The project also would be a significant source of revenue for PPL Corp., PPL Electric Utilities' Allentown-based parent. Under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rules designed to encourage infrastructure investment, utilities may earn a profit of 11.68 percent on transmission projects.
That translates into a profit of up to $700 million. PPL would share the money with any other utilities that participate in the project.
PPL customers, meanwhile, would see the cost, including utility profits, reflected in their rates — though the burden of paying for the project would be shared by ratepayers in all four of the states involved.

If approved, PPL predicts, the project will improve energy reliability and security and provide customer savings by eliminating transmission bottlenecks and encouraging development of lower-cost natural gas-fueled generation plants.
The new plants would help replace energy supplied today primarily by coal-fired plants that, under increasingly stringent federal air quality standards, are expected to be retired in coming years.

For example, the Susquehanna-Roseland project had environmental and other types of challenges, but PSE&G and its co-developer, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, overcame the challenges to get the line sited and built. The
National Park Service spokesperson for  Delaware Water Gap National Recreation area recently stated: “They worked through one heck of a winter. They didn't miss too many days. ... If you have to have somebody building a power line in your backyard, these folks were great to work with.”

The same PSE&G team that brought Susquehanna-Roseland to a successful conclusion is committed to this project.

Except, shouldn't the investigation come before a guy's promoted?

How assertive will Acting Chair Cheryl LaFleur be as a lame duck? And will she remain for her five-year term after she has to relinquish the gavel?

With Commissioner John Norris openly musing about his post-FERC future, who will replace him and how soon?

How will Bay resolve the investigation into Powhatan Energy Fund, whose principals have been running a public relations campaign accusing FERC of heavy-handed enforcement tactics?

FERC commissioners, however, disregard the just and reasonable standard, routinely ignore evidence and act more as agents of utilities than fair-minded regulators.

Absent from the commission is anyone who represents the rights of consumers.

Lastly, this decision is risky as precedent for future RFPs that should encourage innovative, well-engineered proposals and rigorous competition. In a typical RFP, a problem in need of fixing is published and competitors are invited to submit proposed solutions. The customer (PJM in this case) evaluates the proposals, disqualifies the ones that don’t work, and makes a selection from the remaining qualified projects. But PJM’s RFP was more like a “call for ideas.” It appears that PJM took the proposals and then re-engineered a solution it liked best by mixing and matching pieces from different project proposals. The result is that PJM’s recommended 7K Project looks almost nothing like the original 7K proposal submitted by PSE&G. Unfortunately, if this RFP sets the pattern for the future, PJM will discourage participants from spending time, money and engineering resources to develop innovative, well-engineered RFP responses. And ratepayers will lose when the robust, competitive process PJM hoped for fails to develop.

For PJM it is risky because significant permitting hurdles mean that the project
has a high likelihood of being rejected at the state and/or federal levels and a
needed reliability solution will be substantially delayed because PJM has proceeded down a dead end. As discussed below, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) has submitted comments warning about the permitting risks of all of the preferred options, including the 7K Project, and pointing out that none of the preferred options took advantage of the opportunity to get a preliminary determination of permitting feasibility. The NJBPU warns that the protests, delays, and costs well above initial estimates for mitigation during construction that plagued the Susquehanna-Roseland project also may affect PJM’s recommended solution “especially given that a viable alternative exists.”

1. Does purchasing electricity from this distance increase security threats to TVA's
power supply? Former U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz has said we should
pay attention to generating more energy where we use it because of national
security risks.

The power grid is a complex, interconnected network of generating plants,
transmission lines, and distribution facilities. This system is designed with
redundancy and resiliency at its core to ensure a reliable electric power system.
Some increase in security risk is unavoidable as distance increases between
generation and point of use. The extra distance provides additional exposure for
natural or malicious events to force a transmission path out of service. The potential
for an interruption with long duration to power supply increases if full transmission network redundancy is not provided or as greater amounts of supply are obtained
from more remote sources. The Department of Defense has become aware of this
risk; it is implementing a program to make its major installations self-sustaining in
energy to mitigate the potential interruption from the grid.

2. What is the cost of purchasing wind electricity compared to TVA generating or
purchasing other types of electricity generation?

TVA is studying the addition of new wind energy resources as part of the
development of its new Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). This process provides
opportunity for public participation. When TVA evaluates the cost of wind energy,
we include the value of the energy itself, as well as the cost to transmit out-of-valley
wind energy to the Tennessee Valley. In addition, there are costs associated with
the intermittent nature of wind generation. Through the IRP, TVA will rigorously
compare wind energy purchases against other alternative sources of energy
(renewables, new and existing TVA generating assets, or purchased power) to
serve local power companies and directly-served customers in a cost-effective
manner.
In FY2013, TVA's average fuel rates by asset type were as follows: nuclear,
$6/MWh; coal, $32/MWh; and gas, $39/MWh. The TVA average system fuel cost,
which includes hydro (no fuel cost) and purchased power, was $24/MWh. By
comparison, off-system wind purchases were $80/MWh (including transmission).
The cost of both wind and solar have trended steadily down in recent years. Lazard
Freres and Company, LLC, a leading financial advisory firm, does a periodic study
on the costs of renewable energy. Its most recent report states that the cost to
generate wind with the Federal production tax credit (PTC) is as low as $23 MWh;
without the credit, the costs are as low as $45 MWh. (Note that these are
production costs that do not take into account the cost of delivery to or the impact on
the TV A system.)

3. There is substantial opposition in Congress to the wind production tax credit. Will
TVA ratepayers be at risk of increased rates if the wind production tax credit is not
renewed?

TVA does not benefit directly from the PTC. As noted in the prior response, the
PTC has a material impact on the cost structure of wind developers and, in turn, the
price they can offer to TVA or other purchasers of the wind energy. Any TVA
purchase of wind energy would be under a long-term contract that would place risk
associated with the tax credit on the seller.

4. What is the reliability of purchasing wind power as compared to other types of
electricity generated by natural gas, nuclear, coal, or hydropower?

Because wind is an intermittent resource that lacks some of the dispatch capability
of other resources, it does not eliminate the need for base load or dispatchable
power plants like nuclear, natural gas, coal and hydropower. Adding intermittent
generation resources like wind can be challenging to manage, particularly as the
volume of generation from those sources increases. Wind patterns are fairly
predictable, but not entirely so; in addition, weather and other factors can affect
output. To maintain reliability, a wind energy purchaser must keep adequate
capacity and spinning reserves to cover the variability inherent to wind. Spinning
reserve is typically calculated as the amount of capacity available to cover the loss
of the largest generation source on the system. Utilities across the country have
been integrating more wind into their systems over the last several years, and TVA
already integrates 1,515 megawatts of off-system wind power. The industry has
growing experience with this issue, but it does make ensuring reliability more
complex.

5. TVA's peak power demands tend to be between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. and wind
tends to mostly blow at night. How does wind power fit into TVA's overall demand
structure if the electricity isn't being produced when TVA needs it the most?

TVA analyzes historic and forecasted wind patterns to determine expected wind
deliveries at our system peak. Our forecasting and planning processes reflect
adjustment to wind generation at our summer peaks based on this analysis. Clean
Line has told us that a production profile provided by the independent meteorology
firm, 3Tier Oklahoma, shows that panhandle wind energy produces at about a 50
percent capacity factor between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., thus
contributing to meeting peak demand. TVA's current wind resources produced
about 25 percent average capacity factor over that peak period last summer, with
significant variation each day (between 5 and 65 percent capacity factor). TVA will
take the seasonal and time-of-day energy patterns of wind into account when
evaluating adding additional wind energy to its portfolio.

6. At a roundtable in September 2013, hosted by Senators Corker and Alexander, you
said that TVA didn't need additional electricity generation capacity as the result of
reduced electricity demand. Has this projection changed?

Electricity demand is not expected to return to 2007 levels until the end of this
decade. We are projecting growth in demand of approximately 0.6 percent per year,
net of TVA's energy efficiency efforts. TVA believes that we have adequate
supplies to meet the near- to mid-term energy needs of the Valley reliably. Cleaner
energy sources, including nuclear, renewables, hydro and energy efficiency, provide
diversity within TVA's existing balanced energy portfolio. TVA is evaluating future
power needs and opportunities to meet them through the IRP. Wind and other
generating resources are regularly evaluated against existing or planned asset
additions to address changing conditions.

7. If the projection for TVA's electricity demand has changed since September 2013,
does it make more sense to purchase this wind power from Clean Line Energy
Partners, to build additional nuclear capacity, or to build additional natural gas or
coal capacity?

While demand over the next decade or so is predicted to be stable with low growth,
the TVA generation fleet is in transition. TVA has retired or will retire a substantial
portion of its coal fleet; we are committed to the completion of Watts Bar Nuclear
Plant Unit 2 and to a large new gas combined cycle plant in Paradise, Kentucky.
We have the potential to get incremental megawatts from the hydro system and a
significant amount from power uprates in the nuclear fleet. We have to either
retrofit, retire, or replace the Allen Plant in Memphis before 2019 under the terms of
an agreement with EPA and others. (Clean Line cannot supplant Allen because of
the need for a generation source physically located in that area to provide
transmission support that imported wind generation cannot provide.) In addition,
other market participants have approached TVA with expressions of interest to
provide electricity from gas, nuclear, wind and solar assets. TVA also factors in
energy efficiency and demand response programs into its resource decisions. The
recently announced draft 111 (d) rule from EPA, if enacted in its current form, will
also have a national impact on future decisions.
Clean Line will be evaluated in this context of low growth, transitioning fleet and
other options by application of the statutory mandate and guidance noted in the
preamble of this letter.

“What I think would help is to get some of these guys with ties on to come down and see what’s actually going on. They need guidance at a higher level,” Hott said.

"We don't think a long time about things, she says.  "That seems like a good idea!  Let's do that!  That's the extent of our long range planning."

A majority of Americans oppose new high-voltage transmission lines in their community, but that opposition drops precipitously to 17% if those lines are delivering clean, renewable energy from wind. Support for new transmission lines leaps from just 46% to 83% when respondents are asked specifically about high-voltage transmission lines delivering wind power.

The survey of 1,239 adults nationwide was conducted last week (April 21-23) by The Saint Consulting Group, the political land use consulting firm that also issues the annual Saint Index© survey of attitudes toward real estate development projects, including energy-generation projects such as wind, nuclear and hydro facilities.

Ben Kelahan, energy practice leader at Saint Consulting, said the new results are a clear sign that Americans support cleaner, renewable power and that it has carried over to the distribution of that power through their own backyard.

“High-voltage transmission lines generate some of the most adamant NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) opposition in the country. That such a large percentage of people are willing to allow green lines in their community says a lot about the awareness and importance of renewable energy and climate change issues in addition to the education efforts undertaken by the renewable energy industry,” Kelahan said.

“For [a regional solution] to actually happen, it goes way beyond the public service commissions. It has to get [approved by] the governors and the legislators,” West Virginia Public Service Commissioner Jon McKinney told the Mid-Atlantic Conference of Regulatory Utilities Commissioners’ (MACRUC) annual education conference. “I’m handcuffed in my ability to do that. It has to start someplace else.”

Strenuous efforts to mitigate rather than innovate seem likely to increase vulnerabilities by generating public and customer backlash, motivating market competitors, and instigating potential legal challenges.

This story has significant implications for electric utilities facing increasing and especially disruptive competition that may shift their risk position from the zone in which regulation is effective to one in which it is not. That Market Street responded to disruptive competition by simply requesting rate increases from its regulator reveals denial that their economic woes were due to fundamentally changed circumstances that required new organizational strategy, not just regulatory intervention. Market Street, while fully understanding the existence of threats to its viability, showed no real signs of innovation or adaptation in this regard, but rather continued a reliance on conventional cost-accounting-based utility ratemaking practices to the bitter end.

In the end, the electric utility as an institutional form has not exhausted its relevance. Claims that utilities are in a certain death spiral seem premature. However, those predictions seem disturbingly grounded in tacit assumptions that utilities are too hidebound by their past to be able to adapt in a timely or agile way to rapidly changing conditions. If so, utilities will find themselves to be brittle rather than resilient when confronting disruptive competition in a sector that is central to social, economic, security, and environmental necessities and, therefore, cannot remain static. All signs point to the reality that utilities must change. The open question is whether they will change by embracing and, indeed, leading value creation or be changed by others in the market who embrace it first and more firmly.