In 2010, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities approved PSE&G's Susquehanna Roseland 500kV transmission project. That approval is currently being appealed.
Susquehanna Roseland is one of four transmission lines dreamed up as part of PJM Interconnection's 2005 Project Mountaineer, a scheme to transport 5000 MW of coal-fired electric generation from the Ohio Valley to the Eastern Seaboard. This plan was a money-making conspiracy between coal companies, coal-dependent generators such as Allegheny Energy (now FirstEnergy) and American Electric Power, PJM Interconnection, and West Virginia Governor (now Senator) Joe Manchin, along with other politicians, and FERC officials. The New Jersey BPU and Attorney General filed comments last week on FERC's Promoting Transmission Investment Through Pricing Reform. In their comments, they finally admit the truth, which opponents of Susquehanna Roseland and other Project Mountaineer transmission lines have been contending from the beginning: "The NJ BPU, however, is concerned that while new transmission lines delivering mostly coal-powered electricity from older plants may reduce the delivered cost of power, they do so at the cost of increased air emissions from these older, less efficient plants." And now New Jersey wants to get tough: "Coal plants produce a significant portion of the greenhouse gas emissions that impact New Jersey. While coal plants have historically provided reliable electrical service and have balanced the technology mix of generation resources in New Jersey, coal is a major source of CO2 emissions and, therefore, New Jersey will no longer accept dirty coal as a new source of power for the State." The NJ BPU finally sees the light: "The NJBPU submits that building clean generation can eliminate or lessen the need for new transmission lines and upgrades, and therefore, on March 29, 2011, the Board awarded contracts under its Long Term Capacity Agreement Pilot Program ("LCAPP") to three CC generators." However, the coal-dependent generators, PJM and FERC are fighting them all the way. This is because a self-reliant New Jersey power market cuts into the profit margins of FirstEnergy and American Electric Power. New Jersey finally realizes that its captivity to the industry-favoring decisions of FERC-endorsed PJM are what keeps electricity prices artificially high for their consumers. PJM is a transmission planner, therefore all "problems" have transmission solutions, even when cheaper, smarter solutions are readily at hand. "The NJ BPU notes that federal incentives to encourage the development and construction of new transmission facilities to address reliability issues that utilize state-of-the art technologies is encouraged by and acceptable to the Commission, but, efforts to encourage the development of new state-of-the-art, efficient, environmentally friendly gas-fired generation to address reliability needs through incentives has been thwarted and impeded by the Commission by its recent ruling on the Minimum Offer Pricing Rule ("MOPR"),which specifically discriminates against this technology. "There are, however, other ways besides simply building new transmission lines to address these potential reliability issues and the related congestion costs created by load pockets." Looks like the state of New Jersey has finally had enough of the PJM cartel's heavy-handed, self-interested control of their energy future. Will Susquehanna Roseland's approval be overturned on appeal? Denial of a new coal-fired electric transmission line into New Jersey in favor of new, in-state, gas-fired generation solutions would be just desserts for FE, AEP, PJM and FERC. It would also put New Jersey back in the driver's seat in setting their own smart energy policy, lower electricity prices for New Jersey consumers and give a nod toward a cleaner environment. American Electric Power, FirstEnergy, PJM Interconnection and FERC ought to be embarrassed by the boldness of their Project Mountaineer conspiracy, which is on record as a FERC technical conference held on May 13, 2005 in Charleston, West Virginia. Maybe other states will wake up and join New Jersey in their insurrection against the FERC-endorsed stranglehold of PJM on their energy markets. FERC's recent federal transmission siting power grab certainly isn't making them any friends at the state level. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." - William Shakespeare (Hamlet)
PJM Interconnection went into panicked, defensive mode this week in reaction to an editorial in the New Jersey Daily Record by Dave Slaperud, co-founder of Stop The Lines, an organization created to foster public awareness of the Susquehanna-Roseland power line project. Slaperud gets it exactly right when he says: "PJM operates the grid in New Jersey and 14 other eastern states, and is supposed to be an independent company charged with maintaining the grid’s reliability. In reality, however, PJM is a conglomerate of transmission line owners and power companies — like PSE&G — that generate electricity, mostly from coal-fired power plants to the west of New Jersey. Naturally, PJM is going to try to promote projects and policies that will generate income for their member corporations." "The real driving force behind the Susquehanna-Roseland project is “Project Mountaineer,” a scheme hatched by PJM and the coal industry to generate more coal-fired energy from the Midwest and move it into the more lucrative markets in the Northeast. It puts profit for the transmission companies, coal-fired energy producers and the coal industry ahead of the health and safety of residents downwind of these facilities." Just ask any citizen opposition group involved in exposing the truth behind the four Project Mountaineer projects, Susquehanna Roseland, TrAIL, MAPP and PATH. It happened, and for many citizen opponents, it's still happening. None of these projects have been officially abandoned, although three out of the four have been seriously delayed. They continue to hang like an albatross around the necks of thousands of property owners in the Mid-Atlantic, and thanks to investor-favoring construction incentives granted by FERC, continue to cost the 51 million electric customers in the PJM region millions of dollars of unnecessary cost in their electric bills every year. Millions of dollars a year are tossed into these outdated projects, from which consumers will never see any benefit. PJM's ball of yarn is becoming unraveled at a breakneck pace recently, as their conspiracy with their most influential members and the coal industry to build superfluous transmission lines for the sole purpose of turning a profit, is exposed to a public who is now poised to accept the truth. Slaperud has taken the offensive, and grid-manager PJM Interconnection and Susquehanna Roseland project owner PSE&G get hysterical and immediately try to publicly defend themselves. When the balance of power between corporations and grassroots groups on these kinds of projects shifts like this, it's all over but the shouting. Congratulatons, Dave and Stop The Lines! Keep the pressure on! "Truth is like the town whore. Everybody knows her, but nonetheless, it's embarrassing to meet her on the street." -- Wolfgang Borchert, (The Outsider) Guess what, "Potomac Edison" and "Mon Power" customers? FirstEnergy wants you to pay more for electricity in 2012. The company filed for another ENEC rate increase on September 1, 2011.
According to their filing with the WV-PSC, "The Companies propose a $31,909,406 annual increase in rates effective January 1, 2012, representing an overall increase of 2.7%. This amount is comprised of an actual $57,313,276 under-recovery balance at June 30, 2011, offset by a projected $22,903,870 over- recovery for the 2012 rate period at current rates and a $2,500,000 reduction to rates during 2012 to share synergy savings resulting from the merger of Allegheny Energy, Inc. and FirstEnergy Corp. earlier this year." Here's a translation: Total amount of increase: $31,909,406 -- 2.7% They hadn't recovered enough to pay their costs of providing electricity to you when evaluated on June 30, 2011 (despite all those previous increases in the past couple of years). This is due to the high cost of fuel (coal) used to produce all their electricity. The cost of coal, and burning coal to produce electricity, is only expected to go up even higher in the future. If they don't raise our rates on January 1, 2012, but continue with current rates, they will end up overcharging us nearly $23M for the year. However, this surplus will be used to offset that under recovered balance from prior years of $57M, still leaving us with a balance due to the power company of around $34M. That $34M is slightly reduced by the $2.5M "synergy savings" (where do they get these stupid phrases?) that were our consolation prize for the WV-PSC approving the merger of Allegheny Energy and First Energy last year. As you can see, $2.5M sounds like a lot, but it's really just chump change to the power company in the grand scheme of things. In addition to those "synergy savings," FirstEnergy was also required to launch an Energy Efficiency program in West Virginia. According to their filing for a proposed program, that will cost us an additional $11M in rate increases over the next 5 years. This case is running in parallel to the ENEC rate case and is expected to be combined with it to create just one increase to our bills, therefore, we need to add the cost of the EE plan to the $32M ENEC rate increase to come up with an even bigger jump in rates. The Energy Efficiency program that FirstEnergy is proposing will provide the following benefits for low-income residential customers: CFL lightbulbs, water saving devices like faucet aerators and shower heads, and new energy efficient refrigerators. The program will also provide rebate incentives for commercial/industrial customers to install energy efficient lighting in their facilities. The program will be paid for by all residential and commercial customers. Industrial customers (who use the lion's share of the electricity and pay the highest bills) are exempt from paying for the program, but they are still eligible to receive benefits under the program. However, if a lot of industrial customers take advantage of it, they may be charged for a portion of it in the future. There are many things wrong with FirstEnergy's Energy Efficiency plan. First, they set the bar too low. This plan is much weaker than existing plans FirstEnergy runs in neighboring states. In addition, FirstEnergy will recover all the costs of this program, including administrative and marketing costs, from residential and commercial ratepayers, many of whom are not eligible for any benefits under the plan. However, FirstEnergy will offer benefits to industrial customers, who will not pay for the plan. FirstEnergy will also collect their "lost revenue" caused by the program saving customers money on their electric bills. This "lost revenue" is overestimated by around 250% in the plan by way of some really creative math. The low-income residential program is available for both homeowners and tenants in rental property. The refrigerator replacement program is ripe for abuse by shifty landlords trading used appliances for new ones, then selling the new ones, and replacing them with cheaper used ones, repeat, repeat, repeat, over and over again. It also looks like FirstEnergy will be paying a contractor to haul away the old refrigerators that are replaced. As StopPATH's Steve Smith can tell you, there's big money in recycling old metal appliances, like refrigerators. Steve made over a thousand bucks for our organization by recycling old appliances. Fortunately, there are two grassroots citizens groups who will be working at the PSC to protect your interests in these two, parallel rate increase cases. Energy Efficient West Virginia and The Coalition for Reliable Power have teamed up to take on FirstEnergy. However, we're going to need your involvement to succeed! Visit The Coalition for Reliable Power and join the organization to receive news updates, action alerts and notification of our public forums that explain ratemaking, energy efficiency programs and how citizens can become involved to protect their interests. It's free (unlike anything FirstEnergy wants to "give" you). Also visit Energy Efficient West Virginia to read more about the issues and join their list to get updates and notices of upcoming events. There's also one more step you can take to make sure that the rate increase that's put into effect will be the lowest one possible, and that's to effect change at the WV-PSC! The Coalition for Reliable Power is supporting the appointment of Robert Rodecker to the Commission to fill the expired seat of Jon McKinney, but they need YOUR help to get this accomplished! The Coalition asks that you contact Governor Tomblin by phone at 1-888-438-2731 and tell them, "I support the appointment of Robert Rodecker to the Public Service Commission." Alternatively, you can use the Governor's email submission form available here. It will only take you one minute! Do it right now! Being an informed and active consumer is our only defense against continued rate hikes by out-of-state energy conglomerates! My disappointment with the WV PSC continues to build. Today, WV PSC Commissioner Jon McKinney, whose term expired on June 30, 2011, will testify before a House Energy and Commerce Committee meeting that enforcement of new EPA clean air rules will cause a reliability crisis and huge rate increases in West Virginia.
As noted earlier over on the Coalition for Reliable Power, McKinney has been accused by Clean Air Watch of sponsoring a NARUC Resolution against the EPA rules that was ghost written by AEP. The TRAIN Act that McKinney is supporting today has been labeled "lobbyist mischief" and part of an AEP spin campaign to delay implementation of the rules by Reuters. In his testimony, McKinney relies on a "study" commissioned by the coal front group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity: "The American Coalition of Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) recently asked NERA Economic Consulting to model the economic impacts of the proposed CATR and MACT Rule together. Overall the analysis shows that in 2016 electricity rates will increase by 11.5% in the US generally, and by another 12.9% in WV. Moreover, net job losses are projected to be 1.44 million for the total US and 38,500 for WV." ACCCE is a well-known industry front group that was caught sending fake letters to Congress in 2009 asking them to vote against climate change legislation. Commissioner McKinney is also confused about what caused the extended power outage in southern West Virginia during a blizzard in 2009. "The WV Commission is tasked with ensuring that the WV consumers receive reliable power. We have learned recently that reliability is king and that concerns about reliable service are one of the greatest concerns to customers. During a recent severe blizzard in southern WV over the Christmas holidays, during peak demand, power was interrupted for many residents for an extended period. Obviously, in very cold weather this is a dangerous situation and we and the electric companies were swamped with complaints from ratepayers, county commissions, legislators, and emergency response providers. My concern is that the new EPA rules will denigrate reliability leading to more major interruptions during peak electrical usage." The blizzard was caused by lack of maintenance on local distribution lines by American Electric Power. It was not caused by lack of coal-fired electricity generation. Despite the fact that McKinney is using his position to try to influence legislation on behalf of Ohio-based AEP, PJM recently said there would be little to no reliability problems with the regional grid due to upcoming retirements. Is he ensuring that the needs of the citizens of West Virginia are being met, or is he ensuring that the corporate earnings needs of an out-of-state corporation are being met? Are West Virginians really being served by Commissioner McKinney? Commissioner McKinney's position about a reliability crisis is in direct contrast to other expected testimony from FERC Commissioners. Check out all the filed testimony for today's hearing here. Let Governor Tomblin know that you support the appointment of a new PSC Commissioner, who will work for the citizens of West Virginia, to fill the expired seat of Commissioner McKinney and not spend his time lobbying for AEP on Capitol Hill. Although they've had four months to get it accomplished, the vast majority of the regulatory bodies, special interest groups and corporate interests waited until the last moment to submit comments on FERC's NOI Promoting Transmission Investment Through Pricing Reform. As I'm sure many of you who submitted individual comments and were added to the service list noticed, FERC was flooded with at least 50 sets (or more?) of comments yesterday. I haven't even had time to count them all, and another one just appeared from Morgan Stanley a few minutes ago. Really? A day late and a dollar short, fellas!
Due to a bunch of other issues going on, I haven't even had time to read the vast majority of them. (I'm still hoping my Acme cloning machine will arrive in the mail any day now...) If you're not on the service list and want to do some great reading (not all of them are technical, confusing minefields) here's how to find them. Go here and change the date range to "previous 1 year" and then type "RM11-26" into the Docket Number field and click "submit." That should bring up a long list of comments filed specified by author. Some of the ones I have read that I recommend are the comments of the Virginia State Corporation Commission -- short, sweet and very much to the point. Also recommended are comments of Transmission Access Policy Study Group. Although I disagree with their love of all things transco and their love of transmission projects in general, the law firm that wrote their comments managed to point out everything wrong with FERC's incentives policies and defended the consumers who end up paying for them. I noticed that Spiegel McDiarmid also authored some comments from other groups, but I haven't had time to read them yet to see if the theme continues. Just about any set of comments from a state public service commission is guaranteed to be a good read, although I have only sampled a few. On a humorous note... the comments of FirstEnergy gave me a giggle. Check out the signature block at the end. What's missing? The PATH companies! FE is backing away from their poster child that represents all that's wrong with transmission incentives. Too funny!!! I heard that AEP made mention of PATH in a "hands off" kind of way as well. I guess the PATH parents are too proud to claim the juvenile delinquent they gave birth to. Overall, from what little I've read, it looks like FERC is getting an earful. The comments against seem to be greater in number, but the comments from the industry are whining much louder. So, let's take a look at who's on what side of the fence: Against Incentives - States, an couple of mystery financial analysts, some industry groups, and tons and tons of citizens who act as the Transmission Line Savings & Loan. For Incentives - Energy and transmission corporations, some investment companies. You know, the ones who are robbing the citizen-funded Transmission Line Savings & Loan. Could it be any more obvious? And if you think FERC still needs to have it explained to them in perfect detail, read the comments of Steven, Shirley and Samuel Smith of Charles Town. The only thing left undone was drawing them a picture. So, what good comments have you read lately? Another epic FAIL for the West Virginia Public Service Commission this week. Yesterday was the deadline for submitting comments on FERC's Notice of Inquiry on reevaluating transmission incentives.
These incentives have been given out like candy for 5 years and cost consumers billions of dollars in higher electric bills every year. Numerous other state public service commissions submitted strong comments against current incentives policies and suggesting workable changes. These states included other PATH-affected neighbors, such as Maryland and Virginia, who are looking out for the interests of their citizens, but West Virginia failed to make any effort whatsoever. We can only assume that the WV PSC approves of FERC's ridiculous over-compensation of energy corporations that has driven expensive, destructive, unneeded transmission projects in our state, such as PATH and TrAIL, and steadily increases the electric bills of West Virginians. I'm very disappointed. West Virginians deserve a public service commission that is working in their interests, and not kowtowing to the profit initiatives of out-of-state corporations. Let Governor Tomblin know you demand change at the PSC. According to this article in Platts, Congressman Bingaman has sent a letter to the Dept. of Energy stating that Congress specifically separated authority by giving NIETC designation to DOE and backstop permitting authority to FERC. Wellinghoff (and industry lobbyist Kelliher) are WRONG when they posit that having all authority with one agency was the intent of Congress.
Bingaman strongly cautions FERC against their recent scheme to have DOE designate their authority to FERC for siting NIETC corridors. FERC's plan even takes it one step further and intends to let transmission owners designate NIETCs. The end result will be the industry essentially "regulating" itself and calling all the shots about siting and paying for new transmission lines. FERC is just a little too close to the industry it supposedly regulates. This costs consumers higher electric rates resulting from the financial goodies FERC keeps handing to its favored industry pets. Bingaman says: "The Commission papers appear to be based upon, or at least inspired by, a third paper prepared by former FERC Chairman Joseph Kelliher. In his paper, Mr. Kelliher asserts that section 216 “was not well conceived or well drafted,” that it “unnecessarily bifurcated the federal role between” the Department and the Commission, and that this “bifurcation of the federal role between two agencies was a mistake.” Congress’s legislative mistake, he suggests, can be fixed by administrative “re-implementation” of the law." FERC's mission is to ensure just and reasonable utility rates in the public interest. Since when is taking direction from industry lobbyists like Kelliher in the public interest? Although Bingaman is a big fan of federal transmission siting authority and a bunch of other things that aren't good for the public, he at least has the decency to tell FERC and DOE that doing this would be a BIG mistake. "Rewriting section 216 under the guise of reinterpreting it, as the Commission proposes, is extremely ill-advised. It would do serious harm to our efforts to strengthen the federal siting role through legislation." So, now we have a Congressman who worked on Sec. 216, numerous states, the National Association of Regulatory Commissioners, Piedmont Environmental Council and the public telling Wellinghoff to scrap this stupid idea and save face. However, the industry is whining in his other ear about how they "need" new transmission to make a bundle of money at the expense of the public. Give up, FERC, you've been had. As so often happens in the political world, your "friends" are also your enemies. This paragraph of Bingaman's letter should give everyone the willies: "As one of the principal authors of section 216, I am writing to express my serious concerns with the Commission’s proposal. I do so as one who has long supported giving the Commission greater authority to site electric transmission facilities. I agree that section 216 is flawed and has proved ineffective. I wish Congress had gone further than it did when it enacted section 216, and I have authored legislation, which has yet to be enacted, to strengthen section 216 and correct many of its shortcomings." I've just spent way too much time I didn't have to waste trying to find any current legislation, but I continually came up empty handed. There's plenty of old, failed attempts by Bingaman on record, but nothing recent. If anyone can find this referenced legislation "which has yet to be enacted," send it over. I was very disappointed to hear today that the "promise" Dominion made to StopPATH to treat landowners fairly and with respect while rebuilding the Mt. Storm - Doubs 500kV line has already been tossed aside. That didn't take long, did it?
When we asked Dominion to treat landowners fairly, and they promised to do so, we didn't just mean in Jefferson County. We included ALL landowners affected by Dominion's project, no matter where in West Virginia, Virginia or Maryland they live. I thought that was understood, Wade, Stephanie and Chuck. Now Dominion needs to make things right with the affected landowners and get with the program. Did they think our group didn't reach that far? Surprise!!!!! We have people all along Dominion's rebuild route in our group. Here's a tip for Dominion. Hopefully they'll ignore their baser instincts and take it to heart. PATH never did and look what happened to them.... DO NOT LIE TO LANDOWNERS. YOU ARE NOT SMARTER THAN WE ARE AND WE DON'T BELIEVE YOUR CHICANERY. THE ONLY WAY DOMINION IS GOING TO GET THROUGH THIS PROJECT WITH THEIR HIDE INTACT IS TO BE HONEST, FAIR AND RESPECTFUL WITH LANDOWNERS. WE CAN DEAL WITH THE TRUTH AND WILL WORK WITH YOU TO FIND A SOLUTION ACCEPTABLE TO BOTH PARTIES. LIES AND STRONG-ARM TACTICS ONLY CREATE ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS. Citizens Against Kemptown Electric Substation (CAKES) filed their comments on FERC's NOI Promoting Transmission Investment Through Pricing Reform this morning. They did a fantastic job of making insightful suggestions for reform. I think my favorite, in light of recent events, is:
"9. FERC’s Conflict of Interest It is not possible to serve public ratepayers’ interests when FERC is both promoter and regulator of the utility industry. It has been shown by several Federal agencies that being responsible for both promotion and regulation of an industry leads to ineffective performance of both responsibilities and is a violation of public trust. One historical example for resolving this problem in 1974 was the splitting of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (promoter and regulator) into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (regulator) and the Energy Research and Development Agency (now Dept. of Energy) (promoter). It is time for the U.S. Congress to split FERC into two separate agencies in order that the two responsibilities can be carried out effectively. One particular example of this FERC conflict of interest is FERC’s gathering of coalbased utilities, PJM, and FERC officials in Charleston West Virginia on 13 May 2005 at the FERC-sponsored conference "Promoting Regional Transmission Planning and Expansion to Facilitate Fuel Diversity Including Expanded Uses of Coal-fired Resources". The conference record shows a blatant bias toward promoting both generation and transmission by coal-based utilities, which FERC also is supposed to be regulating. This bias has been perpetuated by FERC since 2005 while loading up coalbased utilities with multiple layers of incentives for building long-distance coal-based energy transmission lines (e.g. PATH Project) cross-country to the East Coast instead of supporting the construction of local renewable wind-based energy generation and distribution lines locally on the East Coast near the load centers. In the interest of credibly serving U.S. Administration energy policy regarding incentives and alternatives, FERC should take the initiative to assess its own dual responsibilities and request the U.S. Congress to split FERC into two independent agencies. Regulatory reform is needed for FERC. The U.S. Courts already have indicated this need by their recent decisions. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2011 curtailed FERC’s free-wheeling promotion of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors and coal; and the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals curtailed FERC’s “backstop” siting authority over state public service commissions. Unlike other regulatory agencies, for example the NRC, FERC has not maintained its independence and does not keep utilities and RTO’s at arm length distance in FERC decision making. This is a worthwhile topic for further investigation by the General Accounting Office (GAO). Moreover, RTO’s like PJM are not agents of the U.S. Government and, therefore, are not bound by the ethics laws for protecting the interests of the public and public trust that U.S. Government agencies, such as FERC, are bound to, in particular with regard to agency actions and public perceptions concerning waste, fraud, and abuse. PJM is, in effect, a trade association of selected share-holder owned electric companies and has a built-in bias toward representing influential electric company members of PJM." In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. --George Orwell Read the CAKES comments in their entirety here. |
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
|