Grab your tin foil hat and crank up the generator, Armageddon is nearly upon us! In a complaint filed yesterday, Primary Power LLC asks FERC to restore ownership of its SVC projects to Primary Power no later than July 13, and issue an immediate order preventing FirstEnergy and Dominion from beginning construction of the two projects that they stole from Primary Power by exerting their incumbent power over the PJM cartel.
"Primary Power respectfully submits that the actions of PJM and the Incumbent Transmission Owners addressed in this Complaint raise grave concerns for the future of new competitive transmission development in the United States. This is essentially the “Armageddon scenario” in which PJM and the Incumbent Transmission Owners have acted in a concerted, and unduly discriminatory, manner to prevent a potential new entrant from building new cost-of-service transmission facilities in PJM, despite the fact that there is a Commission order directly on point telling PJM to designate Primary Power if any of the projects that it sponsored were included in the RTEP. If Primary Power cannot be designated to build its SVCs in this well documented proceeding that already is the subject of a Commission order, then who can? If PJM’s actions are allowed to stand, it will provide a roadmap for incumbent transmission owners across the United States on how to block entry by competitors, and it will send a chilling signal to independent transmission developers and investors that the Commission is not willing to intervene to enforce its open access requirements. This Complaint thus represents a critical test case for the Commission’s commitment to opening up the market for transmission development to competition, which, as the Commission found in Order No. 1000, can result in more efficient and cost-effective solutions for ratepayers."
At issue here are two projects that will supply reactive power to the grid, without the building of new transmission lines. Primary Power spent 5 years and $5M developing these projects and shared them with PJM and its "stakeholders" during the approval process. PJM initially approved the projects and assigned them to their sponsor, Primary Power, for construction. However, after all the work of design, development and approval was completed, PJM incumbent bullies and PIGS Dominion and FirstEnergy decided they wanted to build the projects instead. So, what did PJM do? They reassigned the projects to their favored incumbents, of course, and told Primary Power to go suck wind.
I'm sure this doesn't come as any surprise to PATH opponents, who have had a front row seat to PJM's favoritism of its incumbent bullies for the past 4 years. PJM's bald favoritism of certain companies flies in the face of even the most basic logic, and it's way past time for FERC to rein them in. Primary Power is but one more example of PJM's collusion with a handful of power conglomerates to increase their profits with the building of unnecessary infrastructure, and to prevent competitive markets. Primary Power gets quite dramatic in their filing, however it's all true and well deserved. The continued skewing of PJM's markets to favor certain incumbents keeps the prices consumers pay for electricity high and fails to provide the consumers with state-of-the-art, least cost options for electric service. If PJM's arbitrary and capricious decision in Primary Power is allowed to stand, Primary Power will go belly-up and it's going to be a cold day in hell before another new company proposes an innovative (or cheaper) solution to identified transmission needs. The incumbents will have exactly what they desire, a lock on all new transmission projects, similar to their current stranglehold on the development of new generation. This does not serve electric consumers!
It's time to clean house at PJM. The dirty dealing could be peeled off in layers at this point, and it's starting to stink up the place. Once they've cleaned all the stink out of PJM, FERC should prohibit lobbying of any kind at PJM in order to prevent a recurrence. Lobbying has no place in a competitive electric market that benefits consumers. And while FERC is at it, they need to prohibit lobbying in their own house as well. Regulation should never be subject to lobbying as lobbying does nothing to further just and reasonable, nondiscriminatory rates.
"Primary Power respectfully submits that the actions of PJM and the Incumbent Transmission Owners addressed in this Complaint raise grave concerns for the future of new competitive transmission development in the United States. This is essentially the “Armageddon scenario” in which PJM and the Incumbent Transmission Owners have acted in a concerted, and unduly discriminatory, manner to prevent a potential new entrant from building new cost-of-service transmission facilities in PJM, despite the fact that there is a Commission order directly on point telling PJM to designate Primary Power if any of the projects that it sponsored were included in the RTEP. If Primary Power cannot be designated to build its SVCs in this well documented proceeding that already is the subject of a Commission order, then who can? If PJM’s actions are allowed to stand, it will provide a roadmap for incumbent transmission owners across the United States on how to block entry by competitors, and it will send a chilling signal to independent transmission developers and investors that the Commission is not willing to intervene to enforce its open access requirements. This Complaint thus represents a critical test case for the Commission’s commitment to opening up the market for transmission development to competition, which, as the Commission found in Order No. 1000, can result in more efficient and cost-effective solutions for ratepayers."
At issue here are two projects that will supply reactive power to the grid, without the building of new transmission lines. Primary Power spent 5 years and $5M developing these projects and shared them with PJM and its "stakeholders" during the approval process. PJM initially approved the projects and assigned them to their sponsor, Primary Power, for construction. However, after all the work of design, development and approval was completed, PJM incumbent bullies and PIGS Dominion and FirstEnergy decided they wanted to build the projects instead. So, what did PJM do? They reassigned the projects to their favored incumbents, of course, and told Primary Power to go suck wind.
I'm sure this doesn't come as any surprise to PATH opponents, who have had a front row seat to PJM's favoritism of its incumbent bullies for the past 4 years. PJM's bald favoritism of certain companies flies in the face of even the most basic logic, and it's way past time for FERC to rein them in. Primary Power is but one more example of PJM's collusion with a handful of power conglomerates to increase their profits with the building of unnecessary infrastructure, and to prevent competitive markets. Primary Power gets quite dramatic in their filing, however it's all true and well deserved. The continued skewing of PJM's markets to favor certain incumbents keeps the prices consumers pay for electricity high and fails to provide the consumers with state-of-the-art, least cost options for electric service. If PJM's arbitrary and capricious decision in Primary Power is allowed to stand, Primary Power will go belly-up and it's going to be a cold day in hell before another new company proposes an innovative (or cheaper) solution to identified transmission needs. The incumbents will have exactly what they desire, a lock on all new transmission projects, similar to their current stranglehold on the development of new generation. This does not serve electric consumers!
It's time to clean house at PJM. The dirty dealing could be peeled off in layers at this point, and it's starting to stink up the place. Once they've cleaned all the stink out of PJM, FERC should prohibit lobbying of any kind at PJM in order to prevent a recurrence. Lobbying has no place in a competitive electric market that benefits consumers. And while FERC is at it, they need to prohibit lobbying in their own house as well. Regulation should never be subject to lobbying as lobbying does nothing to further just and reasonable, nondiscriminatory rates.
RSS Feed