PATH made a filing at FERC today to collect their stranded investment in the PATH Project over a 5 year period.  This $121M is in addition to the $95M PATH will have collected from ratepayers through the end of 2012, and the $20M they propose to collect from ratepayers in 2013.  That's a total of $236M, for a project that was never built.  PATH even has the audacity to ask for a return on the abandoned project costs over the 60 month amortization period.

PATH says:

"The PATH Project was abandoned for reasons beyond the control of PATH LLC, the PATH Companies or their upstream owners, and the Commission previously determined that the PATH Companies may recover their prudently-incurred costs under such circumstances.
Accordingly, the PATH Companies seek authorization to recover abandoned plant costs over a sixty-month amortization period, including a return on the average unamortized balance under the transmission cost-of-service formula rates contained in Attachment H-19A of the PJM Tariff (“Formula Rate”), as revised herein, effective December 1, 2012. The abandonment plant costs for which the PATH Companies seek recovery are previously unrecovered costs incurred from January 1, 2008 through August 31, 2012, of approximately $121 million, subject to goingforward  accounting entries to reflect proceeds and costs associated with the orderly closing of transactions, including transfers or sales of land acquired by the PATH Companies for development of the PATH Project (“Abandonment Costs”)."

Read the whole 200 page filing here.

Is the utility industry finally starting to admit that weak demand isn't strictly a product of the economy that will bounce back very soon?

The utilities have been telling their investors that demand is about to skyrocket at any second, although just recently a few of them have been pondering whether slow load growth may be the permanent effect of increased energy efficiency.

We've been telling them that for years, but apparently it took an equities research firm to drag the truth out of them. 

"Macquarie Equities Research said in a client note several days ago that energy efficiency measures really do seem to be having an impact on electricity demand, and the effect is likely to continue. It’s not just theoretical or wishful, the analysts said. “Unfortunately for investors,” the firm said, “utilities expect this demand destruction to continue or even accelerate.”

PJM used "the economy" as an excuse for cancelling the PATH and MAPP projects, but yet they refuse to consider decreased demand in their rush to construct the gold-plated Susquehanna Roseland transmission project.  As well, a hideous, uncoordinated snarl of new wind farms and transmission lines are proposed for the Midwest.  Is there really a market for all this new centralized generation and long distance transmission, or will hundreds of billions of dollars of new infrastructure end up rusting quietly in fields as more and more consumers decrease their usage through energy efficiency and drop off the grid altogether by deploying of their own small scale renewable generators?

The utilities who continue to deny permanent change to consumer demand and stick blindly with their 100-year old business plans of centralized generation and transmission will go belly up.  Those who welcome and embrace change and seek to develop a foothold in a distributed generation, consumers-as-producers future, will thrive.

We're cleaning out the StopPATH WV closet and have a limited supply of "Stop the PATH of Destruction" t-shirts to unload.  For a limited time only, you can place your bid to own a genuine, original PATH battle souvenir! The shirts are available in sizes S - XL (click "see other items" for more sizes).  All proceeds will go into the pot that will be split between two local community charitable organizations when StopPATH WV, Inc. dissolves the corporation.

Is your trophy case missing that all important "StopPATH" t-shirt?  Or are you simply an opponent who wants to wear one of these shirts while doing a victory lap around 800 Cabin Hill Drive?  Or perhaps you're an opponent of a different transmission project who wants to make your particular transmission owning opponent's blood run cold by dropping the subtle hint that you've studied the techniques used by StopPATH to terminate the PATH project and make the power companies run away screaming with their tail between their legs?

Or perhaps you're a PATH employee who wants one to use to clean up pet messes while grumbling about this blog; or perhaps you need something to wear when you sit in the corner of your closet sobbing uncontrollably? 

Whatever you think you might do with a StopPATH t-shirt, this is your last chance to own one!

Go.  Bid.  Now.

A lot of you have been wondering what FERC's Order last Thursday means, but your eyes glaze over around page 2 of the 36-page order.  If that describes you, here's your "real world" explanation.

In 2010, a group of electric consumers who were paying PATH's transmission charges in their electric bill attended an "open meeting" in DC regarding the rate they were forced to pay.  PATH welcomed these consumers (and the consumers were the only ones who actually showed up for the meeting!) to the process as "interested parties" as defined in the legal protocols that govern PATH's rate setting process, which is under FERC's federal jurisdiction.

Two of the consumers, Ali and Keryn, continued looking into the rates, through the processes set in the protocols, by submitting requests and receiving information from PATH.

At the end of the examination phase, Ali and Keryn filed a formal challenge of $3.3M of PATH's expenditures and recovery from ratepayers during 2009.  The challenge process is specifically set out in PATH's protocols as the proper avenue to challenge rates.

In 2011, Ali and Keryn once again examined PATH's rates under the protocols.  Disputes over discovery, and Ali and Keryn's standing as end-use consumers, soon erupted.  PATH wasn't so eager to provide the same information Ali and Keryn had used in their first formal challenge as it related to PATH's 2010 expenditures.  PATH began to claim that Ali and Keryn had no legal standing to file challenges or participate in the examination process.  It was an unsuccessful attempt to avoid providing information that could be used in another challenge.  A second formal challenge was filed at the end of the second examination period that totaled an additional $2.5M of expenditures improperly recovered from ratepayers in 2010.

In order to prevail in a valid challenge to PATH's rates before FERC, Ali and Keryn had to raise "serious doubt" about the accuracy of PATH's rate calculations and/or the prudence of the expenditures.  Once a challenge is filed, the burden of proving the rate is accurate shifts to PATH.  PATH provided little defense and absolutely no evidence in their answer to the challenges.

FERC granted the challenges, finding that Ali and Keryn carried their burden of raising "serious doubt."  In the order, FERC takes the next step, which is to set the accuracy and prudence of the challenged expenditures for a public, trial-type, evidentiary hearing before a FERC administrative law judge.  However, standard practice at FERC is to avoid hearings in favor of a settlement between the parties.  The parties here are PATH and Ali & Keryn.  Therefore, FERC has ordered settlement judge proceedings to explore whether this matter can be resolved without a hearing.

The expenditures FERC found questionable are:  lobbying, advertising, PATH's "Reliable Power Coalitions" and "PEAT" program, PATH's membership expenditures, shared parent company costs charged in PATH's rates, and donations and civic, political and related activities.  In addition, FERC also set some "double counting" of expenses for hearing.  In that instance, PATH recorded invoices in more than one account, increasing recovery over and above the amount they paid for the service.  FERC dismissed prudence challenges totaling $100K for PATH's three-year contract for right-of-way maintenance with the National Wild Turkey Federation, however FERC also believes PATH recorded that expenditure in the wrong account and set that issue for hearing.  FERC also set discovery procedures for hearing.

In a separate but related matter, FERC also granted two complaints filed by Ali and Keryn.  Remember how PATH asked FERC to dismiss the challenges because they contended that Ali and Keryn did not have legal standing to file the challenges, nor participate in the examination of PATH's rate?  PATH kept ratcheting up their incorrect "determination" that end-use consumers do not have standing, culminating this summer in a refusal to allow consumers to attend PATH's "open meeting" conference calls or to provide any information requested by consumers under the protocols.  In response, separate complaints were filed.  FERC agreed with Ali and Keryn that end-use consumers who pay transmission rates as part of their electric bill do have legal standing under section 206 of the Federal Power Act.  PATH had complained in one of their filings that if FERC found that consumers have standing, it would open the door for "all of the millions of retail customers in the PJM footprint that may be indirectly charged some portion of [PATH's] transmission rates" to participate in examination of these rates and create an administrative "quagmire."  Indeed, that is what FERC found.  Any one of the 61 million consumers in PJM who pay a portion of a transmission rate have standing to examine and challenge that rate.  PATH imagines that it (and other transmission owners) will now be deluged with information requests from every one of the 61 million consumers in the PJM footprint who fund their transmission projects.  However, it's never happened before, and is unlikely to happen in the future.  Formula rates are complicated and examining them is tedious.

In summary, consumers have standing to participate in the examination and challenge of transmission rates they pay, and PATH's 2009/10 recovery of $5.8M in inaccurate or imprudent expenditures from 61 million PJM consumers will now head to settlement and hearing for possible refund.

... AT FERC.

I don't have the orders yet, but here's FERC's summary of what they voted on at this morning's Commission meeting:

FERC grants in part, and dismisses in part, formal challenges; grants complaints, establishes hearing and settlement judge procedures

E-21, Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, LLC, Docket No. ER09-1256-000, Alison Haverty v. Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, LLC,
Docket No. EL12-79-000, Keryn Newman v. Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, LLC, Docket No. EL12-85-000.

The order in Docket No. ER09-1256 sets for hearing challenges to PATH’s last two annual informational filings to update its transmission revenue requirement; the challenges are in accordance with special protocols that the Commission accepted as part of the formula rate in PATH’s tariff.
The order in Docket Nos. EL12-79-000 and EL12-85-000 grants the two complaints, each filed by a private citizen who wishes to participate as a party in PATH’s annual transmission revenue requirement review, due to their status as ratepayers.

Be sure to send in your RSVP for PATH's Oct. 16 open meeting, if you haven't yet, because FERC says you can attend.

Mood music!

Read a copy of FERC's Order here.

Last night, the StopPATHWV, Inc. Executive Committee met to celebrate their victory (again... never pass up an opportunity to celebrate your victories!) and make some decisions about the future of the corporation (more on that soon).

In addition to a delicious Italian dinner, Steve thawed out and served "the top of our wedding cake."  It may have looked a little tired around the edges (like we all do!), but it tasted just as fresh as the day it was originally served during our PATH funeral in May of 2011.  This "mini-cake" was cut from one of the big cakes at the party and tucked away in a freezer waiting for just this moment.  It was delicious!

To illustrate the more than FOUR (4) years of hard work and dedication StopPATH WV, Inc. members have invested in exposing the truth about the lack of need for this project, take a look at four years of change on our best "little buddy" Sam Smith (who now towers over everyone on the committee except his own father).  Sam was 8-years old when some power company geeks used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a route for their PATH project right across the street from his house.  Here's Sam 2 1/2 years ago.  Here's Sam last night, now a happy, healthy 12-year old, consuming all that's left of PATH:

Sam has been an important part of our group during some of his most formative years.  He assisted us at many, many fundraisers and public events (for example hawking silly band filled balloons to other kids at the fair in exchange for donations to StopPATH WV) and sat through a plethora of boring meetings, and along the way Sam learned more about the PATH project than many adults!  And he always served as a reminder to us of what was at stake and why we persisted in stopping PATH.  We hope that we will be able to effect enough positive change to what passes for energy policy in this country in our lifetimes so that Sam will never be presented with a situation like PATH when he's an adult.  However, if he is, Sam will know exactly what to do.  Thanks for all your help and inspiration, Sam!

Along with just a few other toasts of the liquid variety, we also toasted the dead PATH project with its own funeral cake!

Yeah, yeah, we just like making toasts!  We also took a collective walk down memory lane, reminiscing over our favorite moments during the PATH fight and having a good laugh (of course, it was at your expense again, dear, dear PATH!) and the Committee requested that I ask the rest of you to post your favorite moment from the PATH fight here in the comments for this post.

We did it, everyone!

And, before we close... a picture is worth 1,000 words!  What were you thinking, PATH?!?

Once a month, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission holds a public meeting where they vote and issue decisions on matters of some significance. 

The Commission will be meeting on September 20th.  Here is a link to their agenda.

Item E-21 on page three reads:

E-21
ER09-1256-000:  Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, LLC
EL12-79-000:  Alison Haverty v. Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, LLC
EL12-85-000:  Keryn Newman v. Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, LLC

Summary of EL12-79-000:  Alison Haverty (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, LLC (Respondent), alleging that the Respondent has informed the  Complainant that she may not participate in a meeting on the Respondent’s Annual Transmission Revenue Requirement, despite having an interest in the outcome of the proceedings.

Summary of EL12-85-000:  Keryn Newman  (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Potomac-
Appalachian Transmission Highline, LLC (Respondent) alleging that Respondent violated its Formula Rate Implementation Protocols by refusing to provide information properly requested by an Interested Party in accordance with Section VI of the Protocols.

ER09-1256-000 is harder to summarize because there are several issues pending on that docket, including the two formal challenges filed by Ali and Keryn, PATH's motion to dismiss the challenges, several motions to compel production of documents, a motion for issuance of a protective order, and a whole bunch of your letters to FERC about PATH's antics over the past several years.  FERC may rule on any or all of these issues.

The Commission meeting is webcast and begins at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, Sept. 20.  You can watch the meeting here.  The agenda is voted on as a whole and individual matters are not always discussed.  What the Commissioners actually discuss during the meeting could be anything on the agenda.  Once the meeting concludes, written decisions are issued through e-service.