Yesterday, the Commission granted rehearing on its previous order denying PATH the continued benefit of a .5% return on equity incentive for membership in PJM during the amortization period for recovery of abandoned plant.

So, what does this mean?  Not much.  It simply means PATH is hog-tied and can't proceed on appeal to the D.C. Circuit and waste even more of our money having a legal tantrum over .5% interest that it's not entitled to.

The Commission will take another look at its previous decision and decide whether or not to change its mind.  There's no time limit on how long the Commission can take to make its decision.  It could be years.  Meanwhile, PATH can shut up and sit down.

If the Commission had denied the request for rehearing, PATH would have been given the green light to appeal FERC's decision in federal court.  Now PATH can't proceed until the Commission reconsiders and issues another order on the issue.  The Commission can change its mind, or simply confirm its original decision.

Here's the issue:  In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress instituted certain financial incentives to encourage investment in transmission for the purposes of benefiting consumers.  Congress tasked FERC with coming up with policy and awarding incentives.  One of the incentives Congress specifically mentioned was financial reward for a transmission builder who joined a regional transmission organization and turned control of its facilities over to the organization.  FERC put this into practice in the form of an additional .5% interest on each project that applied for it, if the owner joined or continued an existing membership in an RTO.  Therefore, a company with membership in an RTO could be awarded this incentive on each project it owned as long as it maintained its membership.

AEP and Allegheny (now FirstEnergy) set PATH up as a joint venture and created a bunch of single-purpose shell companies.  The parent companies did this because a "new" company produced tax and financial benefit and it could be awarded a higher incentive return on equity because this independent "start-up" company was taking a greater risk than it would if each established parent company owned its own portion of the project.  PATH tried to pretend it was an independent company whose stock just happened to be owned by its parents.  PATH chose this corporate structure because it benefited the parent companies.  Nobody forced PATH to do it.

Now that PATH's one and only project has been abandoned without being built, the Commission determined that the company will never have anything to turn over to an RTO, and there is no benefit to consumers from PATH's continued membership in PJM, and therefore denied continuation of this incentive.

PATH is arguing that the Commission is punishing it for its choice of business construct.  PATH says that its parent companies have other transmission projects that have been turned over to PJM, so therefore the parent company actions entitle PATH to the same benefit.  All of a sudden, PATH wants to be a part of its parent companies.  But wait... PATH separated itself from its parent companies when it benefited financially.  Now PATH wants to be included with its parent companies when it can financially benefit from that construct.  Can you smell the desperation?

PATH also complains that the Commission is being inconsistent because other transmission projects that have been abandoned managed to keep the RTO membership incentive, therefore PATH is entitled to do so as well.  PATH feels it should have been put on notice that it would lose this incentive if it abandoned the project.  *sniff, sniffle, whine*

Other transmission projects have kept this incentive because they aren't single-purpose entities and their companies will continue to exist and maintain membership in an RTO.  There is no point to PATH's continued membership in PJM because it doesn't own any transmission and will cease to exist as soon as the abandoned plant debt is paid off.

Despite a rule prohibiting answers to requests for rehearing, the Joint Consumer Advocates filed an answer supporting the Commission's original decision and arguing against continuation of this incentive.

The Commission's granting of rehearing won't affect the scheduled settlement conference coming up at the end of February, since that issue was never set for hearing but decided in the original Order.  However, parties will be aware that a reversal of the Order could grant PATH an additional .5% return at any time in the future and may keep that in mind while negotiating a settlement.  Happy now, PATH? :-)

As 2012 draws to a close, let's take a look at the decrepit corpse of the PATH project.  Although it's true that PJM officially cancelled the project in August and PATH will never be built, our little zombie continues to shamble about feeding on consumer wallets.

Back in 2008, FERC awarded several financial incentives to the PATH project.  One of the incentives was the ability to apply at FERC to recover 100% of prudently incurred expenses from consumers in the event the project was abandoned (cancelled).  Although you've been paying a yearly revenue requirement for PATH's Operations & Maintenance expenses and return (profit) every year since 2008 (grand total through Dec. 31, 2012 = $95M), PATH has been spending its own money on project capital expenses such as land, engineering, permitting, etc.  These expenses get tucked away in PATH's rate base as "Construction Work in Progress" where they have been earning a return of 12.4% yearly.  The amount PATH has invested in their project totals $121M.

In January and December of 2011, two West Virginia consumers filed formal challenges to PATH's yearly revenue requirements for the years 2009 and 2010 (part of that $95M).  In September of this year, FERC granted the two formal challenges and set them for hearing.  Expenses challenged include PATH's advertising and dishonest public relations activities totaling around $6M.

A week after FERC set the Challenges for hearing, PATH made their abandonment filing with the Commission, seeking to recover their $121M investment without any examination of the actual costs incurred.  Then PATH turned right around and asked the Commission to consolidate the abandonment with the formal challenges for settlement and hearing.

More than 30 parties intervened in PATH's abandonment filing, including a dozen consumers from West Virginia and Maryland.  FERC found that PATH was entitled to collect prudently-incurred project investment, however it set the prudence of the actual expenses for settlement and hearing.  FERC also denied PATH's request to retain part of the incentive return on equity they were granted in 2008. 

In its filing, PATH voluntarily agreed to forfeit 1.5% of the incentive rate of return they were granted in 2008.  However, PATH asked to retain the extra .5% return FERC granted them as an incentive for joining the PJM cartel.  Several parties protested this rather bald money-grab by PATH.  Because the PATH shell companies were created by parent companies AEP and FirstEnergy (Allegheny Energy) as single-purpose entities to construct and own ONLY the PATH project, and the PATH project has now been cancelled, there is no purpose to PATH's continued membership in PJM, except to collect an additional .5%  interest from consumers every year.  PATH will never build, own or turn over any transmission infrastructure to the PJM cartel.  PATH is simply limping along trying to maximize its profit on its failed endeavor.  PATH's proposal was found to be unjust and unreasonable by the Commission, and PATH was denied the extra .5% interest, which reduced its yearly return to 10.4%.

FERC also ordered PATH to provide the cost detail that was missing from its abandonment filing.  PATH asserted that its expenses were prudently-incurred and that no detail of how it spent $121M was necessary.  Ridiculous much?  Other abandonment filings have all included cost detail.  Turns out that PATH had not even sorted its costs before filing for abandonment and needed another 45 day extension to get their act together.  But we were supposed to believe that everything was prudently-incurred ;-)

Today, PATH filed a request for rehearing on the abandonment, claiming that FERC had made legal errors in their Order denying that .5% PJM cartel membership incentive.  *sniff*  *sniffle* *whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine*  Pretty revolting, I've seen better tantrums from 3-year olds.

Just remember, all this legal nonsense is being paid for by all 60-some-odd million consumers in PJM's 13-state "region."  No big deal for PATH to continue to stomp its feet and demand more money, it won't cost them a dime.  So, just how much money are we talking about here?  Around $240K in 2013, with lesser amounts in each of the following 4 years PATH has proposed as the amount of time given to ratepayers to pay off project debt.  Wanna bet PATH wastes more of our money on legal fees whining about that .5% interest than it stands to gain overall?

So, here's where PATH stands at the end of this year:

$121M in abandoned project costs + $6M in prior O&M expenses set for settlement and hearing at FERC.  Currently, settlement conferences are scheduled to begin at the end of February, 2013 and will continue as long as negotiations are productive.  If settlement ultimately fails, some or all issues may actually proceed to hearing, adding another couple years and mounting legal fees to consumer misery. 

The PATH zombie -- the gift that keeps on giving!

Pepco has been taking a lesson from the way PATH is getting kicked around at FERC.  After watching PATH run willy-nilly into the abandonment pool without any little arm floaties, or even a bathing suit, at the end of September, Pepco filed with FERC to collect $87.5M in stranded investment for its MAPP (Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway) Project on December 21.

Pepco says they had $101M sunk into the project, but have "mitigated" the damage to consumers by transferring some materials and overhead to other projects and putting the $11M Burches Hill substation upgrades (that will now never be used) into service.  Pepco is asking for $87.5M, to be further "mitigated" by transferring or selling other project assets in the future.

Rights-of-way acquired by Pepco will simply be transferred elsewhere to be held for future use.  If you were unfortunate enough to have signed an agreement with MAPP/Pepco to allow the company a right-of-way on your property, rest assured that the company will be sure to put a transmission line on your property at some time in the future.  You're not off the hook, like the majority of the landowners who caved in to pressure from PATH land agents.

While PATH voluntarily gave up its 150 basis point incentive ROE adder when it filed for abandonment, and had the remaining 50 bpa for membership in PJM wrested away from it by the Commission, Pepco thinks the Commission should award it the full 12.8% incentive ROE it was originally awarded.  Seriously, Pepco?  Got into the holiday spirits a little early this year?  Here's Pepco's silly justification for continuing to collect a 12.8% return over its proposed 5-year amortization period: 

"The PHI Companies are aware of the recent order in PJM Interconnection, LLC and Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, L.L.C., 141 FERC ¶ 61,177, P 71 (2012) (“PATH Abandonment Order”), in which the Commission found that the 50 basis point  RTO participation adder should not continue because the applicants in that case would not be taking steps to turn over operational control of their facilities to PJM and would have no future physical facilities. The Commission’s finding in this regard should not apply to the instant filing for several reasons. First, in contrast to PATH, which is a stand-alone entity that will cease operations after its recovery period, the PHI Companies have turned over operational control of all their transmission facilities to PJM (including the Burches Hill substation and related facilities constructed during the development of the MAPP Project). Moreover, as stated above, the Commission already has approved the ROE applicable to the MAPP Project (150 basis points above the PHI Companies baseline approved equity return and the 50 basis point adder for RTO participation). Although the Commission’s statement in the PATH Abandonment Order, 141 FERC ¶ 61,177, at P 71, indicates that ROE adders are not appropriate in abandonment filings, such direction must be construed as applying prospectively only. That is, if the determination in PATH is now the Commission’s policy for RTO participation adders, it must apply only to transmission incentive orders issued after the date of the PATH Abandonment Order."

*hiccup*  *WAHHHH!*

Pepco also includes some very detailed cost breakdowns of the investment they are now proposing to collect.  In contrast, PATH provided NO cost data.  PATH was in a real big hurry to make their abandonment filing and consolidate it with the Challenges, after the Commission set the $6M Formal Challenges for hearing on September 20.  PATH was in such a hurry, it filed no cost data at all.  That seems to have worked out really swell for PATH so far, hasn't it?

So, the abandoned PATH project is proposed to cost consumers $250M, and now the MAPP project isn't far behind.  Cost of PJM's failed Project Mountaineer initiative to electric consumers in 13 states, plus the District of Columbia, could approach a half billion dollars, while absolutely NO benefit was received for this outrageous consumer expenditure.

Consumers can't afford the PJM cartel's poor planning any longer.

Now that PATH has died, Patience and I have to find other ways to entertain ourselves.  Free energy industry webinars!  Some entity or other is always holding one.  It's an excuse to fix a fancy luncheon (always served with cold beer), and fire up the laptop for some silly fun listening to blowhards toot their own horns while we make snide remarks, submit loaded questions, and laugh ourselves silly.  Sometimes, we even pretend to be two different, independent organizations, while we're really just sitting across the table from each other, each with her own laptop connected to the same webinar. We call this "work" because there are always useful little nuggets to take away, even when the whole exercise is nothing but a spy mission to build our own arsenal (and an excuse to have lunch and drink a cold one).

I'm never going back to a traditional office environment.  I figured that out last week at the corporate Christmas party I got roped into attending.  Who are these people?  And how did I manage to fit into that world for so long?  My, how things have changed since I checked out.  Apparently it's now the "in" thing to walk up to strangers at these Christmas parties and say, "Hi!  My name is Corporate Lackey and I'm in Finance!"  What is one supposed to say to that?  "I'm still in "Finance" but I don't have to suck up anymore!"   *smile* seemed to be a little rude.  But, thanks for the great line, current day corporate finance professionals.  I think I'll start using it when I do have to put on a suit and go places... "Hi!  I'm in Finance -- yours!  And something just doesn't smell right with those annual reports you've been submitting to the government."  *smile*

Anyhow, today's fun fest was hosted by transmission owner sycophant Transmission Hub (sponsored by Quanta! *insert infomercial here*).  Transmission Hub cracks me up... they continually tell these energy execs what they want to hear, not what they need to hear.  And I'm sure they're paid handsomely to hold up that mirror in front of energy exec faces and simply repeat the idiot's words back to him or her.  It's bogus validation of the highest order!

During the webcast, one of the sycophants told the audience that PATH was cancelled because of coal plant retirements.  What?  That had noting to do with it!  PATH simply wasn't needed in the first place, and tanking demand due to increased energy efficiency, increased demand management, and low gas prices killed it for good.

Patience submitted a "question" calling them out on their misinformation.  Much to our amusement, the moderator actually took up the question during the Q & A and admitted that PATH really wasn't cancelled because of coal plant retirements, and then he blamed Herling for the misinformation.  Good thing the "mute" button was on because we couldn't stop laughing!

Y'all just keep on telling yourselves all those self-serving lies, now.  Meanwhile, we'll be living in our real world "out-of-office" office and concocting your ultimate demise.  *smile*

Hey, friends, remember PATHTransmission.com?  Key word = remember.

Go ahead, click it.

Ha ha ha.

First one to buy the domain and create a parody website wins 3 boxes of old PATH files and other related junk.

In its Order on PATH's abandonment filing last week, FERC tossed thousands of opponents of the Project Mountaineer transmission line projects a bone.  It won't reimburse you for all the time and money you've invested fighting transmission projects that were never needed in the first place, and it won't unbuild the TrAIL Project or make affected landowners and consumers whole, and it won't stop the unneeded Susquehanna-Roseland Project from continuing to proceed with stunning haste.  But if a little validation and personal satisfaction makes a tasty snack for you, here's your bone:

"The PATH Project concept was originally introduced by PJM in May 2005 at a Commission technical conference as Project Mountaineer- a major east-to-west transmission corridor.  In early 2006, AEP and Allegheny separately filed petitions for declaratory order with the Commission requesting transmission incentives to build this multi-corridor concept in their respective zones in Docket Nos. EL06-50-000 and EL06-54-000,  respectively. The Commission affirmed abandoned plant recovery for the proposals subject to approval in the PJM Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP) and requiring a future section 205 filing, among other things. On June 27, 2007, PJM’s Board of Directors approved the projects for inclusion in PJM’s RTEP, changing the route and scope from those originally conceived, combining portions of both AEP and Allegheny’s projects into a single project (the PATH Project) with a requested completion date of June 2012."

That's right... FERC says that the PATH Project (and TrAIL, MAPP and Susquehanna-Roseland) originated as a concept in 2005.  The Commission technical conference referred to is what we've been calling "The Coal Love Fest."  Its goal was to increase the use of coal-fired resources.  It wasn't about increased demand, congested transmission lines or reliability.  It wasn't until 2007 that PJM created the reliability violations that caused a "need" for the PATH Project under the guise of reliability and "ordered" AEP & Allegheny (now FirstEnergy) to build PATH.

1.    Project Mountaineer.
2.    Creation of PATH Project concept.
3.    Creation of "need" for PATH Project.

Nibble slowly, PATH opponents.  It's all you're going to get.

Of course, this isn't news to any of you.  We've been telling you this for the past 4 years.  But now FERC agrees with us.

The PATH Project is a bit of ugly and expensive history now.  However, the lesson could live on.

PJM, FERC and the midwest wind industry are busy concocting a new Project Mountaineer right now but instead of coal, this time it's about moving "midwest wind" to both coasts via $300B of new transmission lines.  We don't need that anymore than we needed Project Mountaineer in 2005.  Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  Consumers can't afford another expensive mistake.

In an order issued today, FERC set the prudence of every last penny of PATH's claimed $121.5M of abandoned project cost for settlement and hearing.

What this means is that despite PATH's claims in their abandonment filing that all expenses were prudently incurred, and although PATH enjoys a presumption of prudence, contentions and evidence submitted by intervenors in the case raised enough doubt to set the matter for a trial-type evidentiary hearing by a FERC Administrative Law Judge.

FERC found that PATH had not demonstrated the prudence of costs it incurred while trying to site and permit its project.  Every issue raised by intervenors was set for settlement and hearing.  Intervenors raised doubt in every category of cost, therefore, the entire cost will be examined.

The only point PATH won was the finding that abandonment of the project was beyond the company's control (blamed on PJM).  Therefore, PATH can collect abandonment costs that are prudent.  The prudence of PATH's expenses will be examined to determine the amount they will be able to collect from ratepayers over the next 5 years.

The ordered hearing has been held in abeyance so parties can attempt a negotiated settlement before spending time and money on a hearing.  Settlement conferences will be conducted at FERC, administered by an Administrative Law Judge, and are confidential, so don't expect to be reading any news about what's going on in settlement.  Settlement could last a while.

In addition to the prudence of expenses, FERC also set the issue of PATH's disposal of land for settlement and hearing, where certain controls can be placed on how PATH disposes of land it currently owns.

FERC also found that PATH is no longer entitled to the 50 point adder for continued membership in PJM because the PATH Project will never be built and turned over to PJM, which was the intent of the incentive.  The extra half percent interest that this incentive adds to a transmission project's ROE has now been attached to the specific project.  If the project is not built and turned over to the RTO for control, then it cannot be continued.  PATH was at a distinct disadvantage here because the company had only one project.  When the one and only project died, there was nothing to turn over to PJM.  This reduces PATH's ROE to 10.4% (from the previous 12.4%).  The PATH project has now lost ALL their above-cost incentive ROE adders.  No rewards for failure, PATH!

FERC was not convinced to consolidate the abandonment with the ongoing formal challenges settlement and hearing in its Order.  Instead, the Commissioners punted that off to the Chief Administrative Law Judge to decide in the future.

In addition, FERC determined that PATH had made errors in its proposed changes to the formula rate and erred in transferring abandoned plant to create a regulatory asset.  FERC ordered PATH to correct its accounting mistakes, submit additional detail of project costs for which PATH had requested a waiver, and resubmit its proposed rate within 30 days.  Merry Christmas, PATH!  :-)

PATH has been reduced to nothing but a contentious battle about money.  But isn't that what it's always been about?

Although FERC rules prohibit an answer to a protest, PATH has 121 million reasons to ignore the rule and waste everyone's time simply rehashing and reiterating its original section 205 filing to collect its stranded $121M investment in its failed PATH project.  Exceptions can be made by the Commission if the answer provides new information that informs the Commission's decision.  Did PATH bother to provide any new information in its answer?  Perhaps they should have highlighted any actual "new" information to make it more easily detected among all the flimsy excuses and incorrect information.

PATH tells the Commission that although it has the ability to suspend proposed changes to existing rates, that PATH's changes to the Formula Rate (which is PATH's rate) aren't changes to its rate after all.  PATH also urges the Commission to hurry up and approve the changes to its Formula Rate without hearing because PATH has submitted a fraudulent 2013 Projected Transmission Revenue Requirement that they need to revise before January 1, 2013.

PATH believes the Commission should summarily reject protests that the company had control over the abandonment of its project, otherwise, PJM's authority will be undermined!  Would that be a bad thing, really?  PJM's imprudent actions brought about by its Project Mountaineer initiative to build new transmission to increase the use of coal-fired resources, and intended to provide significant profit to its favored incumbents, has just cost millions of consumers in its region a quarter billion dollars for the failed PATH project alone, not to mention the additional amount wasted on the also-cancelled MAPP project.  How much more will PJM's erroneous and failed initiatives be permitted to steal from struggling electric consumers if this costly failure is swept under the rug and not examined?

PATH believes that it is entitled to receive an extra half of a percent interest on its abandoned plant during the amortization period.  The extra interest is a reward for membership in PJM.  PATH states that it intends to remain a member until the consumers finish paying for its project, although it does not intend to own any transmission during that time.  PATH is simply maintaining its membership to receive the extra interest.  Is this really prudent?  PATH whines that the Commission should not discriminate against it for the business structure it voluntarily constructed.  "Revisiting the 50 basis point ROE adder would deny AEP and FirstEnergy an opportunity to apply the ROE-based incentive adder to their abandoned plant investment in the PATH Project merely because of the business structure they chose as a vehicle for fulfilling the construction obligations assigned to them by PJM."  Bingo!  Ya know what, PATH?  Life ain't fair.  You set up that business structure voluntarily because it benefited you and now you're stuck with it.  Quit your sniveling and take your lumps.  Your parent company memberships in PJM do not make PATH eligible to receive this incentive either.  That was really PATH-etic!

PATH has 121 million excuses for why its spending wasn't imprudent.  After asking the Commission to set the issue of prudence for a hearing wherein the prudence of its expenses can be debated, PATH wastes page after page trying to justify its spending on things like property and option purchases.  So, PATH, do you want a hearing or do you want the Commission to rule here?  It's hard to tell.  PATH falsely accuses protestors of not providing any "basis or support" for prudence challenges and proceeds to neglect to provide any "support or basis" for its own contentions that the spending was prudent, except for the ridiculous assertion that AEP and FE routinely buy property before a permit is received.  PATH holds its parent companies up as the industry standard in the face of evidence showing that one of these same parents doesn't buy land prior to the issuance of a permit.  So, was AEP lying to the Department of Energy earlier this year or are they lying to FERC now?  Inquiring minds want to know.

PATH attempts to color all its property purchases the same.  The reality is that PATH was split into two different companies, PATH-West Virginia (owned 50-50 by AEP and FE) and PATH-Allegheny (owned 100% by FE).  PATH-WV made minimal land purchases for substation sites and was slower to option property.  However PATH-Allegheny purchased lots of property that had nothing to do with substations and was quick to option property long before the permit process had even begun rolling.  This is a distinction that most likely has roots in the two different corporate philosophies behind the PATH project.  Now AEP gets to help FE hold its little doggie bag of imprudence, however.  Didn't your mommy ever tell you that you will be known by the company you keep, AEP?

PATH goes out of its way to admit that its property purchases in River's Edge were for the purposes of forcing the release of a conservation easement.  PATH goes into a long diatribe attempting to justify its imprudent property purchases as cost saving measures.  Yes, that's right, if PATH had not attempted to nullify a conservation easement in which Loudoun County had invested taxpayer funding, it would have cost more to re-route the line around it (using the most destructive route possible in an attempt to make releasing the conservation easement and allowing PATH's preferred route look preferable).  This same theme continues in flimsy justifications for other purchases.  PATH claims if it had not bought certain properties, it would have had to route its line around them in order to avoid homes or other obstacles.  Is this what PATH told landowners?  That if they didn't prefer to voluntarily sell their property that PATH would simply route their line around the property?  No, of course not.  PATH told landowners that if they didn't sell voluntarily that the company would take the property by eminent domain or simply "run the line right over the top of your house."  So, now PATH wants to test its word against that of thousands of landowners?  Isn't this going to be fun?

PATH also points out to the Commission that other abandoned projects that requested much, much smaller recoveries were not RTO-ordered projects.  So, I guess PATH's point must be that when there is some risk to the transmission owner that spending is prudently curtailed.  However, in PATH's case it was a giant, bleeding spend-a-thon because PATH believed that ratepayers were on the hook for all of it.  Now when the specter of shareholders being responsible for some or all of PATH's spending spree rears its ugly head, all of a sudden the amount of spending becomes a big deal.  Don't you just love karma?

So, now it's up to the FERC Commissioners to wade through the facts presented and make a decision that ensures that PATH's rates are just and reasonable.

PATH wants FERC to consolidate its recently-filed request to recover capital in abandoned plant with outstanding Challenges to their expenses in 2009 and 2010 because "administrative efficiency strongly supports consolidation of all issues in Docket Nos. ER09-1256-000 and ER12-2708-000."

The same way oil and water mix to create koolaid, I'm sure.  Read the Motion Opposing Consolidation filed October 29.

In typical PATH fashion, the filing wasn't properly served on parties and wasn't properly docketed in ER12-2708-000, so here's your unofficial notice.

West Virginia Consumer Advocate Byron Harris has a bad case of Halloween-itis.  In his comments on PATH's abandonment cost recovery case at FERC, Harris said of PATH:  "If you set out a big bowl of candy, people are going to reach their hands into it," said Byron Harris, director of the Consumer Advocate Division of the Public Service Commission of West Virginia. "That's what they're doing."

If Byron thinks that the $121M is "candy" that PATH is eating, he's wrong.  The candy got eaten by landowners who sold or optioned property, fancy $500/hr DC lawyers who were only too happy to do PATH's dirty work, government-parasite contractor The Louis Berger Group, snake oil salesman supply company Contract Land Services, perfidious public relations contractor Charles Ryan Associates, gun-jumping land clearing company Supreme Industries, and many other companies and individuals that had their hand in PATH's candy bowl.  They ate the candy and PATH is left with the empty bowl, which they now want to refill at consumer expense.

The $121M Byron is protesting is PATH's money that they (over)spent, without a care in the world.  After all, FERC had granted them an incentive guaranteeing  recovery of whatever they spent.  PATH's project managers, gladhanders and schmoozers neglected to read the fine print, however.  The fine print said "... prudently-incurred expenses if project is abandoned through no fault of the company."

Ut-oh, PATH, UT-OH!