Watch this video to find out what offer Jimmy Glotfelty made to a group of high school students.

Jimmy, you're a creep!

Take your monopoly money and go back to Houston.

After issuing a preliminary opinion that FirstEnergy's  Hatfield's Ferry and Mitchell power stations were necessary for grid reliability, PJM ultimately changed its mind last week and approved closure of the plants on October 9.

FirstEnergy, PJM and state officials have been playing a confusing game of life or death with these plants for months now.

Pennsylvania legislators and regulators have been raising a ruckus, giving plant employees false hope that they could find a way to keep the plants open.  Ultimately, all this posturing was only harmful to the actual working men and women at the plants, who have been buoyed along on false hopes, and may have squandered valuable time in securing alternative employment or training for other jobs.  Very sad.

At least nobody is playing FirstEnergy's plant closure game this time though.  Last time, FirstEnergy scored some very valuable reliability must run contracts to keep plants slated for closure open until new transmission could be built.  However, in the end, those plants will close too, and when they do FirstEnergy has nothing to offer to loyal employees.  The company simply doesn't care.

Of course we shouldn't be surprised.  PJM is a transmission operating and building cartel.  Its annual planning is based on a Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP).  Transmission is all PJM does, therefore when the only tool PJM has is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.  While many uninformed people will blame some imaginary "war on coal," they'd be more effective pointing the finger at the pro-transmission lobby that is PJM.  Pay attention to PJM's new transmission project proposal window to find out why FirstEnergy decided to close these plants and replace them with transmission from other generators.  As PJM continues to expand, generation is increasingly centralized at generators located farther and farther  from load.  This isn't economic or reliable, but it puts money in the pockets of transmission owners, developers and suppliers.  This is the REAL enemy that closed Mitchell and Hatfield's Ferry.

So, FirstEnergy employees being kicked to the curb can develop new careers in transmission far from home, or they can invest in new opportunities in distributed generation in their own communities and join with the consumers opposing unnecessary transmission.  Whatever they choose, we wish them well.

Safety first, Potomac Edison customers!

Lots of stuff to catch up on today now that I'm back in this time zone, but the most important thing going on today is the legislative discussion of the study regarding electric utilities' billing practices being held at 3:00 p.m.  You may listen live at this link.  When it's time for the meeting, the location will change to a "Listen Live" link.  I  hope you have already called or emailed the members of Gov. Org. to let them know about your concerns regarding your electric bill.  If not, here's a link to committee members.

Please do your part to inform the legislators about your concerns.  "Someone" isn't going to take care of it for you this time.  "Someone" has been busy helping other people for the past week, and "nobody" stepped up to fill the void.  It's "do-it-yourself" this time.

Clean Line’s Rock Island Clean Line has been presented to the Illinois Commerce Commission as a merchant project that will export wind energy from Iowa into the east coast’s PJM Interconnection region.

We are told that east coast states have a need for imported renewable energy, so therefore Illinois must make the sacrifice for the good of society.

However, RICL now has some direct competition from another merchant project that has been developed that doesn’t require any sacrifice from Illinois landowners.

The Lake Erie CleanPower Connector, owned by merchant developer Lake Erie Power Corp., would deliver Canadian-generated electricity to the PJM grid that supplies power to 60 million Americans.  The project would involve laying two six-inch high-voltage direct current cables from Nanticoke, Ont., to Erie County, Pennsylvania, about 100 kilometres across Lake Erie.  The project is not expected to need hundreds of miles of new rights-of-way across non-renewable farmland, and therefore will not cause the kind of expensive, time-consuming public opposition that RICL has.

The transmission line is proposed to import power into PJM’s 13-state and the District of Columbia regional grid, where state renewable portfolio standards require load serving entities to meet renewable purchase mandates by supplying power from “clean” sources.  It is expected to cost $1B, much less than RICL’s proposal.

The project would be entirely financed by the private sector, and the company would make money by charging a fee to have the power transmitted across the Lake.  This is the same business model that RICL originally proposed to adopt, however doubts about RICL’s access to capital, and its sly insinuations in filings with PJM and FERC that it is worthy of having its costs regionally allocated, indicates that RICL may have plans to dump the cost of its project onto PJM ratepayers, including millions in Illinois.

Lake Erie Power has already applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the right to transmit power. The company says a lot of environmental and engineering work has been done, and it has discussed the project with Ontario’s energy and environment ministries, and Canada’s National Energy Board.

The project’s main financial backer is Toronto-based JCM Capital, a private company that until now has invested mainly in solar power projects.

It looks like RICL now has some direct competition to supply “clean” energy to east coast states.  If the ICC approves RICL, there is no guarantee that the project will not be obsolete or have no customers before it is in service.  If other companies, such as Lake Erie Power Corp., are able to offer renewables to load serving entities in PJM at a lower cost, RICL will fail.

The ICC should carefully consider RICL’s proposal against other options and make the decision that we, as a society, will be comfortable living with for many years to come.  Illinois does not have to make the ultimate sacrifice for east coast states.  Lake Erie CleanPower Connector is a win-win solution.  RICL’s application should be denied.

Big doings tonight in Mendota, Illinois, the epicenter of opposition to Clean Line Energy's Rock Island "Clean" Line.  The Illinois Commerce Commission has scheduled a public comment hearing for 7:00 p.m.

And "the public" will be there... with bells on!

Read about it here.

Remember Matthew's story?

Here it is again, this time in the Topeka Capital-Journal.

The photo tells its own story.

These are real people.  They are not just points on a map or names on a list. 

And here's a quote that may come as a surprise to MISO and PJM:

"Developer Clean Line Energy estimated it would spend more than $900 million on the Kansas portion of the project, which would be recovered from the end users in Indiana and possibly farther east."

That's interesting, considering this project has not been approved for cost allocation in any regional planning process and has been sold to the permitting states as a merchant transmission project.  Who's going to pay for billions of dollars worth of Clean Line's transmission projects?

Watch Toad blink and twitch his way through another fairy tale.

The people aren't buying it.  In fact, this story only makes them ANGRIER and more determined to show up at the upcoming public hearings in record numbers.

It seems many want to take Toad on for his lies.  How about it Toad?  Want to debate with your eager public?  Maybe we can all roll our eyes and make faces!

Anyhow, why not let the reporter know where she went wrong?  (Please be nice!)

The State Journal tells us that PSC Chairman Michael Albert "appointed" a new Consumer Advocate today.

The Consumer Advocate is supposed to represent YOUR interests, little ratepayer.  The Consumer Advocate is supposed to be an "independent" division of the West Virginia Public Service Commission, created back in the 1980s.  The advocate's duties are set out under WV Code.

However, there's no actual language regarding any "appointment" in the code.  After all, what kind of an idiot would allow a guy who used to represent utility interests (some argue that he still does) to appoint someone to represent the interests of consumers?  The PSC has been advertising the job of Director of the Consumer Advocate Division all summer.  And now Chairman Albert has "appointed" someone under authority granted in some obscure PSC Orders from 1980/81. 

This begs the question... how is the Consumer Advocate Division "independent" from the PSC, when the PSC controls the Director's employment?

And does this mean that the Governor's Office is soon going to be advertising for the job of Public Service Commissioner?  Sweet!

Anyhow, let's hope our new "advocate" starts representing our interests real soon.... and fixes that ridiculously unprofessional website.  Maybe she has her own chili recipe that will help consumers.

...and they'rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre off!

Eager and hopeful transmission builders in PJM are now busy with their transmission line routing Etch-a-Sketches, drawing a new transmission line through your back yard, and hoping that their proposal will be anointed Miss Market Efficiency 2013 and take home the big prize.  In mid-August, PJM "began invit­ing com­pet­i­tive pro­pos­als for trans­mis­sion improve­ments to pro­vide relief at its 25 most con­gested locations."  According to RTO Insider, the deadline to submit new transmission proposals for consideration is September 26.

FERC's Order No. 1000 removed the historical "right of first refusal" to build new projects from incumbent transmission owners.  Under the prior scheme, when PJM determined that a new project was needed, it was first offered to the incumbent transmission owner in that zone.  If the incumbent declined to build it, then the project was opened to competitive bidding.  But I'm not sure that ever happened.  After all, what greedy transmission owner would ever turn down the chance to make more money with new transmission investments returning double digit interest?  Under the new scheme, when PJM identifies a new transmission building opportunity, a project proposal window is opened and all transmission owners who have been pre-qualified may submit new project proposals that solve the transmission issue.  PJM then descends into its secret underground lair with all the bids and makes a subjective selection of the contest winner.

PJM's "Market Efficiency" project "need" is based on identified "top 25 congestion events."  What is economic congestion?  It's when not enough transmission capacity exists to wheel the cheapest power available to all users.  It doesn't mean that someone's lights will go out if this power can't be transmitted from point A to point B.  It simply means that the user may have to pay slightly more for power produced locally, instead of relying on "cheaper" generators hundreds or thousands of miles away.  Economic congestion is a constantly shifting premise that can never be entirely eliminated.  At some point, the cost of building new transmission to ship power from point A is going to obviate any cost savings at point B.  Trying to build new transmission to solve an ever-changing economic and demand situation is like trying to herd cats.  And it's going to cost you... a lot!

So, where are these "top 25 congestion locations?"  RTO Insider has a handy-dandy chart here.  And it's a good thing they do, because if you want any more details than that, you have to know PJM's secret handshake to be allowed to delve into "Critical Energy Infrastructure Information" (CEII).  Transparent, right.

RTO Insider tells us that 8 of the 25 are flowgates between PJM and MISO, where power is traded between regions.  Within PJM, the most congested point is the AP-South inter­face with Bedington-Black Oak.  According to PJM, the Bedington – Black Oak Transfer Interface (Bed-Bla) includes the Bedington Black Oak 544 line, and the AP South Transfer Interface includes the Doubs - Mt. Storm 512 line and the Mt Storm – Meadow Brook 572 line.  Sound familiar, former PATH opponents?  Bedington is located in Berkeley County, WV, and was part of PATH's original configuration.  Black Oak is located near Rawlings, MD, in Allegheny County, just to the west of PATH's proposed Kemptown substation.

But, wait a tick... just last year, FirstEnergy told the WV PSC that everything was hunky-dory with its West Virginia transmission system.  Guess not, but then admitting your problems and fixing them before they get out of hand and cause the construction of new transmission projects doesn't bring home the bacon for Big Daddy Tony, now does it?

Earlier this summer, PJM's Steve Herling had much to say about PJM's new transmission proposal competition.

Steve Herling doesn't think much of you little people.  In fact, it appears that you are just so much doggie doo on his shiny, expensive shoes.  Herling sees you as someone who must be kept in the dark so that you don't interfere with PJM's "open and transparent" project selection process.

Such infor­ma­tion would include “a line from A to B, imped­ance mod­el­ing, so peo­ple can ana­lyze [the pro­pos­als],” Her­ling said. “We won’t put out right of way infor­ma­tion. You’d get the pub­lic all stirred up that ‘we’re look­ing at your property.’”

Right, Steve, but why shouldn't "the public" get stirred up about having their property taken by eminent domain to construct new transmission lines of dubious necessity?  We've already been stirred and shaken by PJM's last little foray into big, new transmission projects that brought us the wasteful, and since abandoned, PATH and MAPP projects.  We pretty much stay stirred here at StopPATH blog.  All.the.time.

And Herling also gives us a look at how PJM will evaluate project proposals in its secret underground lair:

“If you have half the right of way in hand, that cer­tainly will have an impact on cost and reg­u­la­tory risk and would prob­a­bly affect con­struc­tion time,” Her­ling said. “To give you credit, we would have to dis­close some infor­ma­tion. We don’t have to talk about indi­vid­ual pieces of prop­erty you have."

So, a transmission developer who has land held for future use in its collection of assets would have a leg up on building new projects?  That hardly seems fair, when that property was paid for by ratepayers, and the competition does not have the same ability to have the public pay to buy it valuable assets that can be used to win future transmission projects.  In fact, it's sort of like a new and even more lopsided ROFR, isn't it?  FERC said ROFRs are no longer legal in Order No. 1000.

In another thoughtless move, "the RTO plans to hire inde­pen­dent con­sul­tants to val­i­date devel­op­ers’ cost esti­mates and iden­tify poten­tial reg­u­la­tory risks, such as the like­li­hood of obtain­ing sit­ing for rights of way."

Gosh, I wonder where PJM is going to find an "independent" consultant who hasn't worked for any of the pre-qualified entities in the past and is not expecting to do so in the future?  Yeah, good luck with that, PJM.

Herling believes all this nonsense is transparent:

“If it becomes obvi­ous that we’re rely­ing heav­ily on one piece of infor­ma­tion we’re going to have to make it pub­lic — and you might still not get cho­sen,” he con­tin­ued. “… We’ll have to make sure it’s trans­par­ent and above board to defend our­selves against challenges.”

And now, thanks to the invaluable RTO Insider and this blog... it is a little more transparent than PJM envisioned it would be.  Now YOU know about it.  Stay tuned...