"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  Millions of dollars a year are tossed into these outdated projects, from which consumers will never see any benefit.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.

Bill also posted this thoughts about a New York Times article that was published yesterday.  This article is the first time that information about FERC's power grab from the states has been made available to the general public.  As Bill and the article point out, "...the new strategy was spearheaded by NextEra Energy, North America's largest wind and solar power developer. NextEra Executive Vice President Joseph Kelliher, a former FERC chairman, is leading the campaign for the new strategy."

When policy change which results from FERC conspiracy with industry lobbyists is hidden from other "stakeholders" and only revealed publicly two days before the deadline to submit comments, one wonders what they're trying to hide.

According to comments filed by NARUC (National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners), they weren't notified of the proposal until just before a meeting in mid-August.

"Given that our members remain the primary transmission siting authorities, we are disappointed that we were not privy to the details or even informal conversations about this proposal prior to the above-referenced meeting, especially since the proposal has been under discussion since June and was vetted with industry stakeholders long before it was even revealed to us."

Apparently FERC and the industry have been discussing the best way to ram this through since June, but it was only recently that FERC began a series of conference calls with other "stakeholders" such as states and environmental groups.  And, of course, they NEVER consulted the most important "stakeholder" of all -- you!  As an electric consumer, property owner and citizen, YOU will be the ones who pay for new transmission, sacrifice your property and well-being to new transmission line rights-of-way, and must live with the consequences of FERC and industry's heavy-handed determination of where renewable energy will develop.  This will ensure that development of renewables will only occur at utility scale and be concentrated in a handful of Midwestern States.  Instead of each individual state getting a piece of the economic/jobs boom expected to result from renewable resources and developing their own local renewables to meet their own in-state goals, they will be forced to buy high-priced renewables from other states.  Still other states will be forced to live with new transmission lines crossing their state which are intended to deliver renewables to their neighboring states, without receiving ANY benefit from the transmission line project.  This should concern another group of "stakeholders" who were not consulted:  your local and state elected officials.  Give them a call and make sure they know!

The root of this problem is a couple of greedy energy corporations and a few Midwestern states who are trying to corner the renewable energy markets of the entire U.S. before other, perhaps more viable, resources have a chance to fully develop.  Earlier this year, FERC granted incentives to a company to develop an offshore backbone intended to support development of wind farms along the Atlantic coast.  These offshore wind farms are ideally sited to provide renewables to the huge load centers along the coast, with a minimum of new transmission capacity required.  Earlier reports said that no new land based transmission will be required.  This would make offshore wind a cheaper resource for the East Coast.

Take a look at these maps from a recent PJM planning document.  They show two different scenarios regarding integration of different amounts of offshore wind into the transmission system.  The first slide shows improvements they think will be needed if they base planning on 20GW of offshore wind.  Those fat, orange lines on the coast are new 500kV transmission lines.  For some inexplicable reason, it looks like they intend to bring back the MAPP project to transport wind power from the coast to the Washington, DC area.  MAPP's original purpose was to transport power produced in Virginia and Maryland to New Jersey.  PJM is desperately trying to find a "need" for MAPP.  Since MAPP was not designed to distribute offshore wind power, it's probably not the most efficient or cost-effective way to do so.  PJM is just throwing Pepco a bone here.  If we're going to invest $5B in an offshore backbone, PJM needs to scrap all old projects and go back to the drawing board and create the most efficient and cost effective method of injecting this new generation into the existing grid.  Look at the map.  Does that even make sense?  Maryland and Delaware don't need any of that transmission.  The second slide shows what happens when the amount of integrated offshore wind drops to 4GW.  All the new transmission lines are in the western PJM region, with no new transmission lines needed on the coast.  This is because all the wind will be coming from the west, instead of the east.  This is what FERC and their industry pets want to see happen.  Most of those 765kV lines aren't even in PJM territory (indicated by the gray shaded areas).  So, who do you suppose will be able to lobby and influence PJM to embrace their particular version of where PJM renewables will come from?  Remember, it's not about planning or regulation or what's good for the grid, it's about who has the most influential lobbyists.

Now that FERC's scheme with the industry has been publicly exposed, the battle lines are being drawn.  On the DOE's website dedicated to this proposal, which was just recently constructed, you can read comments from industry (for the proposal) and from state regulators (against the proposal).  In addition, there are some comments from a couple of environmental groups who are inexplicably in favor of the proposal.  In their quest for renewable power at any cost, they are being duped into going along with a plan that hurts consumers and citizens and subverts states' rights.

Since you weren't given a chance to express your views, the states and organizations like NARUC are fighting for your interests.

"Siting is inherently a local issue that impacts local environments, local landowners, local businesses and local communities. The best decisions come after complete due process where every interested neighbor, farmer and businessperson has an opportunity to be heard. People who know the landscape must be able to participate in the transmission siting processes to minimize negative environmental and economic impacts. Federal siting authority makes local participation less accessible, more expensive, and therefore less likely. State siting processes that enable local engagement may take time (although often less time than the combined pre-filing and filing processes at FERC), but they do not conflict with regional or national interests. On the contrary, local processes are essential to accomplish those interests, and the federal government should not create a short cut around local engagement."

NARUC wants to know what the "problem" is:

"...we would appreciate a specific articulation of the problem the delegation intends to solve and how the delegation will solve the problem identified."

This "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" theme is prevalent in all the comments from state regulators as well.  The same question was repeatedly asked of Chairman Wellinghoff during one of those "stakeholder" calls this week.  He never answered it.  I guess nothing's broke afterall.

This is setting up to be an epic battle involving states, Congress and the courts, and it's root cause is industry lobbying influence on an agency that is supposed to regulate them.  FERC is on the road to disaster and is going to end up strangling "the precious" that it's sticking its neck out to protect -- new transmission.  NARUC sums it up well:

"To the extent that this proposal is motivated by a desire to reduce barriers to transmission, it fails. It relies on a tortured reading of the statute that would cause uncertainty, litigation, damage to State and federal relations, and delays in transmission development."

Bill's got some great posts up on TPL.  One of them analyzes an article headlined "Shocker: Power demand from US homes is falling."

The article says:

"American homes are more cluttered than ever with devices, and they all need power: Cellphones and iPads that have to be charged, DVRs that run all hours, TVs that light up in high definition.

But something shocking is happening to demand for electricity in the Age of the Gadget: It's leveling off.

Over the next decade, experts expect residential power use to fall, reversing an upward trend that has been almost uninterrupted since Thomas Edison invented the modern light bulb.

In part it's because Edison's light bulb is being replaced by more efficient types of lighting, and electric devices of all kinds are getting much more efficient. But there are other factors.

New homes are being built to use less juice, and government subsidies for home energy savings programs are helping older homes use less power. In the short term, the tough economy and a weak housing market are prompting people to cut their usage."

And:

"From 1980 to 2000, residential power demand grew by about 2.5 percent a year. From 2000 to 2010, the growth rate slowed to 2 percent. Over the next 10 years, demand is expected to decline by about 0.5 percent a year, according to the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit group funded by the utility industry.

Overall demand, including from factories and businesses, is still expected to grow, but at only a 0.7 percent annual rate through 2035, the government says. That's well below the average of 2.5 percent a year the past four decades.

Utility executives have been aware that the rate of demand growth is slowing, but a more dramatic shift than they expected may be under way. Executives were particularly surprised by a dip during the first three months of this year, the most recent national quarterly numbers available. Adjusted for the effects of weather, residential power demand fell 1.3 percent nationwide, an unusually sharp drop."

Remember those annoying PATH ads?  How about the one that showed people using electric powered devices (and hit on all your personal "comfort" personal gadgets -- your cell phone, your laptop, your TV) and told us:

"More people, more appliances, more gadgets, more equipment, what do they all need to keep going?  MORE ELECTRICITY!"

The commercial showed all those people's gadgets going dark due to power failure, and then plugged their PATH transmission line.

The news article says they knew this was not true when they designed and played those ads over and over, ad nauseam.

Here's why demand has been dropping:

"Residential power use has fallen even as the number of electronic devices has exploded because the devices themselves have gotten more efficient. In the 1970s, for example, refrigerators used 2,000 kilowatt-hours per year. Today, they use 500.

IPads are everywhere and everyone seems to have a smartphone, but engineers have designed them to sip power because battery life is a major selling point. Also, these devices, as well as ever more powerful laptops, are cutting into the use of less efficient desktop computers.

The first flat screen TVs used twice as much power as their widebodied ancestors, but they have been getting dramatically more efficient in recent years, according to Tom Reddoch, executive director of energy efficiency at EPRI. "The flat panel community heard they were energy hogs and they did something about it," he says.

Appliances are expected to get even more efficient over the next two decades. An EPRI analysis predicts refrigeration will get 29 percent more efficient, space heating will get 24 percent more efficient and TVs and computers will get 22 percent more efficient. Energy needed for lighting will decline by half."

Remember those PATH ads featuring 1970s technology?  Those ads skimmed over how the new versions of cell phones, video games, tvs, etc. use just a tiny fraction of the power that those clunky, old dinosaurs used.

So, was PATH's advertising knowingly false?  Wouldn't that move it into the class of propaganda?  What do you think?