Ding-Dong!
Sadly, it's still just as appropriate now as it was over a year ago.
Isn't it time for PATH to give up yet?
StopPATH WV |
|
Look what I found tonight while poking around in some old files!
Ding-Dong! Sadly, it's still just as appropriate now as it was over a year ago. Isn't it time for PATH to give up yet?
3 Comments
The state public service commissions of Arkansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Missouri have joined together in a motion to FERC to extend the deadline for filing comments on FERC's Promoting Transmission Investment Through Pricing Reform Notice of Inquiry. The commissions have asked to have the deadline extended by 45 days, with a new deadline of September 9, 2011.
What a marvelous idea! This would give everyone more time to research and compose their comments. Check back soon to see if FERC grants the motion. If not, comment deadline is currently July 26. 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. Greene Township (PA) residents are worried that FirstEnergy's Little Blue Run coal ash impoundment has leaked harmful chemicals into the town's water supply. The residents have been making a ruckus, which is bad PR for FirstEnergy.
So, what does FirstEnergy do? They try to bribe the town to shut up. "First Energy, acknowledging the need to expand the coal ash capacity at Little Blue Run, has made previous offers to Greene residents. The offers, according to the township website, include $250,000 annually to offset property taxes, $250,000 annually to improve municipal services, and $25,000 annually to nonprofit organizations in the community." The newest "offer", reported yesterday, was to pay for the local water company to run public water to all the homes. The residents currently rely on wells and springs. Of course, the residents would be expected to pay for their public water consumption. Wells and springs are free. There are no monthly water bills to pay. FirstEnergy's "generous" offer: A lifetime of monthly water bills for you! As well, the "offer" was made to Greene Township secretary Sandra Wright. The township's response was: "Township supervisors took no action on First Energy's water offer, saying First Energy officials need to appear at a public meeting to make a formal presentation. "They want to do this behind closed doors. They need to come to a township meeting," Supervisor Russell Morgan said." Who do you think is really going to end up paying for all the Greene Twp. bribes? All FirstEnergy ratepayers, that's who. It's not about FirstEnergy "wanting to do something positive for the community." FirstEnergy is a corporation. They make money, not warm fuzzies. Just another case of corporate money trying to smooth the rough edges of an appalling case of environmental injustice. Watch the video available here. FirstEnergy, you're despicable. In the NOI, Promoting Transmission Investment Through Pricing Reform, FERC is seeking comments about the effect of its incentives on 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 look at CWIP in rate base. This is an incentive that costs you money every year for projects that are stalled or may never ever be built. CWIP (pronounced quip) stands for Construction Work in Progress. CWIP represents the capitalized project costs such as land, fixtures, regulatory expense, engineering, surveys, the federal EIS process, land agents, and other items that will become a part of the rate base, which is recovered over the useful life of the project (with return). Without this great incentive, transmission developers would have to accrue these costs and begin recovering them (with carrying charges - a form of interest) when the project is completed and goes into service. With this incentive, transmission developers begin earning a return on their capital investment in the project during the construction period. FERC's reasoning for this incentive is that it reduces the amount of capital needed and therefore reduces the cost of borrowing needed capital. The idea is that the yearly return will be invested back into the project as capital (unless the transmission owner fritters it away on "donations" and lobbying as PATH has done). As an example, let's look at our favorite poster child, the PATH project. When PATH's incentives and formula rate (formula rate is the mechanism for recovering project costs and return in your electric rates) were granted in February, 2008, ratepayers began paying for the PATH project immediately. All ratepayers in the PJM region have been paying a return on PATH's rate base (including CWIP) since 2008, although no state permits have been granted and nothing has been built. PATH has been spending money on CWIP (millions) and we have been paying them a return on it every year, in addition to the yearly taxes, depreciation on plant in service and Operations & Maintenance costs. The ratepayers have nothing to show for their investment. PATH has not been built and has not delivered any electricity anywhere, and may never do so. PATH is "suspended" for an unknown period of time, however, they will still collect a return this year on accumulated CWIP in rate base, and also every year thereafter, as long as this project drags on. There's no impetus to ever get this project built. PATH will continue to collect millions of dollars in return every year and will be required to do absolutely nothing for it. In the NOI, beginning on page 30, FERC discusses the CWIP in rate base incentive and asks several specific questions. I know this particular question will be of interest to all of you PATH opponents. In fact, it looks like it was crafted to relate particularly to the PATH project in response to all your recent comments to FERC. This is one you should definitely answer in your comments to FERC (can we get a resounding chorus of "Oh! Hell, yes!"?). Q60) Should the CWIP incentive not apply or be suspended in circumstances where an incentives project has been suspended for an indefinite period of time and there is no additional construction activity on the project? FERC wants to know if PATH should be allowed to continue to collect a return on it's "suspended" project indefinitely; or, if FERC took this incentive away from them, would PATH be jolted into action to either fold or get on with things? Now that you know what CWIP in rate base is... go look at the rest of 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. Looks like you're going to have to eat your Lucky Charms at home or in your own office this year because there will be no free breakfast buffet at Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw & Pittman for you! :-(
According to this notice posted at PJM, the Annual Update Open Meeting is going to be held only via conference call this year, instead of also live and in person at the DC offices of PATH's FERC attorney. How many other precedent changes can PATH dream up to demonstrate how scared they are of us? Despite PATH's attempt to take all the fun out of it, we can still gather in our little groups for the call, and this time we can politely mute the phone before we pass notes and snicker and giggle :-) So, mark your calendar for July 20 and be sure to send in your "reservation" before July 14. Of course, you *could* pretend that you don't have an email address, just so you can waste a bunch of Randy's time making phone calls the day before the meeting. We could also go to DC anyhow and call in on our cell phones from outside the building while peering in the windows of the conference rooms until we find the one Randy's sitting in all by himself, hogging all the donuts. I'm going to stop thinking about all the possibilities for mischief provided by this notice now, before I think up something truly weird. When is Randy going to realize that he's never going to outsmart us? They're always after me Lucky Charms....... Bill and I are debuting the new Coalition for Reliable Power website. Check it out here.
The old Coalition site will soon direct you automatically to the new one. All the old blog posts have been moved to the new site, so it's all still there! We hope you will join the Coalition, and take just a moment to email Governor Tomblin and ask him to appoint a new PSC Commissioner on July 1. You can do it with the form available right on the front page of the new website. It's quick and easy! We are looking for individuals, organizations and businesses to join with us in changing the future of energy policy in West Virginia to prevent future occurrences of projects like PATH and TrAIL. Membership in the Coalition is free and we are simply asking you to add your name to our cause. Even if you don't live in West Virginia, we still want you as a member of our new organization and encourage you to take similar action in your own state! PATH spent millions of dollars of our money setting up front group "coalitions" and buying "coalition members" like Chambers of Commerce, the WV Coal Assoc. and former PSC Commissioner "spokespeople" to tout their project. Now we can show them how REAL grassroots action works by forming our own Coalition and taking action. Sorry, I can't pay you to join like PATH did with their "coalitions"... We need to set the stage to prevent PATH from attempting a come back later this year, which is what PATH and PJM are alluding to in the press. While we continue to chip away at the PATH project at a federal level, we also need to take action right here in West Virginia to create a vital public conversation about our energy future. Thanks, everyone!! FirstEnergy started laying off former Allegheny Energy employees on Friday. We told you that was going to happen.
Since merger approval was conditioned upon maintaining certain employment levels, FirstEnergy is playing a semantics game. They're calling some of them "temporary assignments" and pretending they're still jobs. Unfortunately, mega-nerd Todd Meyers hasn't been caught in a web of his own double-talk... yet. But there's always hope for next week when more "new assignments" will be distributed! At least the line workers who actually keep the lights on haven't been affected. Looks like the lights may stay on for another two years before those guys get terminated or "temporarily assigned" to Timbuktu. So, all you AEP and Entergy employees who are worried about what the upcoming merger between your two companies will mean to you -- take a lesson. Here's the evidence that you all are doing a great job of keeping PATH treed during their "suspension." PATH is having an anxiety crisis because the powers that be are starting to get wind of the truth about what a sham this project has been and continues to be.
PATH has reverted to natural instinct and has started to crank out the PR spin through their planning puppet, PJM. This article, Putting the brakes on build-out, in a publication going under the misnomer "Intelligent Utility," came out of the blue on Wednesday. Is there really a point to this article? Where's the news hook? There isn't one, it's just PR spin. "However, the outlook for a slower economic recovery in that region has resulted in the line being delayed. The preliminary analysis to put the brakes on the project took into account current economic forecasts, demand response commitments and potential new generation." Say what? The "suspension" resulted from the Virginia State Corporation Commission's Order for sensitivity studies that reflected Dominion's rebuild of the Mt. Storm-Doubs transmission line and the Warren (Va.) generation coming online. PJM had been ignoring and dismissing these projects as having no affect on the need for PATH. When cornered, PJM was forced to admit that there's no need for PATH in their 15-year planning horizon, which runs through the year 2026. It had nothing to do with the economy at all, but PJM's biased, favor-driven and inaccurate planning process. At least this part of PJM's spokeswoman's statement was correct, "We do planning studies throughout the year and we come up with recommendations as they come in from our different members.” DuPont-Kidd admits that planning study "recommendations" are given to them by their members, such as FirstEnergy and AEP, and not independently arrived at through an impartial analysis process. Of course the power companies are going to recommend something that stands to score them a huge profit! Duh. Today, this wildly spinning top shot out of ClimateWire. This story, The Tale of a Survivor in the Power Line Wars, is the biggest pile of smelly offal that we've seen in a while. Do any of you TrAIL survivors remember this reporter's version of events? Looks like Behr committed one of the cardinal sins of responsible journalism... he took a press release and some canned corporate quotes and ran with it. While he did attempt balance by getting opposing quotes, notice how the industry version of the "suspension" being the product of the economy is right up front and not credited to its source so it reads like fact, while the truth about the "suspension" from PEC's Chris Miller is buried much later in the story as an afterthought? Also take note of how the opposition is painted with the NIMBY brush. ClimateWire, Behr and the copy editor/designer who came up with this headline should all be ashamed of themselves for trundling out this tripe! Expect more of the same and recognize spin when you see it. This will continue as long as PATH's knees keep a'knocking because the regulatory tide is turning against them. Keep up the good work, folks! :-) PATH finally got it up on PJM's website late this afternoon, two days late. We have yet to see it docketed at FERC, however FERC has had issues with unreliable electricity this week (isn't THAT a coincidence) so they are probably way behind in getting filings docketed.
Here is PATH's 2010 true-up of their actual revenue requirement vs. the projected revenue requirement that they collected from PJM ratepayers last year. For the third time in as many years, PATH has collected lots more than they actually spent, to the tune of millions. They owe us a refund, which will be wrapped into the rates we pay in 2012. We won't see a credit on our bills, or a check in the mail, in exchange for floating PATH another loan at a paltry interest rate. We just get to pay a little bit less two years down the road. If you want to get in on the PATH companies' financial fun this year, this document is your starting point. If you need help or an interpreter, just ask. Still no word on the Annual Update Open Meeting. *tick, tock* PATH's Formula Rate Implementation Protocols, Attachment H-19B of PJM's Open Access Transmission Tariff, state, "On June 1 of each year subsequent to calendar year 2008, PATH shall submit its Annual Update as an informational filing to FERC and shall post the same on the PJM website."
It hasn't been filed with FERC or posted on PJM's website yet. Looks like PATH is having a little trouble getting it up on the web. I guess the Protocols are self-serving, to be used as fodder to have pointless arguments with "interested parties" and to make ridiculous confidentiality claims about information released in discovery without benefit of a Protective Agreement, isn't that right, Randy? I guess PATH thinks they don't have to follow their Protocols if they don't feel like it. We'll just be adding these additional days onto the end of the discovery period this year, won't we? :-) The Protocols also state, "Within two business days of the Publication Date, PATH shall provide notice on PJM's website of the time, date and location of an open meeting among Interested Parties." Since PATH has ignored the designated Publication Date, I don't suppose this is going to happen tomorrow either, like it should. Those post-merger "economies of scale" are really working out for FirstEnergy's customers, aren't they? Looks like the two PATH operating companies owe the ratepayers over $13M in over recovered revenue and return, and now they're not filing their annual true-up on time. FirstEnergy, you have failed already!!! Inquiring minds want to know: Will PATH be able to get it up tomorrow? |
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
|