshore wind has been blocked by economically and politically advantaged individuals who don't want distant wind turbines mucking up their sea views.  Instead, they would rather the rest of us suck it up and make a sacrifice to provide for their needs.

Onshore wind is much further along in the development process and is therefore less pricey than its offshore cousin.  However, onshore wind has reached the saturation point where billions must now be spent developing new transmission to serve it.  This brings us to the tipping point where we must decide our own energy future.

Will we finally move forward on offshore transmission located in our own back yards, or will we choose to spend just as much foisting the burden off on others by building new transmission for onshore wind?

Let's examine the economics of both proposals.

Onshore wind claims that its new transmission projects will provide 5000+ temporary construction jobs and 500+ operations jobs.  None of these suspiciously rounded claims are backed up by source data, so we can't be sure how they were calculated to determine their veracity.
  The jobs and economic benefits claimed by onshore wind are intended to be realized by the communities where the line is located.  For the example, that would be the states of Kansas, Missouri, Illinois and Indiana.  Coastal consumers buying this wind product would be sending their energy dollars to other states and into the pockets of foreign transmission project investors.

The U.S. Department of Energy just released comparable economic data for offshore wind.
  The data for offshore wind development off the mid-Atlantic coast predicts 6000+ temporary construction jobs and more than 2,300 operations jobs.  Offshore wind will keep your energy dollars at home in the mid-Atlantic region, providing jobs and economic benefits in the communities who consume the energy produced.

Local economic benefits from imported onshore wind:  0

Local economic benefits from local offshore wind:  $$$


The
choice is yours.

10 Comments

Getting the Water Back On - Who Pays?

1/14/2014

0 Comments

 
There's been a plethora of great media coverage of the Freedom Industries pollution of WV American Water's supply for 300,000 customers in nine West Virginia counties.  Read The Power Line's comparison of the public water system to West Virginia's dangerously centralized electrical system, or today's call to action for citizens.  I have no intention of adding to what has already been very succinctly written.  But, discussion with affected individuals sparked a conversation that I haven't seen the media get to... yet.

As the ban on water use is slowly lifted, area by area, water customers are being urged to flush their system.  This isn't more debate about whether the water is still safe for use, but looks forward to future grief over who will pay for all the water used to flush customer plumbing.

This article instructs water customers on flushing their system by turning on faucets and water using appliances and cycling tainted water from the system.  With the exception of outdoor spigots, tainted water is being flushed into the sewer system.

Customers pay for water and sewer usage.  West Virginia American Water rates allow for a minimum base charge for 1,500 gallons per month per customer.  Usage over that amount is based on gallons used.  Usage over the base amount is charged at the rate of $10.2911 for the first 1,000 over the base amount, up to 28,500 gallons over the base amount.  Because the company has agreed to credit customers for the cost of 1,000 gallons for flushing their system, we can assume that the cost of water necessary for flushing comes at a price of $10.2911 per customer.
At this time, West Virginia American Water reported it is prepared to offer a credit of 1,000 gallons of water to its residential customers.

“That’s not a number we just pulled out of the air,” McIntyre said, explaining that the credit should cover about 10 times the water amount necessary for customers to complete a proper flushing of their water tanks.
That sort of depends on who the customer is.  Your number of faucets, spigots and appliances to be flushed can increase or decrease your flushing usage quite significantly.

But that's not the real problem here.  All that flushing water comes at a cost.  1000 gallons per customer @ $10.2911 x 300,000 customers = $3,087,330 worth of water that WV American Water will credit on customer bills this month.

Do you think that WV American Water is just going to make that cost disappear?  Of course not.  It all has to be accounted for on the company's books.  The company could write it off as some sort of donation or goodwill, but that's unlikely.  Other options include deferring it in a special holding account to be dealt with later.  This would create a deferred regulatory asset.  This simply means the company would defer recovery of this amount until a later date.  The company will begin accruing interest on the deferral immediately.  Options for recovery would be through a claim against Freedom Industries, or a request to the WV Public Service Commission to recover it from ratepayers at a later date.  The easiest course for the company is to recover it through its West Virginia regulated rates. 

So, not only will you most likely end up paying for your 1,000 gallons of flushing water, you'll end up owing interest on it at some future time when the company and the WV PSC think you've forgotten all about the incident and they can take care of this business without your notice.

Ditto on your sewage rates for disposing of the excess water.
0 Comments

How "Big Wind" Wants to Manage its Opposition

1/10/2014

13 Comments

 
It's no surprise that the Center for Rural Affairs supports lots of new transmission lines across the Midwest.  The CFRA wants to maximize economic development in agricultural areas.  But, are they tossing the baby out with the bathwater?

"Farming" wind by covering prime farmland with wind turbines, and then selling the product to distant urban areas, is big money.  The profit potential is huge.  However, it is not a sustainable practice.  It requires a conscious choice to designate winners and losers.  In order to pull in income for a winning farmer hosting turbines, many other farmers must lose some or all of the current value of their farm operation by allowing the wind farm owner a right-of-way through their factory to ship the wind to the desired market.  This is a non-starter and cannot be remedied through one-time "market value" payoffs or hostile takeovers of productive operations.  Just like any unwanted intrusion into your income stream, many landowners vehemently oppose being burdened by new transmission lines. 

In many instances, a farm's heritage simply isn't for sale at any price.  This presents a big, big problem for the farms and communities who want to profit by hosting turbines, and they just don't want to take "no" for an answer.

In that vein, the CFRA has attempted to find some middle ground in the debate by identifying contentious issues and recommending solutions in a new report, From the Ground up:  Addressing Key Community Concerns in Clean Energy Transmission.  Not a bad premise, however the CFRA went about it in exactly the wrong way.  Instead of communicating openly with transmission opponents and actually listening to their concerns, the CFRA based their report on news stories, and then made assumptions about the thought process and motivation of opponents they had never met. 

I've spent a lot of time over the past 5 years communicating with many of the opponents of the projects CFRA studied, as well as other projects, and I think CFRA got it so wrong that their report comes off as arrogant and out of touch with reality.  It is something to be scoffed at and rejected, and it may only ratchet up the anger, instead of ameliorating it.

CFRA begins with an incorrect premise that transmission must be built.
The nation’s most abundant wind resources reside in the remote regions of the Upper Midwest and Great Plains. Residents of these areas routinely enjoy the benefits of wind production in the form of lease payments, jobs, economic development, and tax revenue. But these same lightly populated communities demand only a small amount of electricity, making it imperative that a new generation of transmission infrastructure be put in place to move this energy from where it’s produced to where it’s needed most.
This is where the failure starts... right at the beginning.

The nation's most abundant wind resources reside offshore, on the east and west coasts and in the Great Lakes.  Coincidentally, this is also close to the population centers.  In addition, communities across the country are increasing their desire to keep their energy dollars at home, not to send them to Midwestern states, or overseas to transmission owners/developers in foreign countries who want to invest in America's infatuation with "big wind."  It's just a non-starter when there is no market for the product.

As technology improves, how we produce and use energy is changing rapidly.  The promise of energy storage changes the equation considerably.  These "lightly populated communities" will soon be able to store wind energy to be used locally. 

Booming distributed generation of small-scale, on-site renewables and more reliable micro-grids are making long distance transmission obsolete.

However, that doesn't provide a profit stream for transmission developers and investors, and local energy prices will be lower than those achievable in urban markets.  What's driving this relentless desire for new transmission is pure and simple greed.

Here's an example of just one of the things CFRA got completely wrong:
Need
Concerns over need are more difficult to address than some other stakeholder issues. The concern over need often relates back to a concern over who will ultimately benefit from the project—is a transmission project needed for this area, or is the area merely a means to connect a generating source to a distant community? Localizing benefits of a transmission line can be a difficult task, especially if the developer is not in need of any materials or services that a community can provide.
Another option to address this is to make clear the benefits of improving the aging transmission infrastructure that runs across the country. Showing how upgraded transmission can affect consumer’s rates and reliability may be a good tact for developers. Although this doesn’t necessarily improve the local economy, it does show stakeholders that they are not taking on a transmission project without any sort of reward.
Concerns over need cause an affected individual to trace the project back to its source.  Who says this is needed and what is their motivation?  Of course, the motivation is always money, and that's where the individual's belief in the project developer or planner's information ends and the opposition begins.  There is no "good tact" for developers at this point.  They have lost all credibility.

CFRA believes that even flimsier need arguments will convince entrenched opposition, but that merely makes the presumption that opponents are a bunch of easily fooled Mayberry rubes, adding insult to injury. 

My advice to transmission developers would be to toss this report in the recycling pile along with the Sunday comics.  It's strictly bush league. 

The CFRA concludes:


In order to improve the transmission system in the Midwest and across the country, it is important that developers and advocates confront the concerns of those affected.
I would recommend that any company attempting this actually find out what the true concerns are by listening the those affected, and not by reading a reporter-filtered version in the newspaper.

My advice to newly-minted transmission opponents?  There's nothing wrong or shameful about your opposition.  Other affected individuals share your thoughts and feelings.  What the transmission developer proposes is not okay, and you don't have to accept it.
13 Comments

Is AEP Leading on Ideas or Dragging Around A Huge Anvil?

12/30/2013

7 Comments

 
The Columbus Dispatch and a couple of investment analysts gushed all over AEP CEO Nick Akins for "leading on ideas" yesterday.

What's Nick's idea?  Getting out of the generation business and betting AEP's future on long-distance transmission.

Bad idea.
...a transformation of the company’s structure and a shifting notion of what AEP needs to do to remain relevant in a changing energy landscape.

In doing so, the company is de-emphasizing what was once a crown jewel, the fleet of Ohio power plants, and putting a greater focus on developing an interstate network of power lines.

“The less we have to spend on centralized generation, the better off we are,” he said in a recent interview.

When he says “centralized generation,” he means big power plants. AEP will be closing more plants than it is building.

The company is shifting resources so it can expand its transmission system, made up of the high-voltage power lines that carry electricity across state lines and between metro areas.
Maybe ol' Nick missed the EEI report earlier this year, Disruptive Challenges: Financial Implications and Strategic Responses to a Changing Retail Electric Business.  The report cautioned electric utilities to avoid "that Kodak moment" for investors by embracing new technology and addressing competitive threats.

While getting out of the competitive centralized generation business "addresses" the threat that AEP may lose some of it's golden eggs in an unpredictable market, AEP is not embracing new technology or making itself relevant in a changing energy landscape.  It's simply putting even more of its golden eggs into a business plan that it will help to make obsolete. 

As competitive centralized generation closes, it is being replaced by independently owned distributed generation.  Distributed generation doesn't need new transmission.  Nick won't be collecting any eggs if he kills all the chickens.

A better idea to embrace new technology and establish future relevance was adopted by competitive generation company NRG earlier this year.
...NRG is installing solar panels on rooftops of homes and businesses and in the future will offer natural gas-fired generators to customers to kick in when the sun goes down, Chief Executive Officer David Crane said in an interview.
AEP loves regulated businesses.  It's a guaranteed revenue stream for a bulky, staid, not-particularly-innovative company.
AEP, which was reluctant to split its Ohio operations, has responded by focusing on the delivery business.
Meanwhile, the Ohio power plants are a shrinking asset. Because of environmental rules and the age of some of the plants, the company has announced a series of shutdowns that will occur over the next few years.

Also, AEP is in the process of transferring two plants away from Ohio regulation. The plants, both of which are in West Virginia near the Ohio line, will be regulated in nearby states that allow a utility to sell electricity directly to consumers.

Once the moves are complete, AEP will have 8,668 megawatts of power-plant capacity in the new Ohio power-plant subsidiary, which will be down from 11,652 megawatts today.

Akins says the company is responding to an economic climate in which there is little reason to build power plants in Ohio. The state’s electricity demand has been flat, and the regulatory structure provides no clear way to pay for plant construction.
So, dumping competitive, centralized generation is a smart idea, but increasing investment in long distance transmission to support a shrinking pool of centralized generators is not sustainable.

While AEP is banking on federally regulated interstate transmission to nearly double earnings from transmission activities from 2013 to 2014, AEP seems to have forgotten what happened with its PATH project.  Big, interstate transmission projects with long lead times lead to big failure.  That's because "need" for these projects is constantly shifting, and if opposition can delay them long enough, they become obsolete.  Opposition is growing by leaps and bounds.  AEP ain't seen nothing yet!

It's a risky proposition and I don't think it's a particularly good idea.
Akins says he’s having fun and is eager to see the work of the past two years come to fruition.

“We are now at a point where we can start defining our success,” he said. “Before, we had a huge anvil we were dragging around, whether it be environmental expense or whether it be other things we were dealing with that were reactionary. We’re finally at a point where we can map out the strategy of this company going forward. It is exhilarating.”
We'll be "having fun" too, supporting companies embracing the new technology of distributed generation, and dragging the progress of AEP's transmission projects down like a huge anvil.  Although AEP can ignore growing public discontent, it ultimately cannot be denied.
7 Comments

A Very Supercilious FirstEnergy Christmas

12/24/2013

0 Comments

 
As a FirstEnergy customer, I'm thrilled to know that my Board of Directors won't be bombarded with cheap foreign junk or moldy fruitcakes this holiday season.  Oh no, only the best for the folks who approve the compensation packages of the management that continues to send me inaccurate bills every other month!

The State Journal tells us:
When FirstEnergy selects gifts for its Board members at Christmas, they have one very firm requirement: They must be handmade in America.

"Not only are we supporting American artists, but we are also giving a unique, not mass-produced, American made gift to each of our board members. I urge all American businesses to look towards supporting American artists," says Tony Alexander, President & CEO.


Ho, Ho, Flippin' Ho.  I hope this doesn't end up in my bill.  But, it probably will.
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

    August 2025
    July 2025
    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.