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

Torturing FirstEnergy

12/11/2013

0 Comments

 
“This company’s going to experience a thousand points of pain,” UWUA Local 102 President Bob Whalen said.
And FirstEnergy thinks I'm mean?  Good one, Bob!

According to a news report, the standoff between FirstEnergy and locked out union employees in Pennsylvania continues.
Whalen said, however, that after a 20-minute preliminary meeting, representatives only spent five minutes around the negotiating table on Monday. He said after reading the first item on the union’s list of contract change requests, the extension of health care benefits for retirees, FirstEnergy ended the discussion.

“They said, ‘No, the meeting is over.’ They did not listen to the rest of our proposals,” Whalen said.
FirstEnergy says it can continue to operate indefinitely with its managers and supervisors doing the work of the locked out employees.  That will last until someone wants the afternoon off to go Christmas shopping...

The thing is, FirstEnergy is quite capable of punishing itself, over and over.  A more incompetent multitude of management morons would be hard to find.  Oftentimes the only effort needed is to stand back and stifle your giggles.  For instance:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has recon$idered an earlier decision that FirstEnergy's Beaver Valley nuke failed a force on force exercise earlier this year.  Apparently they only failed because of the way the exercise was set up.
Defending against militant goldfish is just such an inexact science!  Never fear though, the NRC still wants to keep a closer eye on Beaver Valley's operations because some of the issues that convinced inspectors a violation had occurred apparently can be seen in other areas of plant operation.

In other news, another lawsuit has been filed against FirstEnergy over contamination from its Little Blue Poison Pond, this time from neighbors in Pennsylvania.

Evidentiary hearings begin next Tuesday in Charleston in the matter of FirstEnergy's failure to read meters and bill its customers properly.  The staff of the WV PSC is recommending the company issue refunds for work not performed, and the WV Consumer Advocate is recommending that the company hire enough people to read every meter every month for at least a year in order to provide accurate usage data for future estimates.

And a new legislative session opens January 8, 2014!  Won't we have fun?
0 Comments

Potomac Edison/Mon Power Investigation Testimony Overlooks the Obvious

12/8/2013

0 Comments

 
The PSC staff, the Consumer Advocate and FirstEnergy all filed testimony in the General Investigation of the company's billing and meter reading practices on Friday.  While a satisfactory solution could possibly be cobbled together from the staff and consumer advocate testimony, they both overlooked the obvious.

The change in meter reader duties and the resulting employee exodus was a direct result of Allegheny Energy's merger with FirstEnergy.  The computer system change was a direct result of the merger.  The "renumbering" of meter reading routes was a direct result of the merger.  None of these causes of (excuses for?) FirstEnergy's billing and meter reading failure would have happened but for the merger.

FirstEnergy told the WV PSC that "...the Merger would not have any adverse impact on Allegheny, the West Virginia customers of Mon Power and Potomac Edison, other public utilities in West Virginia, or the public in general, Rather, Joint Petitioners projected that the Merger would result in a stronger combined company and would benefit the public generally, the WV Subs, and Allegheny’s West Virginia customers."

This is reality:  FirstEnergy's merger integration has caused great harm to hundreds of thousands of its West Virginia customers in the form of inaccurate bills.  These bills resulted in financial hardships and service shutoffs.  End of story.  It is now FirstEnergy's financial responsibility to right its wrongs and make amends to its customers.

From the FirstEnergy merger settlement (not that any of these stipulations have been enforced by the PSC):

During the Merger integration process, FirstEnergy and Allegheny will review existing procedures and policies to determine “best practices” and how to implement them, ensuring that customer benefits appropriately outweigh the associated costs and considering any related effects on customer service and customer satisfaction levels.
FirstEnergy failed to "consider" the effects of its failure to read electric meters on customer satisfaction.  Customers are so thoroughly disgusted with this company and its regulators that a mere slap on the wrist and promise to do better just aren't going to cut it.

The WV PSC staff fails to grasp the real causes and magnitude of the problem.  The Consumer Advocate does better, but both of these regulators have only seen the tip of the iceberg.  The failure to read electric meters has been going on since the fall of 2011, shortly after the merger.  The high "catch up bill" complaints actually began in the spring of 2012, months before any "storms."  "Storms" is just an excuse.

The staff also seems to fail to grasp that no matter which estimation routine is used, FirstEnergy's estimations will be inaccurate because they are based on inaccurate prior estimates.  A weather-adjusted estimate based on garbage is still going to be garbage, no matter how much FirstEnergy or EPRI tweak it.  No amount of mathematical tweaking can overcome a lack of accurate base data.

Although the staff seems content to wait and see if the inaccurate estimates trigger another billing charlie foxtrot this winter, I'm not.  I'm going to start handing out staff's phone number because I've heard and seen enough.  The inaccurate bills continue.  Perhaps the WV PSC would rather let the legislators solve this problem through their own investigation and enactment of new legislation?

As well, none of the regulators seem to notice or care how FirstEnergy is fudging their monthly statistical reports. 


And isn't it interesting that FirstEnergy keeps slipping down the slope toward reading every meter every month?  Just last month, the company admitted that it had selected "several thousand" accounts for monthly reading.  In its testimony filed Friday, the number of monthly read accounts has ballooned to 10,000. 
Give up, FirstEnergy:  Every meter, every month, one year.

So, what can we do to cobble together something good out of the recommendations in the testimony?
  1.  The Consumer Advocate recommends  "...that the Companies increase their number of meter readers in order to perform actual reads every month for at least a year to obtain 12 months worth of actual reliable data for every customer. Once there is reliable customer usage data, it can be determined whether there are systemic problems with the new FE software estimation procedures that should be addressed."  However, it should be stipulated that the company bears the financial responsibility for the monthly read expenses and that they shall not be recovered from customers nor included in any cost of service study for a future rate case.
  2. The Staff recommends "If a customer’s scheduled actual meter read is instead estimated for any reason other than demonstrable inclement weather or Federal or State Emergency Declaration, the customer shall receive a refund of the applicable customer charge for each month estimated usage occurs between utility performed actual meter readings.    Applicable customer charge means the tariff customer charge for the customer’s class of service. For example, a residential customer receiving three (3) consecutive estimated meter readings would receive a $15 credit on his next actual bill."  However this should be applied retroactively from the date of FirstEnergy's merger and refunded to customers to act as a punitive measure to mollify public anger.



That's it!  Can we stop screwing around here and just get this over with?  I'm pretty sure that FirstEnergy and its regulators have wasted way more time and money on this investigation than the company would have incurred to simply fix the problem months ago by reading meters every month.  It's simply obvious.
0 Comments

Happy Holidays!  Now Use More Electricity!

11/27/2013

1 Comment

 
Well, there they go again… the geniuses at FirstEnergy have devised another not so ingenious way to encourage you to pull their money-losing corporate keister out of the fire.

If you live in FirstEnergy's JCP&L or MetEd service territories, the company invites you to engage in some holiday excess that will put some excess cash in its own pocket.  The company's "Merry & Bright" Christmas lights contest invites you to create an electrical charlie foxtrot on your home and front yard that would put Clark Griswold to shame and then "like" the company Facebook page to enter a photo of your creation.

You could win a $250 gift card!  I don't think the company accepts gift cards to pay your $250 Christmas lights extravaganza electric bill though.

Ho, Ho, Ho, Big Daddy Tony needs a new Rolex for Christmas!


1 Comment

Rock Island Clean Line Outsmarted in Iowa

11/21/2013

2 Comments

 
Lots of news coverage this week about public notice meetings in Iowa for the Rock Island Clean Line (RICL).  The Preservation of Rural Iowa Alliance has done a fantastic job getting information to landowners so they are prepared for the power company meetings.

One story I came across featured some whiny comments from RICL's attorneys, complaining that the Alliance was making RICL's progress difficult.
"It is clear that the Alliance will seek to make this process unnecessarily burdensome and overly complicated before the board can even make its initial determination on whether the franchise should be granted," the company's lawyers conclude.
Let's take a look at who is making the process "unnecessarily burdensome and overly complicated," shall we?

Each state has a different process for transmission line permitting.  In Iowa, a hearing must be held if objections are filed, or when a petition involves the taking of property by eminent domain.  The Alliance has helped lots of landowners file objections, therefore a hearing is guaranteed.  Also, Iowa law requires informational meetings for landowners before they can be approached by RICL's land agents.  But, because RICL will stretch across nearly 400 miles of Iowa, eminent domain will most likely be needed to secure easements.  When a company files an application for its project, it must also state whether eminent domain will be sought.  If so, the applicant must provide an "Exhibit E" with specific information on each property it expects to take by eminent domain, to include specific ownership, legal description, a map of the property showing buildings, electric lines, and other features, as well as the names of any tenants on the property.

Clean Line can't be bothered to spend this much time and money on each property it wants to acquire, so they have asked the IUB to bifurcate (separate) the franchise process into two separate proceedings.  First, Clean Line wants the IUB to determine if its project is needed and serves a public purpose.  That way Clean Line can try to keep affected landowners out of that part of the process.  Only after that determination has been made would Clean Line bother to spend the money to provide "Exhibit E" information for eminent domain takings.  Clean Line also states that an affirmative determination granting it the requested franchise would "put Clean Line in a better position" to spend the money.  What they really mean is that it would put them into a better position to threaten landowners and tell them it's a done deal, hoping that would result in less eminent domain takings and less "Exhibit E" material.

Let's take a minute here to talk about Clean Line's "RSVP" for the initial public hearings.  I'm not sure why the IUB let them get away with this, but landowner notice of the project and meetings included a superfluous "RSVP" for the meeting, and a "request for information."  What kind of information does RICL want?  "Exhibit E" info. it would have a hard time gathering on its own, the names of any tenants.  This is the same info. it is whining about having to supply in order to apply for eminent domain.

Much to Clean Line's chagrin, however, the Alliance has some very smart attorneys who have filed a motion to resist the motion to bifurcate.  First of all, they argue that a motion to bifurcate is premature until the actual application for the franchise is filed because it deprives any potential intervenors of due process to object to the bifurcation.  They also note that Clean Line unsuccessfully lobbied for legislation to bifurcate the franchise process in 2011.  What Clean Line was unsuccessful at legislatively, they are now trying to acquire through the IUB.  They also point out how Clean Line intends to use any potential approval of the franchise before eminent domain proceedings to coerce landowners to voluntarily sign easement agreements.

Now, here's where it gets funny.  Clean Line starts to squeal and whine.  First, they want to limit the Alliance's participation in the case.  I'm sure our friends in Kansas, who were denied due process by having their own participation limited by the KCC, will identify with this tactic:
Clean Line does not object to the Alliance's limited intervention at this stage; however, Clean Line reserves the right to request specific limitations be placed on such participation depending upon the participation of other parties who may have the same interest as the Alliance. Such limitations may include but shall not be limited to prohibiting the Alliance from preparing direct testimony, submitting exhibits or other evidence, or conducting cross examination of witnesses. If the Alliance seeks to "advance the mutual arguments of all its members" as stated in its Petition to Intervene, limiting its participation to briefing legal arguments will satisfy the Alliance's goal.
And then Clean Line starts whining about how it got outsmarted by quoting information it harvested from the Alliance's website:
...the motive of the Alliance is clear: to make sure Clean Line does not build this  transmission line. A recent statement
from the Alliance Board President Carolyn Sheridan to the Alliance members concisely details the strategy:
"From the Board President
Think about it: Imagine you're [Rock Island Clean Line ("RICL")] and you have to file all
this information about a parcel of land in a distant location: How much time would it take
you to learn the names and addresses of all persons with an ownership interest in the land?
How much work would it be for you to prepare a map showing the location of all electric
lines and supports within the proposed easement; and the location of and distance to any building w/in 1OOft. of the proposed line? A lot of work. Multiply that by hundreds; and
you have an idea of how important it is to the success of RICL's project that it obtains.
The more parcels upon which RICL has to do all this work, the less likely this project is to
succeed. Every parcel upon which it has to do all this work is one more shovel of dirt on
the grave of this RICL line. Join the opponents of the line. DO NOT sign an easemnts
[sic] with RICL.
Carolyn Sheridan
Board President"

Without bifurcation, it is clear that the Alliance will seek to make this process unnecessarily burdensome and overly complicated before the Board can even make its initial  determination on whether the Franchise should be granted.
Umm... so?  The Alliance is just using existing laws that were put in place to protect Iowa landowners from out-of-state speculators like Clean Line.  If the process is "overly complicated" Clean Line ought to be taking its whining to the Iowa legislature, who made this law.

Clean Line also gives away another one of its strategies:   to financially break the Alliance by requiring them to participate in two separate legal processes, hoping they'll run out money and determination somewhere along the way.

I really don't think Clean Line's strategy is working.  It's only encouraging landowners to dig in even deeper and resist a voluntary easement.  If Clean Line is going to be met with a brick wall in either case, why bother with two different hearings?  That doesn't serve administrative efficiency.

And this about sums up Clean Line's little pity party:
The Alliance seeks to force Clean Line to waste time and resources, and consequently also the time and resources of the IUB, with the hope that Clean Line eventually gives
up on the project.
Well, if Clean Line wants to waste the time and resources of the people of Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri and Indiana, as well as regulatory boards in all these states, adjudicating and opposing its unneeded, speculative projects, I'd say Dr. Karma is making a long overdue house call to Clean Line headquarters!
Give up, Clean Line.  You've been completely outsmarted by the people of Iowa!

See the following newslinks about Clean Line's public meetings in Iowa this week:

Clean Line's Beth Conley tells a BIG LIE in this story:

Landowners Skeptical of Wind Energy Transmission Line

"...other states to the east that have little wind power potential but a strong demand for clean, reliable energy."  First of all, we have a better wind power resource 12 miles off the Atlantic coast, and furthermore, we are not "demanding" this project.

Clean Line Opponents Speak Out

Crowds Grow at Clean Line Public Meetings

Proposed Power Line Leaves Farmers Concerned
The faces and snarky comments from the anchor and reporter in this story are worth watching!


Details on Transmission Line Aired Out

Proposed Power Line Project Sparks Controversy in Northeast Iowa

Property owners sound off on Clean Line plan

2 Comments

FirstEnergy Fails to Address Substance

11/21/2013

2 Comments

 
In the wake of the FirstEnergy General Investigation of billing, meter reading and customer service practices of Potomac Edison and Mon Power, the WV PSC ordered the company "to address the substance of the complaints voiced at the hearings." 

Yesterday, FirstEnergy filed its "address."  Gotta wonder, does the PSC ever smack the regulated with a ruler and reject a homework assignment as incomplete?

FirstEnergy only "addressed the substance" of its own selective hearing of the public comments, not the actual comments.  FirstEnergy only "addresses" what it wants to address, picking and choosing only the complaints that fit into its story line, and ignoring the rest.  Go ahead, read the "report."  Were your issues addressed?  If not, please feel free to let the WV PSC know.

Don't let your time and effort at the public comment hearing be swept under the rug and dismissed by FirstEnergy!  And, while you're at it, why not drop an email to Senator Herb Snyder and let him know how you've been tossed under the bus by the PSC and FirstEnergy.  Be nice to Herb, he's on our side!
2 Comments

Grain Belt Express Clean Line Files for Negotiated Rate Authority at FERC

11/20/2013

0 Comments

 
One of the biggest questions plaguing Grain Belt Express opponents has at long last been answered... well, sorta, for now.

Who is supposed to pay for this $2 billion project?

By finally applying to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for authority to negotiate rates for transmission service with potential buyers and sellers of electricity, Grain Belt Express pretends that it intends to finance its own project.

Although, GBE has been telling other audiences that ratepayers in "states farther east" may be paying for its project:
Mr. Glotfelty also noted that there could be circumstances under which the Grain Belt Project could find it necessary to depart from the cost recovery model described and instead seek cost recovery through regional or inter-regional cost allocation mechanisms.

Mr. Berry testified that while Petitioner currently has no plans to seek cost recovery for this Project through regional cost  allocation, Petitioner is not in a position to make an irrevocable commitment not to seek cost allocation. He stated that such a  commitment would be premature and would potentially go against the public interest. If regulations change in the future, an irrevocable commitment not to recover costs in a certain manner may compromise the ability of Petitioner to complete the Project.
Do you think maybe GBE isn't being completely honest with FERC?  I do wonder how a situation that may compromise GBE is is against the public interest, if all project risk is being absorbed by GBE as a merchant transmission project?

GBE has presented an altered version of reality to FERC:
D. Public Outreach
Public outreach and active stakeholder involvement are key components of Applicant’s approach to development of the Project. Beginning in 2010, Grain Belt Express implemented an extensive, methodical, multi-level public outreach strategy across Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana, which has resulted in more than 1,000 in-person meetings across the Project area as of November 2013. Grain Belt Express also has maintained an active presence online and through social media. The Project’s website, www.grainbeltexpresscleanline.com, has been actively updated since the beginning of the Project in 2010. Among other information, the website contains: a project video that describes the need for the Project and how Grain Belt Express will bring significant economic benefit to states through much-needed transmission expansion for new wind energy projects; an FAQ section for all stakeholders to learn greater details about the Project; a section on how local businesses can learn about opportunities to participate in the construction of the Project; and information regarding Project meetings, maps, studies, regulatory filings, and third-party resources. In addition, Grain Belt Express distributes a newsletter on a regular basis to hundreds of stakeholders. These newsletters provide information on Project milestones, recent events and meetings, as well as upcoming Project activities. The newsletter is available to anyone who is interested in receiving a copy. Applicant’s participation in multiple state regulatory proceedings also has publicized information regarding the Project.
E. Project Schedule
Applicant continues to work closely with land use and routing experts as well as landowners, local government officials, state and federal agencies, and other stakeholders in the areas where the Project will be built in order to gather input and determine the specific route for the transmission line in each state that it will traverse. Applicant is consulting experts on topics such as threatened and endangered species, archaeology, and cultural resources to ensure that appropriate considerations are taken into account in the routing decisions. Applicant expects to obtain all necessary authorizations from federal, state, and local governments and agencies for the Project by 2016.
I think I might know a few landowners who feel they have not been "closely worked with."  In fact, the affected landowners in Kansas were the LAST ones to find out about GBE's project.  Some of these landowners feel they were not properly notified under Kansas law, and even when they found out, they were denied effective participation in a matter that granted GBE the right to take their land by force.  GBE even admits that, according to their public outreach plan, landowners are the last to be notified, after environmental groups, business groups, elected officials, local governments, and potential suppliers.  It is only after Clean Line has drummed up support for its project by schmoozing and making dubious promises that it springs the project on affected landowners.  In this way, Clean Line hopes that landowner concerns will be smothered by the group of MIMPSYs it has created.

However, FERC has no jurisdiction to right any wrongs made in the state regulatory process because it has no authority over siting and permitting.  But, the dishonesty is galling.


GBE also tells FERC that it will shoulder all financial responsibility and risk for its project:
Applicant is assuming all market risk associated with the development and construction of the Project, and Applicant does not have and will not have any captive customers. Accordingly, Applicant has no ability to pass through the Project’s costs to captive ratepayers.
Well, not really.  GBE is passing some of its risk and cost associated with its project on to affected landowners and local governments who are expected to shoulder uncompensated project costs.  Such costs may include the expense of providing public safety services during construction and operation, use of roadways for construction and maintenance, reduction in tax base, lowered property values, interference with farming operations, health and safety risks of living and working in close proximity to the project, inverse condemnation takings, lowered farm operation income, and increased costs to farm around the project, and the list goes on.

GBE also mentions that there are other planned regional projects that will provide price competition.  These other projects that are ordered by RTOs are financed by, and guaranteed cost recovery from, ratepayers.  Ratepayers are assuming all risk of these other projects.  If GBE causes the competing projects to fail, ratepayers will end up financing the failed projects, for which they will never receive any benefit.


In addition, GBE is promising FERC that it will abide by the Commission's rules about honest and aboveboard negotiation with potential customers.  If landowners believe GBE has not been honest and aboveboard with them, how can FERC trust that GBE will keep promises made in this application?  Many believe that GBE has not developed a good reputation of honestly attempting to follow regulation in the public interest.  In fact, some believe that GBE's reputation is that of smart alec arrogance, always trying to manipulate regulation in order to advance its pecuniary goals.

For instance, after promising Kansas regulators 135 "operations" jobs in the state related to its project, GBE tells FERC the truth:
Once the Project is completed, Applicant will turn over operational control of the Project to an RTO, which will operate the line pursuant to a FERC-approved non-discriminatory rate schedule filed under the RTO’s OATT.
There is no RTO located in Kansas.

GBE also asks FERC for permission to use special selection criteria to evaluate offers.  Preference will be given to potential customers who are willing to make "deposits" and shoulder some of the cost burden.  In this way, GBE may be discriminating against customers who are not in a position to invest in its speculative project.  I'm not sure this is what FERC really had in mind as non-discriminatory.

Keep an eye on this one.  It's going to be interesting.
0 Comments

WV PSC Schedules Evidentiary Hearing on Potomac Edison/Mon Power Billing & Meter Reading Case

11/18/2013

2 Comments

 
The WV PSC issued an Order today setting an evidentiary hearing for December 17 - 19 on its General Investigation into meter reading, billing and customer service practices.

An evidentiary hearing will allow interested parties to intervene, file testimony and cross examine witnesses.  At the end of the process, the PSC will order remedies, if it determines that any are necessary.

The Commission has set a deadline of November 27 for petitions to intervene in the case.

In addition, FirstEnergy filed its response to the PSC Staff's recommendations.

FirstEnergy is now admitting that maybe we're right.  It's the legal equivalent of being "a little pregnant," I suppose.
...the Companies identified accounts in the Potomac Edison and Mon Power territories that we deemed necessary for reading on a monthly basis through at least January 2014 in order to help address the situation. If the Companies are unable to obtain an actual    reading for those accounts during that period, the billing department is reviewing the history to manually determine an estimate.    If a manual estimate cannot be calculated or other problems are discovered, the account is escalated to a Meter Reading supervisor.
How do you suppose these accounts were "identified?"  In its monthly statistical filing, FirstEnergy states that there are only "several thousand" problem accounts (out of more than 500,000).  I guess that must mean I've heard from every one of those customers over the past year and a half because I'm sure they didn't leave out any of the people who've told me their billing horror story.
After last month's review of accounts with multiple estimates during last year's storms and winter heating season,  we have identified several thousand customer accounts for special handling. This is a proactive attempt to mitigate compounding issues from a year ago. These accounts will be downloaded for reading on a monthly basis starting November through January 2014.    These accounts also have a hold placed OR billing to first allow for an internal review if an actual read cannot be obtained.    The review includes a billing representative's analysis of last year's estimation through the winter heating period to manually determine an estimate.    If a manual estimate cannot be calculated or other problems are discovered the account is escalated to the Meter Reading supervisor for further handling.
So, are you "special?"  FirstEnergy still hasn't gotten it right.  We are ALL "special."

How much money is this company going to waste on uninspired, half-assed "fixes" and denial of the problem?  Will they end up spending MORE than it would have cost to just do it right in the first place?
2 Comments

When Environmental Groups Go Bad

11/17/2013

4 Comments

 
What happens when you combine clueless billionaires, former government officials and environmental warriors?

The Energy Future Coalition.

Whatever may once have been good about this organization has been thoroughly exterminated by greedy transmission speculators and arrogant clean energy maniacs (cleaniacs) on an unmindful mission to "save the world" in a big ol' hurry. 

To put it quite bluntly, the "big green" NGO "clean energy now" militancy is beginning to backfire and disenchant a growing section of middle America.  At a meeting last week, I mentioned that I was not going to renew my Sierra Club membership this year because I disagree with the direction the club's leadership has taken recently.  To my surprise, the sentiment went around the table, with several others volunteering that they had also cancelled their memberships, or were planning to do so.  In addition, many farmers (the original environmentalists!) have become repulsed at the "big green" push to accomplish hostile takeovers of their factories to re-purpose them to produce "clean energy," instead of food.  The environmental NGOs have gone too far and are actually fomenting a middle-America rebellion against clean energy.

In 2010, the EFC launched "Americans for a Clean Energy Grid" (ACEG) to ostensibly support their work on smart grid initiatives.  However, instead of encouraging "a modernized electrical grid that uses information and communications technology to gather and act on information, such as information about the behaviors of suppliers and consumers, in an automated fashion to improve the efficiency, reliability, economics, and sustainability of the production and distribution of electricity," ACEG has turned into an organization that attempts to smother due process to enrich its "members."  And, along the way, no actual "Americans" were engaged.  ACEG is nothing but a front group for entities who stand to make enormous profits building unneeded high voltage transmission lines.

This article in Smart Grid News foreshadows the kind of jack-booted "clean energy" future in store for us if we don't rein in these avaricious fakes before they cause any more damage.

Cleaniacs are all about building new "dumb" transmission, and they are chafing at existing laws and due process afforded to citizens holding rights to land "clean energy" transmission developers covet for new rights-of-way.

Here are several lies these cleaniacs are spreading:

1.  "The grid was built first to connect power plants to cities, then to connect cities to each other, and more recently to join regions together."  While the first two connections are correct, the last one is false.  The more recent "connection" has been made to trade energy as a commodity over long distances.  It all started with Enron, and although Enron collapsed under the weight of its own treachery, energy trading still provides a fertile breeding ground for market manipulation that fills the coffers of energy traders who gleefully "lift the piss out of" energy prices consumers pay.

2.  "While part of this expansion is intended to reach out to remote areas with wind and solar resources, it is also necessary to connect everything to everything, to allow for the free flow of electrons, to minimize the variability of wind and solar power."  Connect everything to everything... so that when one small component fails the entire country pitches into darkness?  This isn't safe or reliable.

3.  "High-voltage transmission lines make the grid more efficient and reliable by alleviating congestion, promoting bulk-power competition, reducing generation costs, and allowing grid operators to balance supply and demand over larger regions."  Makes the grid more reliable by "allowing" grid operators to balance supply and demand over larger regions?  That's a complicated recipe for disaster!

The rise of distributed generation is treated like a mere speed bump. 

"The rapid advance of distributed generation is one wild card.  FERC Chair Jon Wellinghoff has noted that the rapid progress with rooftop solar could reduce the need for transmission to connect big renewables from remote regions.  'We need to build only the transmission that we need,' he told Public Utilities Fortnightly."

It gets a brief mention as only a "wild card," before the authors jump right back into the "benefits" of more transmission.

The cleaniacs claim the grid has been stymied by:

Boundaries: regions have to share the costs of new lines that cross their borders;
Benefits: regulators have to make sure payments for new transmission are “roughly commensurate” with the benefits, and paid by the beneficiary;
Siting: new lines must minimize environmental and cultural impacts, and provide fair compensation to landowners, yet the siting process is often inconsistent and uncoordinated;
Policy:  not all states plan their transmission around pro-renewable policies, though renewables are starting to be economic without policy.

But what they really mean is that transmission developer and supplier profits have been stymied by just and reasonable cost allocation, due process for affected landowners, and state authority.  These are things that should not and cannot be improved upon.  However, that doesn't stop the cleaniacs from making recommendations for the phantom "policy makers."  Who are these people?  Do they even exist at the level referred to in this article?  Or are they just more empty cleaniac platitudes?

  • Policy makers must accurately assess the costs and benefits of transmission expansion, incorporating public policy goals, operational benefits, lower overall power sector costs, and economic development.  Why are there no "costs" on this list if we're assessing the costs and benefits?  Could it be that costs are not being accurately assessed?
  • Planners should prioritize transmission lines that link balancing areas, so that we can connect strong renewable resources to loads, reduce the impacts of their variability, and integrate them seamlessly into the grid.  What if "planners" prioritized distributed generation, demand management and energy efficiency?  Aren't these cleaniac goals as well as building new transmission?
  • Regions should harmonize grid operations and increase competition in electricity markets, to reduce costs and increase efficiency.  And keep those JP Morgan and Barclay's guys out of the food stamp line.
  • Regulators should slash the timeline for planning, building, and siting transmission through better coordination, clear rules and expectations, and best practices in siting.  What's wrong with this timeline?  1)Plan a project; 2)build a project; 3)site a project.  Where does due process for affected citizens fit in that expedited timeline?  And here's another useless business buzzword "best practices in siting."  You mean these?
  • We must make the most of existing lines and new ones once they are built, through energy efficiency, distributed generation, and technical fixes like dynamic line rating. This is probably the most ridiculous recommendation -- someone just had to insert "and new ones once they are built" into a sentence that only made sense without the addition.  Rebuilding existing lines should be the FIRST priority, not "building new ones."  How stupid would it be to build a new transmission line and then "make the most of it" by applying technical fixes?  These cleaniacs really aren't too smart, are they?
So, what do you get when you combine thousands of concerned landowners and ratepayers that oppose the out-of-control building of new transmission of dubious worth and motive?  Perhaps we'll soon find out...
4 Comments

Koreans Continue Power Line Battle

11/14/2013

1 Comment

 
The NYT recently did an article on the transmission battle going on in Miryang, Korea between landowners and state utility, Kepco.

Kepco is all of a sudden in a very big hurry to get their project built because the truth about its real purpose is starting to leak out.

The elders have taken a stand.
On a recent day, the men stood behind ropes tied across the path leading to the outpost, smoking cigarettes and watching for construction workers they feared would come at any time. Three nooses dangled from nearby pine trees. “To hang them or be hanged,” the men said.

The women have also taken a fatalistic turn, building trenches in front of their tents they say will serve as their own grave sites if the authorities try to remove them. Ms. Sohn said she recently tried to prepare her children for the worst.

“When they called me the other day, I said, ‘I will die fighting,' ” she said. “That way, I would be less ashamed when I met my dead ancestors.”
The social injustice of forcing rural landowners to make a sacrifice to provide a benefit for distant cities and corporate profits is internationally recognized, and particularly galling when the need for sacrifice is purely manufactured based on political or financial goals.
1 Comment

FirstEnergy & American Electric Power Transmission "Reliability" Ratepayer Shakedown

11/12/2013

4 Comments

 
Building transmission (whether it's needed or not) has been a utility profit center for years.  But now investor owned utilities are really shaking the transmission money tree to make up for the fact that the rest of their business is failing.

And like all good utility money-making schemes, West Virginia's out-of-state utility tedious twins go head-to-head to see which one can make the most money doing it fastest and "bestest."

Last week, FirstEnergy's Tony the Trickster made some big deal about a new transmission money making scheme approved by FirstEnergy's Board of Bamboozlers.  This $2.8B "transmission spend" was given cover by being dubbed the "Transmission Reliability Excellence Plan 2014-2017," like it's all about reliability and not about "target[ing] annual transmission Net Income growth of 20+%."  At what point do the reliability needs of customers intersect with FirstEnergy's need to make money?  Wow, serendipity!  FirstEnergy's system is going to be as "unreliable" as needed to grow income 20+%.  The more "unreliable" FirstEnergy's system is, the more money FirstEnergy makes!
The "near term" plan consists mainly of rebuilds and upgrades to FirstEnergy's ATSI and TrAILCo systems.  FirstEnergy will concentrate on its 69 & 138kV systems in order to avoid regulatory or community opposition hurdles that could slow down the "investment."  FirstEnergy also reasons that an improved system will cut down on future maintenance costs, and that will help keep O&M in check.

But, wait a tick, how much of this "need" for re-building has been caused by FirstEnergy's long-term failure to maintain its system, and therefore should properly fall under the category of ordinary maintenance expense that the company has already been reimbursed for?  If it were this easy, utilities could simply refuse to perform any maintenance on their transmission systems, and then wrap all the ordinary course repairs into some fancy package called a "Transmission Reliability Excellence Plan" and get reimbursed for it separately (and at higher rates) when a need to grow income arises.  This isn't "reliability," it's a ratepayer shakedown.  If FirstEnergy gets away with it, the company plans to increase their "reliability" to the tune of $12B "over time."

FirstEnergy reasons:  The majority of these projects located in the ATSI region will target 69kV lines, which are outside of the RTEP approval process, and that construction would occur on land where most rights- of-way are already secured.  But, assets assigned to TrAILCo must receive PJM RTEP approval and operate at 100kV and above, therefore these will be secondary to the low-hanging fruit in ATSI.

You'll be happy to know that public-money-sucker Burns & McDonnell has been hired to manage the engineering, procurement, construction and completion of the capital portfolio created for the plan and has established an office in Akron, OH
.  It's full steam ahead to spend as much of your money as fast as possible, little ratepayer!

FirstEnergy plans to put all its "transmission spend" eggs into its FERC jurisdictional formula rate baskets -- ATSI with a return of 12.4%, and TrAILCo, with a return of 11.7% for non-TrAIL projects and 12.7% for rebuilds and upgrades to the two-year old TrAIL line.

Is this really about "energizing the future by improving the health, capacity, and reliability of the transmission system for existing and new customer loads," or is it more about "energizing the future by improving the health, capacity, and reliability of the FirstEnergy balance sheet for existing and new shareholders"?

Meanwhile, not to be outdone, AEP has also announced its own plan to spend around $5B on the "reliability" of its transmission systems over the next 3 years.
AEP CEO Nick Akins said the company’s infrastructure investments will be aimed at improving the reliability of electric service to customers. He said the company expects to invest nearly $5 billion in its AEP Transmission Holding Co. unit through 2016, adding the holding company’s contribution to earnings will nearly double in 2014 alone.
However, AEP isn't afraid to invest in joint ventures and big, new projects outside its footprint. 

Both companies have also submitted numerous bids on the first two PJM transmission project bidding windows.


Which transmission investment business plan will be the winner?  And how much is this going to cost us before regulators catch on to the "reliability" scam and challenge it?  And what if someone goes after the companies' FERC ROEs?  The fun is only just beginning...

Maybe we should distract their attention by challenging these two companies to see which one of them gets into the solar business first?  How much money is there to be made putting solar on every residential roof and then charging the customers "rent" for the investment?  Or will they continue pumping the transmission "reliability" well until it runs dry before taking any positive action to make themselves relevant in a brave, new, distributed generation world? 
4 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.