As mentioned in an earlier post, FirstEnergy may be snared in a probe that Ohio regulators recently announced of the state’s retail electric market.

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio initiated what it terms "an investigation of Ohio's retail electric service market" by posing a series of questions to be answered by interested parties.  Many of the questions seem to focus on FirstEnergy's gaming of PJM's capacity market earlier this year, such as:

Whether an electric utility should be required to
disclose to the Commission any information
regarding the utility's analysis or the internal
decision matrix involving plant retirements,
capacity auction, and transmission projects,
including correspondence and meetings among
affiliates and their representatives?

Should a utility's transmission affiliate be
precluded from participating in the projects
intended to alleviate the constraint or should
competitive bidding be required?

Are shared services within a 'structural
separation' configuration causing market
manipulation and undue preference?

Should generation and competitive suppliers be
required to completely divest from transmission
and distribution entities, maintain their own
shareholders and, therefore, operate completely
separate from an affiliate structure?

And this one, which is a particular favorite of mine:

As fully separate entities, does a utility's distribution affiliate have a duty to oppose the incentive rate of return at FERC?

This very issue was raised in one of the complaints filed by consumers against FirstEnergy's PATH affiliate at FERC this past summer.  PATH had asserted that a consumer was protected from inaccurate, unjust and unreasonable rates by their load-serving entity.  In the case of the complaint, PATH said that a customer of Potomac Edison, one of its affiliates, would be protected by Potomac Edison from unfair rates for the PATH affiliate set at FERC.  FERC rejected PATH's argument and granted the consumer's complaint, finding that consumers have standing to challenge FERC jurisdictional rates.

It's nice to see that even if PJM's Market Monitor chooses to ignore FirstEnergy's obvious manipulation of the capacity market in favor of secret schemes to frustrate the development of new, badly needed generation in New Jersey and Maryland, at least the state of Ohio is interested in protecting its consumers.

Back in June, I pondered, "whether FE will get away with pushing the legal envelope, or whether evidence of possible misdeeds will begin to float to the surface like untethered bodies..."  Looks like there's been a couple of floaters found... ;-)

Well, well, well, the truth comes out at last!

It seems that "...the company continues to contemplate asset sales to meet its equity needs, which are likely around $500 million, to maintain its corporate credit rating.”

According to a UBS Securities spokesman, and demonstrated by tanking stock prices, FirstEnergy is in trouble with cash flow to pay off looming debt.  The company needs to raise some quick cash to pay off "$1.4 billion in debt at its retail power marketing business and about $400 million held by a transmission unit."

In order to do so, FE "has asked West Virginia regulators to allow it to shift ownership of a merchant coal plant to a regulated utility, adding about $1.1 billion to the rate base that determines the utility’s earnings."

It's not about securing adequate generation for Mon Power customers, or any of the other excuses FirstEnergy made to the WV PSC, it's about raising quick cash to prop up a poorly-run company.  And it's about lying to the West Virginia Public Service Commission and what the company thinks are ignorant, uninformed customers in West Virginia.  Bad plan.

But wait, there's also more bad news for FirstEnergy, "...it may be snared in a probe that Ohio regulators announced yesterday of the state’s retail electric market."

All that lying and buying influence will catch up with a greedy and crooked company eventually and the truth will prevail.  Always.

A coalition of citizen groups has filed an injunction in federal court asking that construction of the unneeded Susquehanna Roseland 500kV transmission line be halted within 20 miles of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.

The groups earlier filed a lawsuit against the National Park Service for its issuance of a permit to the power companies to destroy the park in contravention of the NPS's mission to preserve our irreplaceable natural resources.

Project owners PSEG and PPL have begun construction of the project in an all-fired big hurry, trying to get it built before legal remedies have been exhausted.  Looks like they're very afraid that the lack of need for their project and the underhanded way they went about securing permits will be exposed.  And it will, but the companies are hoping the power line will be built before anyone really notices or cares.  Too late!

The petition asks for an expedited hearing.  Will justice finally be done?

West Virginia Consumer Advocate Byron Harris was a guest on The State Journal's "Decision Makers" program on Sunday.  Here's a link to the video.

While Byron says he opposes FirstEnergy's proposal to sell one of the company's competitive market coal plants to captive West Virginia electric consumers, his main concern seems to be the price of the plant, and not the purchase of the plant.

Host Bray Cary gets way off track and Byron doesn't take control of the situation to re-direct back to a coherent argument.  Cary is one of those individuals who is so terrified of accounting that he views corporate accountants as "tricky" and "sneaky."  He dubs the transaction "corporate hocus pocus" and believes it's "purely bookkeeping."

Bookkeeping is a scary concept for people like Bray Cary, who believe bookkeeping doesn't involve real money.  However, FirstEnergy's coal plant sale is going to cost you real money.

The cost of the plant for West Virginians is a cool $1.102B.  This amount represents real cash that will be exchanged between FirstEnergy subsidiaries Mon Power and AE Supply, one of the company's unregulated generation subsidiaries.  Of that $1.102B in cold, hard cash, 45%, or $529M, will come from an equity capital investment in Mon Power from parent company FirstEnergy.  In exchange for their investment, FE will earn 10.5% return on the money.  The other 55%, $573M, will be borrowed at a rate of approximately 5% over a 35 year term.  According to the testimony of Steven Staub submitted as part of the company's filing with the WV Public Service Commission:

"Power plants are capital intensive assets with long useful lives. The tenor of a debt financing associated with a power plant should complement the useful life of
the asset. The financing plan is expected to include new notes that will mature no more than thirty-five years from their dates of issuance. Based on a review of
treasury yields and corporate credit spreads for  comparably rated issuers over the past year, the newly issued long term debt would be expected to be issued with a coupon of approximately 5%. Rates will fluctuate in the future; thus, the actual cost of debt for the Transaction will be determined when the new long term debt is issued."

So, Mon Power and Potomac Edison customers will repay $1.102 BILLION to both parent company FirstEnergy and Mon Power's creditors at an approximate average interest rate of 7.75% for the next 35 years.  In the video, Byron states that the cost to the "average residential consumer" will be about $90 per year.

That's $90 of cold, hard cash out of your pocket and into FirstEnergy's every year for the next 35 years, for a total of $3,150 per household.  That's real debt, real money.

Just say no to FirstEnergy's "corporate hocus-pocus" and tell the WV PSC that you do not support FirstEnergy's proposal and do not wish to pay higher rates to subsidize an out of state corporation's financial success by purchasing their unwanted, cast-off, uncompetitive coal plant liability.

Click here to submit your comment to the PSC online.  The case number is 12-1571-E-PC.

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 article in the Beckley Register-Herald yesterday, "Mon Power Representative Responds to EEWV Comments," FirstEnergy flack Todd Meyers attempted to convince readers that the company's proposal to offset an upcoming rate decrease with an upcoming rate increase would still result in a rate decrease.

"One way or the other, people will get that 5 percent break,” Meyers said."

How did Todd do that?  Todd used magical FirstEnergy math to demonstrate that taking away your rate decrease and replacing it with a rate increase would still result in you receiving a rate decrease.

Shazam!  Power company magic!  Only from FirstEnergy!

According to this article, energy efficiency programs in Ohio are too expensive for FirstEnergy's customers.

"The power giant says the programs they’ve implemented to incentive customers to reduce electricity use are getting too expensive.

Doug Colafella, is a spokesman for First Energy.

Colafella: “As these programs become more aggressive, as the goals become more difficult to achieve, the costs for these programs are undoubtedly going to increase.”

I'm not sure where our lil' CoalFella picked that winner from, but I think he may have his hand jammed in the wrong orifice.

After whining about how much energy efficiency is going to cost customers as justification for gutting Ohio energy efficiency mandates, FirstEnergy turns around today and announces the building of a new $45M "transmission control center" in Ohio.  Now who do you think is going to pay for Tony the Trickster's new underground lair?  You are!  Those poor, broke customers who can't "afford" energy efficiency investment that will lower their bills over the long term can afford to pay for a shiny, new office building for the company, according to FirstEnergy.

How much energy efficiency could Ohioans buy with $45M?

One of PJM Interconnection's purposes is to provide reliable power at the lowest possible price.  As part of its attempt to accomplish this goal, PJM plans for transmission "enhancement" and administers an artificial market construct that is supposed to foster competitiveness that will ensure market prices for electricity are "the lowest possible."

Although PJM can order new transmission to artificially adjust electricity markets, they cannot order new generation to shape the market.  This unbalanced "market" is what set up the investor owned incumbent utility transmission feeding frenzy we've had to put up with over the past few years.  Instead of ordering new economic generation near load, PJM orders expensive new transmission lines that source from existing generation farther from load.  PJM believes that "the market" (that is the REAL economic market, not PJM's artificially constructed and controlled market) will stimulate new generation without interference.  However, PJM will not rely on "the market" to drive transmission expansion.  If they did, would the lights go out while we wait for "the market" to catch up?  PJM thinks so.

Because PJM cannot order new generation, the states of New Jersey and Maryland took matters into their own hands and ordered new generation in their own states.  This upset PJM, the Market Monitor, and the incumbent generators, who have been scheming to actually prevent new generation.  So much for allowing "the market" to encourage new generation.

PJM "ordered" four new high capacity long distance transmission lines between 2006 and 2008 in order to increase the use of coal-fired resources.  These lines were supposed to bring lower cost electricity to the east coast, instead of waiting for "the market" to encourage new east coast generation.

The lines were economic projects, designed to decrease the "congestion" on existing lines that prevented the import of additional coal fired generation to the east coast during peak load.  However, PJM also floated these projects as reliability projects, insisting that eastern load would continue to attempt to draw cheap coal fired power from the west over congested lines until the lines simply overheated and failed, pitching the entire region into the dark.  That would never have happened because the east coast had plenty of their own generation, albeit more expensive (at the time) gas fired generation, that would increase prices when relied on to support peak load.

In order to decrease prices on the east coast through the building of these new lines, the cost of the lines is shared by all consumers in the entire PJM region.  The east coast only paid a fraction of the cost of the lines that lowered their prices.  And, in fact, the lowering of prices on the east coast by building new transmission actually increased prices in the western region by providing new markets for previously constrained generation.  Eliminating "congestion" serves to levelize prices between different markets.

But, something amazing happened between 2006 and 2012.  Demand for electricity on the east coast tanked due to increased energy efficiency and demand side management.  By shaving peak load, the east coast made great strides to solving the "problem" of not having access to cheaper, western coal fired generation.  Something else happened during that time as well.  Shale gas flooded the market, opening up a cheap, plentiful, new supply of natural gas that lowered the cost of previously expensive gas fired generation on the east coast and motivated new gas fired generation builds near east coast load.

The combination of decreased load and more economic east coast generation completely obviated PJM's "need" for the four new transmission lines.  Unfortunately, TrAIL had already been built at enormous cost and personal sacrifice by the people of West Virginia.  However, two other projects, PATH and MAPP, have finally been abandoned by PJM and won't be built.  But, the PJM consumers will still pay for these abandoned projects they never wanted and no longer need.  PJM's transmission planning has failed on a massively expensive scale.

But I've only accounted for three of the four projects thus far.  The last one is PSEG & PPL's struggling Susquehanna Roseland project in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.  Although there is no economic or reliability need for this project anymore either, the project owners and PJM continue to insist on constructing it at enormous cost to consumers, landowners and the citizens who own the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.

PSEG & PPL read the economic writing on the wall over the past few years and stepped up their efforts to ramrod their project into reality by making it "too big to fail" even though the economic justification for it had evaporated.  The companies still claim that S-R "will save consumers $200M per year in congestion costs," therefore it is urgently needed and justifies enormous cost that will raise electric prices, take land from property owners, force those living in close proximity to risk their health being bathed in the line's continuous EMF soup, and destroy a priceless and irreplaceable national park.

In order to do so, PSEG & PPL bribed towns and landowners with "mitigation" payments and began a lobbying program that reached all the way to the White House with the goal of obtaining the approval of the National Park Service.  The cost of all this, of course, will be borne by all consumers in PJM.

Last week, I watched FERC Commissioner Moeller extoll the virtues of new transmission while disparaging the efforts to hinder Susquehanna Roseland, a project that "would save consumers $200M a year in congestion costs," according to Commissioner Moeller.

So, where did that congestion figure come from?  PJM and the project owners floated it at the time the project was approved, many years ago.  Does that figure still bear any resemblance to reality?  No. The "congestion" driving S-R has evaporated.  The building of S-R will actually cost consumers more than any subset of consumers will ever save on their electric bills.  Whether or not there is a "reliability" need for this project I really can't say, but if there is one, a simple rebuild of the existing line may suffice to fill that void.  S-R as planned is overkill.

Every quarter PJM's Market Monitor publishes a "State of the Market" report.  The one for the third quarter of 2012 was released the other day.  The report has a section about "congestion."  If S-R was still going to save consumers "$200M per year" that information would show up in the report.  It does not.

The SOM report says, "The AP South interface was the largest contributor to congestion costs in the first nine months of 2012. With $50.9 million in total congestion costs, it accounted for 12.0 percent of the total PJM congestion costs in the first nine months of 2012.
The top five constraints in terms of congestion costs together contributed $112.5 million, or 26.5 percent, of the total PJM congestion costs in the first nine months of 2012. The top five constraints were the AP South interface, Graceton – Raphael Road transmission line, Woodstock flowgate, Belvidere – Woodstock line and Clover transformer."

None of these congestion contributors is located anywhere near the Susquehanna Roseland project area.  And the biggest contributor to congestion costs is $50.9M per year, not $200M.

The SOM report also provides a nifty map on page 221 that shows congestion points.  There's no congestion showing up in the geographic area where S-R is being constructed.

Need and justification for Susquehanna-Roseland have completely evaporated.  If the project is abandoned now, or reconfigured to more closely align with any actual need, the cost to consumers will be dramatically lowered.  Stop constructing this project now.  Just stop.  Consumers can't afford PJM's artificial markets and planning failures any longer.  Stop it.

PATH never could resist having the last word in any argument, even if doing so burned PATH like a moth circling too close to an enticing flame.

PATH didn't disappoint today and filed a second "response" to the answer of one of the other parties to PATH's answer to protests of its abandonment filing at FERC.

Old Dominion Electric Cooperative filed an answer to PATH's answer last week pointing out that PATH was only remaining a "member" of PJM in order to collect an extra half a percentage point of interest over the amortization period.  Since PATH does not plan to own any transmission that would receive benefit from a PJM membership, the extra interest to be derived from this "membership" is just another way to gouge consumers without any corresponding benefit.  ODEC also pointed to PATH's ridiculous contention that its parent companies' memberships in PJM entitled PATH to receive this benefit.

What is it that PATH fails to understand here?  Sec. 219 of the Energy Policy Act directs FERC to "provide for incentives to each transmission utility or electric utility that joins a Transmission Organization."  Now that PATH's project is abandoned and PATH has no plans to own any other transmission, ever, PATH is no longer a "transmission utility or electric utility."  Therefore, PATH is no longer eligible to retain this incentive.  Does someone need to draw PATH a picture?  Any further answers or responses should include artwork, preferably in crayon.

In their "response" today, PATH rambles on accusing ODEC of conflating and confusing PATH's answer.  Fail!  Considering that I read the same thing in PATH's answer that ODEC did, chances are that the Commission will also read it that way, despite PATH's suicidal attempt today to rehabilitate its own bleary legal work.  And speaking of bleary legal work... who is the "Virginia Service Corporation Commission" that PATH mentioned in their "response" today?  Any parties here by that name?  Didn't think so.  Thanks for the laugh, PATH!  Watch out for that fire, it's hot!

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.