In the NOI, Promoting Transmission Investment Through Pricing Reform, FERC is seeking comments about the effect of its incentives in promoting transmission.  If you're going to comment, you need to understand what the incentives are, and what they are intended to do.

One of FERC's incentives is the entitlement to seek recovery of 100% of the prudently incurred costs of transmission projects that are abandoned for reasons beyond the control of the transmission owner and are never built or put in service.  In order to collect on this incentive once granted, the transmission owner must make a separate Section 205 filing to FERC showing that abandonment was beyond their control and that all costs proposed to be recovered are prudent.  Other parties may intervene and challenge the filing.  Granting of this incentive is not a guarantee of a favorable ruling, but use your own judgment on how you think FERC would rule when their incentive is tested.

Historically, FERC precedent was that the risk of abandoned projects would be shared equally between consumers and shareholders, with 50% being recovered over what would have been the life of the project, if it had gone in service, and 50% being written off as a loss by the transmission owner.  However, in a 2005 case, FERC granted 100% recovery of abandoned plant in a California case because the transmission developer would not be controlling or profiting from the generation source and would be shouldering additional risk that the new generation would not be built.  In 2006, FERC used this case as reasoning for offering the 100% recovery to incentivize new transmission.

Guaranteed ability to recover prudently incurred costs if a transmission project fails for reasons beyond their control removes all investment risk from the transmission owner and stockholders and places it all squarely on the shoulders of the consumers.  The failure of a transmission project is even more beyond the control of the consumer than it is beyond the control of the owner!

If recovery of abandoned plant removes all risks, are other incentives necessary?  FERC has granted multiple incentive package deals to many transmission projects, making them win-win for their developers and lose-lose for the consumers, who always wind up holding the bag.  This is not "just and reasonable" and has created a proliferation of white elephant projects being proposed in PJM, such as PATH, MAPP and Susquehanna-Roseland, that are stalled or "suspended" due to lack of need.  When there is no risk to the developer of a project and only further rewards to be gained by proposing new projects, whether they ever actually get built or not, how many unneeded projects will be proposed as transmission owners crowd the incentive buffet, intent on scoring their own piece of free pie?

As well, transmission projects now receiving abandonment incentives are directly benefiting from the proposed facilities by sourcing them from their own generation facilities, such as AEP's PATH project that would increase generation and market share for their John Amos coal-fired plant.  PATH would provide free transportation to higher-priced markets for increased production at Amos, something that would benefit AEP shareholders by increased profit from both generation and transmission.

In the NOI, beginning on page 27, FERC discusses the abandonment incentive and asks several specific questions.  Now that you know what abandonment is... go look at the questions and formulate your comments/suggestions for FERC.  I'm sure you creative consumer "stakeholders" can make suggestions that the industry won't even ponder.  The industry will be letting FERC know how they can and should sweeten the pot even further for them.  It's up to you to provide balance with a little real world sanity.

Keep checking back... there's lots more incentives to come!

If you found this helpful in crafting your comments, you are encouraged to browse the entire FERC Transmission NOI category at StopPATHwv.com for other useful material.  You don't have to comment on all aspects of the NOI if that's too burdensome.  In fact, if you want to concentrate in detail on just one aspect that interests you and about which you have strong feelings, that's a perfectly acceptable approach to producing effective comments.

In the NOI, Promoting Transmission Investment Through Pricing Reform, FERC is seeking comments about the effect of its incentives in promoting transmission.  If you're going to comment, you need to understand what the incentives are, and what they are intended to do.

Let's start with incentive ROE adders.  When a company makes an investment in something like a new transmission project, they will be tying up their capital (and/or borrowing) to finance the capital assets of the project.  They are not reimbursed dollar for dollar as the money is spent for the entire cost of the project.  We wouldn't be able to afford it if we were charged for something like the PATH project's $2.1B cost over the 5 year construction period. 

There are two different sets of costs going on -- expense and capital assets.  Expense includes the operation & maintenance costs of the project and are reimbursed dollar for dollar as they occur.  The capital asset costs (in the case of a transmission project, mainly the fixtures and land) are reimbursed over time during the useful life of the project as they depreciate.  So, in exchange for tying up their capital and/or borrowing money to finance these assets, the company is entitled to a return on their investment.  It wouldn't be fair to equate this with an investment return you'd earn on your own money.  If returns on these projects aren't lucrative, the company could find a better place to invest their money and nothing would ever get built.

Utility returns are usually somewhere in the neighborhood of 9 - 11%.  However, in order to incentivize transmission, FERC felt it necessary to sweeten the pot with incentive ROE adders.  The return is calculated through something called the DCF analysis and then incentive adders boost the return to what FERC calls "the zone of reasonableness" arrived at through an anaysis of a selected proxy group of similar utility returns.  An "adder" is a certain number of points added to the DCF base rate of return.  100 points equals an additional 1%.

In the case of our poster child, PATH, the company's DCF analysis produced a 12.3% base rate and they requested an additional 50 points for being a member of an RTO, and an additional 150 points for their project's above average risks.  These abnormal risks, according to PATH, were the large amount of investment needed ($2.1 billion price tag); the coordination needed between two different companies; regulatory risk (the uncertainty of approvals); the need to attract needed investment (so PATH could borrow money to finance the project); siting and approvals needed in 2 different states (which ended up being 3 after re-routing); and PJM's aggressive construction timetable (originally "needed" in 2012).  The requested incentive ROE adders, which were conditionally approved and set for re-hearing (currently in process), added 200 points, or 2%, to PATH's return on equity, for a total of 14.3%, which was in the high end of the "zone of reasonableness," although not at the top of the zone.

Sounds pretty sweet, doesn't it?  But the incentives didn't stop there!  There were more!  But, that's discussion for another time.

In the NOI, beginning on page 23, FERC discusses the incentive ROE adder and asks several specific questions.  Now that you know what a ROE adder is... go look at the questions and formulate your comments/suggestions for FERC.  I'm sure you creative consumer "stakeholders" can make suggestions that the industry won't even ponder.  The industry will be letting FERC know how they can and should sweeten the pot even further for them.  It's up to you to provide balance with a little real world sanity.

Keep checking back... there's lots more incentives to come!

If you found this helpful in crafting your comments, you are encouraged to browse the entire FERC Transmission NOI category at StopPATHwv.com for other useful material.  You don't have to comment on all aspects of the NOI if that's too burdensome.  In fact, if you want to concentrate in detail on just one aspect that interests you and about which you have strong feelings, that's a perfectly acceptable approach to producing effective comments.

The NOI was published in the Federal Register on Friday, so now we have a deadline date.  Comments must be filed by July 26.  For more information about how to file your comments, see this guide.  For more information about the incentives, see this topic and keep checking back.  Don't miss your opportunity to let FERC know how their transmission incentives have worked so well that they are now a new profit center for energy companies. These companies have been proposing transmission projects as a way to make money, instead of as a way to satisfy a need for additional transmission.

If you found this helpful in crafting your comments, you are encouraged to browse the entire FERC Transmission NOI category at StopPATHwv.com for other useful material.  You don't have to comment on all aspects of the NOI if that's too burdensome.  In fact, if you want to concentrate in detail on just one aspect that interests you and about which you have strong feelings, that's a perfectly acceptable approach to producing effective comments.

It's getting a bit more interesting now.  Chairman Wellinghoff responds to Representative Bartlett again in this letter.

Wellinghoff confirms that there are two outstanding matters currently pending.  One is the rehearing that's been going on regarding PATH's 14.3% ROE.  Don't bother looking at the settlement judge's report referenced, it merely says that settlement is ongoing, it doesn't give any details.  You're going to have to wait for the order to come out to read any of that.  The amount PATH is going to cost you isn't public information right now.

The other is the Formal Challenge, submitted back in January, which "alleges imprudence, fraud, and improper accounting by booking costs to more than one FERC Account."

These are things we already know (although I don't recall using the word "fraud" anywhere in the complaint -- that must be FERC's characterization).

If PATH is canceled or withdrawn, they can request recovery of 100% of the cost of their abandoned project, one of the incentives granted to them back in 2008 to "promote transmission investment through pricing reform."

We know that too.

Wellinghoff tells Bartlett that cancellation or withdrawal is up to PJM.  PJM is a cartel of energy companies whose impartiality has been questioned. 

However, this paragraph is interesting:

"Regarding your question concerning changing the end point of the PATH transmission line and its affect on the rate, please note that with respect to rates, Order No. 679 provides guidelines for review of transmission rate incentives if the design of a transmission project changes materially. Specifically, when an applicant files to recover the incentive in its rates from a changed project, other interested persons may challenge that filing at that time, and those other interested persons may also file a complaint."

You know, the PATH project that received the incentives back in 2008, based on its former inclusion in PJM's RTEP and its fix for reliability issues that have since disappeared, has been reconfigured.  The original PATH project consisted of a 765kV line from Amos to Bedington and two 500kV lines from Bedington to the "Doubs" substation in Kemptown, MD.

Is Wellinghoff insinuating that someone should file a complaint and make all the recent comments on the docket official?

Wellinghoff says that a public meeting is only necessary when the Commission needs to supplement the record.  He doesn't get it.  Bartlett's requested meeting is for an increasingly irate public to have their questions answered, not for the Commission's benefit.  Instead, FERC wants to remain ensconced in their ivory tower and leave public servants like Bartlett in the line of fire from disgruntled consumers.  How many times and in how many ways can you blow off a Congressman before he gets offended?  I guess we'll find out.

Wellinghoff advises that FERC has no authority over siting and therefore cannot answer the questions about property values.  That is true.

Let's end with this:  "the Commission's role in this type of proceeding is mostly limited to regulating the transmission rates associated with proposed facilities..."

Indeed.  I think that was Representative Bartlett's point.

See this article in NJ Spotlight about the Atlantic backbone with the headline, "Federal Agency Says Offshore Developer Can Charge Consumers Before It Delivers Power."  While this reporter comes about as close to "getting it" as any I have seen, the article implies that charging consumers for various white elephant transmission projects created by FERC's AYCE incentives buffet is the exception, rather than the rule.

Fact is, all PJM ratepayers have been financing multiple incentive-driven projects ever since FERC issued Order No. 679 in 2006.  We've even picked up the costs of "pre-commercial" expenses like setting up the PATH shell companies.

We've paid for the Susquehanna-Roseland project, the TrAIL project (including abandoned segments, with interest), the MAPP project and the PATH project.  This represents billions of dollars of extra expense in your electric bill, and millions of dollars of profit for the power company developers.  It might not be so bad if consumers were getting some benefit from these projects, but the only one even close to completion is TrAIL.  Susquehanna-Roseland and MAPP are stalled for different reasons, and PATH has been "suspended."  However, the developers continue to spend money and earn a return for these white elephants.

This is what FERC's NOI on "Promoting Transmission Investment Through Pricing Reform" of May 19 is all about.  Let FERC know what you think by submitting your comments.

But, back to the article (you need to slap me off my soapbox every once in a while).  The NJ Sierra Club also tips the reporter off to the fact that the Atlantic backbone is also capable of carrying coal-fired power from Virginia to New Jersey.  Bill had this one figured out last year, so it's nothing new.  Why else do you think Dominion all of a sudden wanted to get off the bench and enter the game with its MSD rebuild?  This leads to an overarching thought on FERC's NOI -- how many of these "badly needed" transmission projects could easily be solved by modernizing, upgrading and rebuilding existing transmission lines at a much cheaper cost, with less regulatory uncertainty, and much quicker than new projects like PATH, TrAIL, MAPP and S-R?  When Dominion wanted to make PATH go away, it was quickly and easily accomplished.  This question is sort of alluded to in a backhanded way in the NOI, so keep it in mind when you submit your comments.

And about the NOI -- FERC makes this statement:  "The Commission believes that there remains a need for additional transmission investment to ensure the reliable operation of the grid and reduce the cost of delivered power by reducing transmission congestion."  And then there's nothing to back it up.  On what do they base this "belief" that more and bigger transmission is the best way to proceed?  In reality, more and more people are investing in self-reliance and getting off the grid by installing their own solar or wind systems.  This is our future, not continued reliance on the old transmission dinosaur that's sadly out-of-date.  In his statement accompanying the NOI, Commissioner Moeller states, "By building needed transmission, our electrical service can maintain reliability at levels that are the envy of the world...".  Envy of the world?  The rest of the world laughs at us and our continued dependence on fossil fuels and failure to embrace renewables and new technology by relying on the long distance transmission dinosaur.  The rest of the world is quickly leaving us in the dust!

Anyhow (there I go again) read the linked article, and also check out some of Tom Johnson's other articles to get a good perspective on New Jersey's energy dilemmas.

Here's some procedural help on submitting your comments to FERC's NOI on Promoting Transmission Investment Through Pricing Reform.

Download a template for preparing your comments here.  If you are going to submit your comments electronically, you may sign your comments with an electronic signature "/s/Your Name".

To use FERC's eFiling system to submit your comments (recommended) here's what you need to do:

1. Create a FERC account or "eRegister" here

2. Save your comment as a PDF or word doc

3. To file electronically go to here

4. Choose "General", then "Comment on Rulemaking", then "Comment", and then "Next" button

5. Enter docket number as RM11-26 and click "Search" button

6. Click blue + sign and "Next" button

7. Click "Choose file" button and select your PDF or word doc from your files

8. In description box type "Comment of (your name) Re: NOI Promoting Transmission Investment Through Pricing Reform"

9. Click "Upload" button; after upload is completed, click "Next"

10. Click "As an individual" and "Next"

11. Email should be the one you registered with FERC "add as signer", and then "Next"

12. If your name is correct, click "Next" and on the last page "SUBMIT"

If you have problems or questions, feel free to contact us.

Next up we'll discuss some of FERC's transmission incentives, how they have been used, and how they benefit power company shareholders, not the consumers.  Stick around if you need more information to compose your comments.

If you found this helpful in crafting your comments, you are encouraged to browse the entire FERC Transmission NOI category at StopPATHwv.com for other useful material.  You don't have to comment on all aspects of the NOI if that's too burdensome.  In fact, if you want to concentrate in detail on just one aspect that interests you and about which you have strong feelings, that's a perfectly acceptable approach to producing effective comments.

On May 19, FERC issued a Notice of Inquiry on Promoting Transmission Investment Through Pricing Reform.  It's been 5 years since the incentives were outlined in Order 679, and FERC would like to receive comments from stakeholders regarding how the incentives have worked out for them and ways in which the practice of incentivizing transmission can be improved.  What this is NOT is an invitation to do away with FERC incentives all together, because FERC is quick to point out that in the EPAct 2005, Congress directed them, "to establish by rule incentive-based, including performance-based, rate treatments for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce by public utilities for the purpose of benefiting consumers by ensuring reliability and reducing the cost of delivered power by reducing transmission congestion."  If you want to do away with the all-you-can-eat dessert bar that the energy companies have been feasting on for the last 5 years, your efforts are more properly directed to your Congressional representatives.

Your elected representatives were the ones who passed the EPAct 2005 (Cheney's "Secret Energy Taskforce") under the influence of a hugely expensive lobbying effort on the part of the energy companies.  While you were living your life, flipping switches and plugging things in, and paying a monthly electric bill to some energy corporation, these same corporations were hard at work creating their dream come true behind your back.  I think we have all learned that blissful ignorance is a very sharp sword and it's much harder to undo damage than it is to prevent it in the first place.  In the PJM region, the energy companies, PJM, state government and FERC were busy conspiring on plans like, "PROMOTING REGIONAL TRANSMISSION : PLANNING AND EXPANSION TO FACILITATE FUEL DIVERSITY INCLUDING EXPANDED USES OF COAL-FIRED RESOURCES", which was the start of PJM's Project Mountaineer.  Project Mountaineer, a plan to increase west to east transfer of 5,000 MW of coal-fired power across the PJM region, brought us the TrAIL project, the Susquehanna-Roseland project, the MAPP project, and the PATH project.  All of these projects represent energy company grabs at the opportunities for increased profit yielded by Project Mountaineer and FERC's all-you-can-eat transmission incentives buffet.  In other parts of the country, there were similar schemes in the works that have resulted in, "...over 75 applications for transmission incentives. Collectively, the applicants in those cases sought incentives for investment in over $50 billion in proposed transmission infrastructure...", in the words of FERC.

The EPAct 2005 and subsequent FERC orders have created an unbelievable feast for energy companies, at the expense of all electric ratepayers.  With incentives like incentive adders to base ROE that total as high as 14 - 16%; recovery of 100% of CWIP in ratebase, accelerated depreciation and pre-commercial costs;  hypothetical capital structures; and recovery of 100% of abandoned plant, the energy company shareholders cannot lose when proposing new transmission projects, whether these projects are actually needed or not.  Even a loser is a winner under FERC policies.  This has created a gold rush to transmission, and has proven increasingly more expensive to the ultimate stakeholder -- the ratepayer, who is responsible for funding the whole thing.  Shareholders win, consumers lose.

FERC, PJM, and the states have a perverted definition of the word, "stakeholder."  They believe it includes the energy companies, the regional transmission organization cartels, the state bureaucrats and organized lobbying groups.  They don't think it includes individual consumers.  But, we're going to ask you to take control of your own destiny and submit comments.

In order to be effective, you've got to understand this stuff.  You need to do some reading.

Brief news article about the NOI
The Notice of Inquiry
Statement of Commissioner Moeller
Statement of Commissioner Norris

It's not a lot of reading, and it's not confusing.  Consider it a starting point.  I'll be posting more in the near future about the specific incentives and how to submit your comments, so bookmark this blog section and come back after you've done your homework.

The 60-day comment period will not begin until the NOI is published in the Federal Register and that has not happened yet.  We will be advising you of the deadline as soon as we know it.  There is no rush to get your comments in, you have plenty of time to do it properly.  Quality counts here, not speed or quantity.  Do  not squander this golden opportunity by feeling rushed and giving up.  PATH opponents should properly be focused right now on a more pressing need, submitting their comments regarding PATH's requested abeyance on their EIS application.  Do that first, and then come back and work on this.

If you think you already know enough to submit your comments, we recommend that you submit them via FERC's e-filing system.  "Snail mail" comments are often faced with long federal agency mail delays and many consumer comments on other recent FERC dockets have been reported "lost in transit" by their authors.

Please DO NOT send form letters to FERC!  It's inappropriate.  If you agree with another comment on the docket, it's okay to say so, but repetition of identical comments is not encouraged.

And here's the most important part:  Spread the word!
Please share this with your contacts who are fighting other transmission line applications, environmental and activist groups, your elected representatives and others who you think should take an interest.  This NOI is of interest to every person who pays an electric bill.

If you found this helpful in crafting your comments, you are encouraged to browse the entire FERC Transmission NOI category at StopPATHwv.com for other useful material.  You don't have to comment on all aspects of the NOI if that's too burdensome.  In fact, if you want to concentrate in detail on just one aspect that interests you and about which you have strong feelings, that's a perfectly acceptable approach to producing effective comments.

The 2005 Energy Policy Act provided a lavish banquet for energy companies.  In an effort to incentivize new "needed" transmission projects, all kinds of sweet guarantees were subsequently made available for the taking by transmission developers.  Incentives made new transmission projects a "can't lose" proposition; moreover, it made proposal of new transmission projects a guaranteed profit center, whether the project is ever built or not.  In addition to encouraging needed transmission development, these incentives have caused a stampede of unneeded transmission projects intent on riding the incentive gravytrain in pursuit of an easy profit. 

One of the incentives offered was recovery of 100% of prudently-incurred costs in the event a project is abandoned, provided the abandonment is beyond the control of the transmission owner.  Prior to this, the best a transmission developer could hope for was recovery of 50% of abandoned project costs, with the remaining 50% written off as a loss.  The cost of abandoned projects is recovered from ratepayers, and this means YOU.  FERC awarded both TrAILCo (and PATH) recovery of 100% of project costs in the event of abandonment.  Abandonment of a project ends additional spending, disposes of capital assets and credits their sale to reduce project costs and sets the remaining balance to be recovered over what would have been the project's useful life it if had been put in service.

Remember the TrAILCo abandonment of the Prexy facilities that we've been following?  On Friday, FERC issued an order in that case which assuredly made a whole bunch of people scratch their heads and reach for the Advil.  FERC has decided that TrAILCo's Section 205 filing for recovery of abandoned plant is inappropriate and therefore rejected.  FERC advises that the costs of the abandoned Prexy facilities result from siting and engineering changes and therefore are includable as capital costs in TrAILCo's ratebase (recovered through TrAILCo's yearly revenue requirement).  The effect of this decision can be analogized like this:  TrAILCo is shopping at 7-11 and hands the clerk a $10 bill to pay for their purchase; however the clerk mistakenly gives TrAILCo change for a $50.

As discussed before, the Prexy facilities consisted of a certain portion of 500kV line and substation, as well as several 138kV lines and substations.  Because lines 500kV and above are recovered from all PJM ratepayers, and lines below 500kV are recovered from only those ratepayers receiving benefit (in this case all former Allegheny Power customers) , the Prexy facilities were separated from the TrAIL project for accounting purposes for different cost allocation methods.  The Prexy facilities also had their own PJM project number.  They probably never should have been included in the TrAIL project in the first place, but Allegheny and PJM said they were "needed" as part of the project.  Turns out Prexy was NOT needed after all.  After the PA-PUC denied TrAILCo's project application, a "settlement" was eventually arranged whereby the PA-PUC would approve just 1 mile of TrAIL in the state and the Prexy facilities would be abandoned.  In the settlement, the "need" for Prexy was solved by other repairs and equipment changes (much like the Mt. Storm-Doubs rebuild obviated the "need" for PATH).  Prexy was not built at all, it was not merely re-configured or re-routed.  It was abandoned by TrAILCo and PJM because of PA-PUC's denial.  FERC contends that Prexy was somehow merely "re-engineered" into not being built at all.  How is changing something into nothing a "re-engineering?"  Prexy was "re-engineered" into non-existence!  A situation where a state application for a project is denied is what abandonment is for!

I never thought I'd say it, but TrAILCo actually did the right thing by abandoning Prexy.  FERC either doesn't understand the situation, or they're just wacky.  FERC also took numerous opportunities to slap TrAILCo upside the head for answering Exelon's comments, incorrectly filing for abandonment in PJM's name and then joining the case, and incorrectly filing for recovery of abandoned plant at all.  TrAILCo had planned on filing their 2010 ATRR, with abandoned costs included, on Monday.  FERC waited until Friday to tell them that they had done everything wrong and should have included the Prexy costs in their existing formula rate years ago.  The accountant in me cringes, but the PATH opponent in me is laughing like mad!  :-)  It couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of...

However, FERC's decision has now prevented the intervenors in this case from challenging either the prudence of the abandoned expenses or TrAILCo's fault in the abandonment.  One could certainly argue that TrAILCo had fault in the abandonment -- anything from including a project that wasn't really needed in the first place to the weight of TrAILCo's outrageous mistreatment of affected landowners in the PA-PUC's denial, this case is certainly ripe for challenges.  Instead, FERC has instructed TrAILCo to recover the cost of their abandoned project through TrAILCo's ratebase and collect a 12% return on their investment for the life of the TrAIL project. 

FERC has just incentivized incompetence!  Will the intervenors speak up and tell FERC they've made a mistake?  And, going back to my earlier analogy, will TrAILCo tell the 7-11 clerk that they've been given too much change?  Or will they simply pocket the money they haven't earned and slink out of the store with a smirk on their face?

This decision certainly isn't in line with FERC's mission to ensure electric rates are just and reasonable, when TrAILCo's parent company's stockholders are profiting at ratepayer expense from TrAILCo's mistakes.

Every cloud has a silver lining, and the silver lining in PATH's funnel cloud has been the amazing people I have gotten to know over the past three years.  I first met Doug Kaplan on a cold, rainy night in the fall of 2008 when we were both handing out literature outside one of PATH's "Open House" meetings.  One of the things I greatly admire about Doug is his persistence.  When Doug has a goal in mind, he will not give up until it has been accomplished.  Doug was promised a local public forum with FERC officials to answer citizens' questions regarding PATH's "suspension" by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett.  It looks like Doug's persistence has rubbed off on Bartlett, who intends to keep his promise to the citizens he represents and not be brushed off so easily by FERC.

In a letter dated May 10, Rep. Bartlett pursues the public forum by questioning FERC regarding conditions that could be set in a possible public forum that would comport with FERC's ex parte rules.

Bartlett also poses other questions that are weighing heavily on the minds of his constituents and asks that FERC respond to the questions from a procedural standpoint if they cannot be answered in the context of the PATH project.

Doug is not going to give up.  Neither is Rep. Bartlett.  We all owe them our support and gratitude!

FERC has responded to Rep. Roscoe Bartlett's inquiry about PATH's suspension and the status of the Formal Challenge.  In a letter dated April 28, Chairman Wellinghoff declines to comment on the matter of PATH's "suspension" and the Formal Challenge in accordance with FERC regulations.  Think of FERC as a court... they hear evidence from both sides, and then make a decision.  They don't comment on cases in process, just like a judge wouldn't comment in the middle of a trial.

The questions Bartlett posed are as follows:

1.  What is the status of the PATH application in FERC's point of view?

This one sort of gets punted with repetition of Bartlett's description of PATH and PATH's "Status Update."

2.  How long does a rate guarantee survive, if the project does not go forward?  If the 14.3% rate is allowed to continue, for how long?

FERC declined to answer this as related to a "contested proceeding."

3.  Is there a process in place to rescind the rate guarantee, which could be implemented now, based on the history of frequent, reoccurring changes in the need horizon, particularly in the framework of the continuing depressed economy that will not be producing a need in the foreseeable future?

Declined as "contested proceeding."

4.  Does the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision (February 2, 2011) to vacate the 2007 Department of Energy (DOE) designation of two National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs) affect the PATH rate guarantee?

This gets an answer.  However, be sure to read Ali Haverty's comments about the NIETCs and how the granting of PATH's incentives relied on this now defunct designation.

5. How/does/can FERC incentivize renewable generation as it has with nonrenewable coal in the PATH case?

This one is also answered by FERC.  Read the letter.

6.  What is the status of the challenge from West Virginia Intervenors to PATH's accounting procedures?  When will that be decided?

Declined as "contested proceeding."

One thing is made clear in FERC's letter though... FERC considers the issue of PATH's self-created "suspension" a "contested proceeding" and does not agree with PATH's counsel that it is, "for informational purposes only and does not require any action on the part of the Commission."  Ut-oh, PATH, UT-OH!!!

PATH's "suspension" is now a "contested proceeding" because of all of you who have sent your comments to FERC.  If you haven't commented yet, there's still plenty of time.  You can comment your little fingers to the bone until FERC makes a decision.  Here are the instructions.