Miz Tootie is referring specifically to AEP subsidiary SWEPCO's recent power issue in East Texas. Not only did everyone's Sunday get disturbed, but the resulting gas flaring by Eastman Chemical sent neighbors into a tizzy, believing that certain disaster was afoot. The news coverage looked like this. Flickering lights, explosions, fire, and power outages, y'all! Made a body want to just stick their head between their legs and kiss themselves goodbye! How much clean Oklahoma wind power are we going to have to pay to import to offset that little environmental disaster, Miz Tootie wants to know?
And then we find out that all this ruckus was caused by "vegetation." Someone has been shirking their gardening duty! Or maybe AEP is just so cheap they wouldn't give a nickel to see sweet Jesus on a bicycle, since we all know that AEP doesn't trim their own trees and have to hire out to get the job done. Why wasn't the job done?
AEP says it rained a lot and things just grew much faster than planned this year. Now Miz Tootie is having a dilemma trying to decide who's dumber... AEP for pretending their neglect of their gardening duties caused "vegetation" to grow much faster than normal, or the news reporter who shot reels of footage of communications distribution lines buried in trees and called it plants touching power lines. Butter my butt and call me a biscuit!
Miz Tootie recollects something that nice Mr. Nick said during that boring investors earnings call right before AEP's Wind Catcher debacle blew up in his face. He said that in the event that state utility commissions did not authorize collecting the cost of Wind Catcher from captive ratepayers, he would make it up by cutting the company's operations and maintenance expenses. In other words, certain things would not get done, or would be put on the slow train to ever getting done. Miz Tootie wonders if the trimming along this problematic transmission line might have been just such an expense? Perhaps those lovely people at the Public Utility Commission of Texas may be eager to find out, After all, it looks like AEP's second attempt at importing wind from Oklahoma at ratepayer expense isn't off to an auspicious start. It sort of looks like the other parties have substantial questions about that deal, such as what would happen if expensive transmission congestion is caused by moving all that wind (dry as a popcorn fart, don't you know) from Oklahoma to Texas. AEP reckons that a bunch of new congestion will inspire regional grid operator Southwest Power Pool to order up a bunch of new transmission built that can be paid for by all the ratepayers in the region. Or maybe AEP can simply build a new generation tie line and charge the cost of that to all the ratepayers who desperately need this wind power to make their bills go down. Now Miz Tootie may not be a squattin' in high cotton power company CEO like Mr. Nick, but she knows that dog don't hunt. Seems like any "savings" from the power generation will be gobbled up by the cost to get it to customers. That sticks in Miz Tootie's throat like hair in a biscuit.
But not as much as AEP cutting its maintenance expenses to pay for its selfish Wind Catcher dalliance, and then visiting the hoopla it caused on East Texas. And to add insult to injury, AEP has suggested to federal energy regulators that it would be more enthusiastic about its gardening duties if it could earn a profit from getting them done. Right now, AEP can only pick our wallets for the expense of what it pays to tree companies to do it for them, but it would like paying others to do their gardening for them much better if they could earn a nice profit on doing so.
For example, the Commission could permit applicants to request the recovery of specified O&M expenses as capital costs for ratemaking purposes in the area of forestry and vegetation management to encourage best-in-class practices. Effective vegetation management is vital to the reliability of the Bulk Power System, as evidenced by the 2003 Blackout.*
Extreme weather conditions, whether it be excessive rainfall, drought or heat, is making traditional vegetation management more challenging while simultaneously increasing its
importance. Vegetation management is an on-going and evolving challenge facing transmission owners as extreme weather conditions intensify, which only heightens importance of vigilance in preventing encroachment of vegetation to ensure the reliability of the grid. The NERC Reliability Standards applicable to vegetation management do not apply to facilities that are
below 200 kilovolt. Vegetation management, therefore, should be considered as one of the most critical components to maintaining system reliability, and should be prioritized in a way that puts it on equal footing with transmission investment. Best-in-class vegetation management creates long-term system benefits by reducing outages. The Commission could provide a greater incentive to adopt and implement state-of-the-art vegetation management practices by allowing transmission-owning entities to book the costs
that currently would be categorized as O&M expense as a capital cost to be amortized over an appropriate period. Treating these costs as capital would allow transmission owners to earn a return on the unamortized balances and thereby create an incentive to these entities to focus funds in this reliability-critical function. This incentive rate treatment would support the Commission’s reliability goals and benefit customers by reducing outages over the long term. By permitting applicants to capitalize certain O&M expenditures, the Commission could incent best practices for grid security and reliability that benefits all customers.
*And the East Texas issue!
And now that Miz Tootie has gotten herself hotter than a jalapeno's cootchie, it's time to cool down. If the air conditioner works...