Last week, PJM TERMINATED the PATH Project and removed it from the RTEP.  The PATH Project is O-V-E-R.  However, it seems to be business as usual down at PATH Gravy Train Station.

PATH finally got around to posting its 2013 Projected Transmission Revenue Requirement on PJM's website today (despite what they said in their Notice of Meeting yesterday).  Guess what?  PATH intends to continue to collect project costs from you just like nothing happened!

PATH will collect $19,978,284 from PJM electric consumers in 2013 unless someone stops them.  Yes, that's almost an additional TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS for a project that no longer exists.  Really, PATH?  Really?

PATH says:

"On August 24, 2012, the PJM Board of Managers ("PJM Board") decided to terminate the
Potomac-Appalachian Highline Transmission ("PATH") Project and remove it from the PJM Regional
Transmission Expansion Plan. In accordance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
("Commission") order authorizing the PATH Companies to recover prudently-incurred costs associated
with abandonment of the PATH Project for reasons beyond their control, the PATH Companies intend to
file, pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act, revisions to the PATH Formula Rate to allow for
recovery of prudently-incurred abandoned plant costs associated with the PATH Project. Following
Commission action on the Section 205 filing, the PATH Companies will revise the 2013 PTRR to reflect
changes authorized by the Commission."

Translation:  We're going to make a filing to ask FERC's permission to recover our stranded investment when we get around to it, but in the meantime, we're going to continue to milk you like nothing happened.  We'll settle up later (as in much).

PATH wants to float itself a $20M loan from ratepayers at .2735% interest because it has NO IDEA IN THE WORLD how to calculate a rate for 2013 right now.  I don't know about you, but I've got better places to invest my money in 2013.

PATH's impudence is stunning.  PATH's recovery of its stranded investment is far from the "sure thing" that's presented in the letter.  Here's what FERC actually ordered:  "recovery of 100 percent of prudently-incurred costs associated with abandonment of the Project, provided that the abandonment is a result of factors beyond the control of PATH, which must be demonstrated in a subsequent section 205 filing for recovery of abandoned plant."

When PATH makes its section 205 filing, in which PATH has the legal burden of proving prudence and reason for abandonment, other parties can (and will) intervene and present arguments against PATH's contentions.  There is no guarantee that PATH will be able to successfully carry its burden and recover anything.

In addition, PATH's incentives, such as a 12.4% ROE, CWIP in rate base, recovery of pre-construction costs, and hypothetical capital structure, were granted for the duration of the project on the condition that PATH was included in PJM's RTEP.  Incentives are NOT a reward for failure.  No project, no RTEP = no incentives! 

So, what's in PATH's 2013 PTRR that adds up to $20M?  A return (profit) of an additional $12,051,167 that it's not entitled to.  Administrative and General expenses of $1,964,529 that it's not entitled to.  "Miscellaneous Transmission Expense" of $237,785 that it's not entitled to.  There are also allowances for taxes and other expenses that add up to $20M.  But there is no PATH Project in 2013!  How can there be any expenses?  Because PATH still wants you to pick up a share of their parent company expenses that have nothing to do with the PATH Project.  Starting to see how you've been ripped off all along now?

PATH's 2013 PTRR is not not only outrageous, it's also shocking, disgraceful, scandalous, atrocious, appalling, monstrous, heinous, evil, wicked, abominable, terrible, horrendous, dreadful, foul, nauseating, sickening, vile, nasty, odious, loathsome, unspeakable, beastly, far-fetched, (highly) unlikely, doubtful, dubious, questionable, implausible, unconvincing, unbelievable, incredible, preposterous, extravagant, excessive, flamboyant, gaudy, ostentatious, shameless and  brazen.

The federal government is in bed with PSEG and PPL, and it's going to cost you more money in your monthly electric bill.

The National Park Service issued a draft of their Environmental Impact Statement for the PSEG & PPL-owned Susquehanna Roseland transmission project on Friday.  The EIS recommends the power company preferred route through the parks, despite it being the most environmentally-damaging and expensive of the presented routes.

Dave Slaperud of citizens' opposition group Stop the Lines said, "Unfortunately, our system is rigged," in a recent article in the New Jersey Herald.

The "rigging" of the Environmental Impact Statement, which is required to be completed under the National Environmental Policy Act, has been public knowledge for nearly a year now.  Dirty deals between the power companies and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar were outed by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility last fall:

"PEER contends that Secretary Salazar, National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis and other Interior officials have met repeatedly with project proponents, PPL Electric Utilities of Allentown, Pennsylvania (PPL) and Public Service Electric and Gas Company of Newark, New Jersey (PSE&G), and have already approved a route for a new power line that will cut across the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.  The power line will be strung on 200 foot-tall towers that will permanently impair the scenic values of one of the most beautiful areas in the crowded Northeastern Corridor of the United States.

As part of the deal, the draft EIS will NOT consider at least two alternatives that would lessen impacts to the park’s scenery (#6 and #7) but will include at least one alternative (#2B) demanded by the companies that is untenable from a safety perspective.   The Secretary and the Director have unofficially committed to the companies that the NPS will select Alternative 2, the alternative preferred by the companies but which is the most damaging to the resources and scenery of the parks.  In return, the companies have reportedly agreed to pay $60 million for land acquisition and administration inside and near the NRA. 

"This is not ‘fast track,’ it is a short circuit in which political appointees are putting their thumbs on the scale to skew the review process,” Ruch added.   “It is one thing to select an alternative after the conclusion of the NEPA process, but is something else to decide on the alternative before public comment has even begun.”

The National Park Service's mission is:

To preserve unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.

But instead of stewarding irreplaceable resources owned by the citizens of the United States, the NPS has sold our resources to corporations, and they violated NEPA by guaranteeing the corporations their preferred outcome of the EIS before it was completed.

The entire NPS isn't rotten to the core, however.  Where do you think PEER got their information?  What is wrong with the NPS is that those who don't bow and scrape and sell their soul to dirty political appointees like Salazar have their lives made miserable and their careers ruined.  So, if you have ethics and a spine, a career with the NPS is not for you.

So, you're probably asking, "how does all this make my electric bill go up?"  Because in exchange for permission to lay waste to the Delaware Water Gap, PSEG & PPL promised $60M of "mitigation."  The "mitigation" will consist of purchase of inferior land adjacent to the current park borders in order to expand the park... and PSEG & PPL are using YOUR money to do it!  That's right, PSEG & PPL will be collecting the cost of their "mitigation" from all electric consumers in the PJM region, plus 12.9% interest annually, through their FERC-approved formula rates.  However, whether the cost of "mitigation" is a prudent expense is probably fairly debatable.

So, there ya go... you will pay the bribes two corporations made in order to destroy a park that belonged to you in the first place.

Disgusting.  Shame on all of you.

The regulated investor-owned utility business model has ingrained a wholly unwarranted sense of entitlement in companies such as PATH.  Regulation allows these companies to recover their expenses incurred to provide a public service, along with a guaranteed profit averaging around 10%.  Not too shabby -- what investments do you own that are guaranteed a 10% return?

Sound like a pretty sweet set up?  However, it's just not good enough for the investor-owned utilities, who are under enormous pressure to produce bigger and bigger shareholder profits every quarter.  Ten percent isn't shabby, but management's spending on items that cannot legally be passed to ratepayers in a regulated environment cuts deep into profit margins.  Therefore, the game is to find ways to cheat the system and create a way to meet profit targets without cutting expenses on the shareholder side of the balance sheet, such as lobbying, promotion, and political contributions, which the utility finds essential to a favorable regulatory environment.

Experiments with deregulation haven't worked out so well.  Remember Enron?  Deregulation and competition have been a miserable failure that usually ends up costing consumers more than a regulated environment.

Interstate high-voltage transmission lines are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, whose mission is to ensure that rates are just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory.  FERC also ensures that transmission is open access, in an effort to keep costs low through competition.  What you end up with is another regulatory hybrid that may fail the consumers who are supposed to benefit.

Transmission owners are allowed to apply to FERC to be awarded "incentives" that encourage new investment in transmission.  They are not required to apply, and the bar is set pretty high for companies that aren't part of the good ol' boy utility scene.  PATH applied for and was awarded, among other incentives, a 14.3% return on equity (since reduced to 12.4%), and "recovery of 100 percent of prudently-incurred costs associated with abandonment of the Project, provided that the abandonment is a result of factors beyond the control of PATH, which must be demonstrated in a subsequent section 205 filing for recovery of abandoned plant."  The incentives were awarded under the condition that the PATH Project was included in PJM's Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP).  All risk for the PATH Project was shifted to consumers. 

PATH was also awarded use of a forward-looking formula rate to collect expense and profit from the captive PJM-region customer base through the setting of a yearly rate.  The formula rate allowed PATH to collect yearly expenses (such as taxes, certain types of advertising, certain contracted services, an allocation of corporate expenses, and other routine operation and maintenance expenses for the project), along with a yearly profit (ROE) on the amount of PATH's capital investment in the project.  Capital investments included land, engineering, routing and siting, regulatory expenses, legal fees and other expenditures they made that were necessary for the construction of PATH.

PATH behaved as if their formula rate was a bottomless money fountain from which they could draw to buy whatever they wanted.  How many of you thought it was outrageous that PATH was allowed to have all their costs at the PSC paid for by us (and even earn a profit on them!) while we were forced to spend our own money to defend our interests?  We paid for them to fight us, and then we paid for us to fight them, which gave PATH a sense of superiority and entitlement.  They felt entitled to spend our money on whatever they wanted to accomplish their goal of building the project.

How about being forced to pay for PATH's public relations campaign and millions of dollars of propaganda advertising?  How outrageous was that?  PATH's sense of entitlement, and greedy, perfidious public relations contractor Charles Ryan Associates, encouraged them to spend freely on an effort to sway public, political and regulatory opinion in PATH's favor.  The more of our money PATH spent on this effort, the more Charles Ryan Assco. earned.  However, in the case of these promotional expenses, it turns out that they should not have ever been billed to ratepayers, but absorbed by stockholders unless and until PATH made a sufficient showing at FERC that they provided benefit to ratepayers.  PATH failed to do its homework before going on its spending spree.  If PATH's stockholders (which only include parent companies FE & AEP) knew up front that they would be required to absorb these costs, would they have spent less?  Of course!

Now PATH finds itself in a precarious position with a $130M stranded investment of its stockholders money that may not have exactly been prudently incurred, and a dead project that has been removed from the RTEP, on its hands.  Never fear, the PATH project geniuses will just dump the whole stinking mess on its accounting and legal team for the daunting and impossible task of recovering the money and cleaning up the mess these arrogant blowhards created with their little spending spree.  Won't we have fun!

PATH windbag Todd Meyers had a lot to say about PATH's sense of entitlement in a recent article in the Spirit of Jefferson newspaper.

"Potomac Edison spokesman Todd Meyers said only prudently incurred costs will be recovered and would not acknowledge that Newman's figures were accurate.  "We will have to do a cost recovery filing to FERC" Meyers said.  "We will only know then the amount of cost to be recovered". 

Well, what do you know, it looks like Todd acknowledges that a portion of that current $130M rate base total might not be prudent and that there's going to be a need for a lot of legal and accounting skulduggery  before PATH makes its FERC filing.  Todd passes the hot potato to others, after upping the temperature a few degrees.

"Meyers said recovering costs is an allowable part of doing business because no company would take on a project that is as expensive as a large transmission line without it.  "There are many risks associated with that" he said, citing a possible regulatory denial of the project.  He said no one would attempt such projects without this assurance."

Todd's sense of entitlement deserves a medal for that little gem!  PATH wanted to build the project and collect a 14.3% ROE from here to eternity.  The "PJM ordered us to build it" line has worn threadbare long ago.  What's that you said?  "Regulatory denial?"  I like the sound of that!  As far as Todd's contention that "no one would attempt such projects without this assurance," I'd like to introduce Todd to the concept of merchant transmission lines.  Or perhaps Todd wasn't paying attention when an independent company without a sense of entitlement or bottomless fountain of ratepayer cash proposed the Liberty Line as an alternative to the PATH project.  Yes, it's true, other companies have proposed such projects without this "assurance," or the ability to shift all financial risk to consumers.
 
"Cost recovery will be spread across the entire PJM area, because they all would have benefited from PATH, had there been a need for it".

This is so crazy that it makes my head hurt.  There wasn't a need for it!  Todd finally admits there was no need for PATH!  Progress.  :-)

The TrAILCo gravy train seems to have run off the rails for a couple of the project's contractors, and they've engaged in a court brawl over who gets to keep money that resulted from overcharging ratepayers for actual project costs.  TrAILCo has also been named as a defendant. 

Honestly, I couldn't make this stuff up!

See Central Contracting, Inc. Vs. Kenny Construction Co et al.

Central claims:

"Central alleges that Kenny breached the Subcontract by failing and refusing to pay $5,723,852.80 that Kenny owed Central under the Subcontract. Further, Central alleges that TrailCo was unjustly enriched by
Central’s improvement of TrailCo’s property."

Kenny claims:

"In its Counterclaim, Kenny alleges that payment under the Subcontract was based upon the time and
equipment expenses of the work plus a fee for the expenses Central incurred on the project.  Because many of Central’s workers had to travel away from their homes during the project, the Subcontract provided that Kenny would pay Central the necessary per diem expenses incurred by the project workers."

But wait, the plot sickens:

"Kenny asserts that during a financial audit of Central, it discovered that it had paid $4,910,056.00 to Central in per diem expenses, but Central passed along only $1,501,790 to its employees.  Kenny also allegedly discovered an irregularity with respect to labor rates during the financial audit–namely, that Central charged Kenny for increased labor rates but did not pass
those increases along to its workers.  Kenny asserts
that it overpaid $923,572.00 relating to increased labor costs. This dispute, however, is not relevant to Kenny’s motion."

And it gets worse.  Apparently Kenny was in cahoots with Central to bilk the ratepayers who financed the construction of TrAIL out of millions:

"Notably, Central argues that discovery will show that Kenny waived the “necessarily incurred” language in the
Subcontract because it “knew exactly how Central was treating the per diem allowance as early as February,
2009; concurred in that treatment, and in fact, directed it; and continued to make payments to Central for over two years with full knowledge of how Central was handling the per diem allowance and acquiesced in it.”

"Central intends to seek, for example, information regarding a February 20, 2009 meeting between Kenny and Central, during which Central contends Kenny’s representatives directed it to invoice for per diems for each day its field labor employees worked on the project, regardless of how Central ultimately  compensated those employees."

So, exactly how much unearned expense did TrAILCo and its contractors bilk ratepayers out of?

Someone should string them all up by their ankles and shake them until all the ill-gotten booty rattles out of their pockets, and then return it to the consumers who struggle to pay their electric bill every month.

I am truly amazed at the depths to which corporations will stoop when there's a buck on the table.  Disgusting.

Part of the mission of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is to:  Ensure that rates, terms and conditions are just, reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential. 

Interstate transmission rates, such as PATH's, are under FERC's jurisdiction.  FERC oversees PATH's formula rate administered under PJM's Open Access Transmission Tariff. 

A formula rate is the filed rate charged to customers, although it begins as a blank template into which the company inserts different numbers each year.  This allows the actual rate to change every year in accordance with the amount the company spends.  A formula rate enables a company to continuously collect its rate without filing periodic rate cases.  However, rate cases serve to provide for a review and challenge of the proposed rates by those who are forced to pay them.  Because a formula rate allows rates to be set without the big production of a rate case, a formula rate is governed by protocols that allow (but do not require) those affected by the rate to review and challenge it if they believe it is unjust and unreasonable or unduly discriminatory or preferential.

When PATH's expenses were challenged at the WV Public Service Commission, PATH complained (and the PSC agreed) that the state had no jurisdiction over PATH's rates and therefore the PSC's hands were tied and it could not interfere or order PATH not to charge certain expenses to WV's consumers.  The PSC has no jurisdiction because of the filed rate doctrine, which has been in place for decades.  To make the filed rate doctrine as simple to understand as possible:  a rate must be challenged in the venue in which it is set.  A person cannot ask a regulator without jurisdiction to set a rate initially to modify it later.  FERC has jurisdiction over interstate electric transmission rates, therefore, any challenge to the amount you are charged for transmission must come under FERC's exclusive jurisdiction.  Otherwise, individual states could refuse to allow a transmission customer to recover a rate it must pay that is set by FERC, and the transmission customer would be unable to pass the rate it is required to pay for transmission on to its customers and would be stuck with an expense it could not recover.

Therefore, if a consumer wants to examine or challenge a transmission rate, they must do it in the venue in which it is set, which would be at FERC.  This review and challenge of rates is what Keryn and Ali and some other consumers have been participating in for the last three years.

The first year, PATH welcomed the consumers to its review process and provided information requested by Ali and Keryn.  PATH did this, not because they're such nice people, but because it was required to do so by its formula rate protocols because consumers are "interested parties" as defined in the protocols.

This consumer participation was quite unusual.  Consumers had never reviewed rates or challenged them before.  States and utilities would seem to be better equipped to do the review on behalf of their consumers or customers, however these entities were not reviewing rates with any real effort because it is too complicated, time consuming and expensive.  Therefore, NOBODY was reviewing PATH's rates, which enabled PATH to charge whatever it alone determined was just and reasonable.  FERC does not routinely review formula rates.  FERC relies on the persons who pay these rates to raise the red flag if something is amiss with a rate.

Ali and Keryn filed a challenge to PATH's rate at FERC at the end of the first review process.  When the second year's review process began, PATH carried out a series of ridiculous shenanigans that were intended to intimidate Ali and Keryn and prevent them from obtaining information under the protocols.  After all, if they couldn't examine the rate, they couldn't challenge it, right?  Wrong.  A second challenge was filed at the end of the second review period.  On June 1, 2012, the third year review process opened.  PATH has refused to provide any information at all this year, and has even tried to ban consumers from an informational meeting about its rate.

One of the tactics PATH tried to utilize last year to make consumers go away was to change the definition of "interested party" in its protocols.  Although the Commission granted the change (to read "any entity with standing under Sec. 206 of the FPA), it also informed PATH that consumers have a direct interest in the rates they are charged that are under FERC's jurisdiction (because, remember, the state does not have jurisdiction here, FERC is the only available venue for consumers).

On July 18, Keryn filed a complaint at FERC alleging that PATH had violated its formula rate protocols by refusing to provide information requested by an interested party.

The deadline for interventions and comments was Aug. 7.

Here's what turned up at FERC:

PSE&G, a utility from New Jersey, filed a doc-less motion to intervene, which merely preserves its right to participate in the case.  PSE&G had no comments.

Patience Wait filed a motion to intervene and comments.

Alison Haverty filed a motion to intervene and comments.

PATH filed an answer to the complaint.

Keryn Newman filed a response to PATH's answer.

Will consumer rights be protected by FERC?  Or will PATH manage to disenfranchise the consumers who pay its rates, and leave the consumers with no recourse other than to pay?

If you ever need a handy, dandy road map of corporate scheming, look no further than quarterly earnings calls.  Tony the Trickster and his merry band of profiteering pirates tried to put a big smiley face on their poor performance for investors during FirstEnergy's Q2 2012 earnings call on Tuesday.

You can read the transcript of the call here.

Here's a couple of items to look for as you read:

1.    FirstEnergy's "derecho" storm costs will be at least $130M.  70% of that amount will be capital expense that they will recover within existing regulatory mechanisms.  The other 30% will be "deferred."  This simply means the company will create a debt that they will recover from ratepayers at a later date (with carrying costs!)  FE says they will file a request in West Virginia in the 3rd quarter to set up the deferral.  They already have the regulatory structure in place to do this in the other states.  FE says that WV took the worst damage hit, so I'll assume WV will also get the lion's share of the repair cost.

2.    FirstEnergy's finance guy is pretending that the company has no idea why residential demand is still dropping.  He thinks it's due to the economy and unemployment.  Mark Clark thinks people without jobs sit home in the dark and don't use electricity because they can't afford to pay the bill.  Can any of you tell me why residential demand may still be falling?  Any kindergarteners reading this blog that are smarter than overpaid electric company bigwigs?  Apparently a light bulb (it was most definitely a CFL) finally went on over the head of Donny the Gregarious, who pondered whether energy efficiency was having a "dampening effect" on residential consumption.  Ya think?


3.    Lower operating costs due to "merger synergies" (most overused corporate buzzword, ever) and lower storm repair costs (remember this was before the "derecho") were an earnings driver for the quarter.

4.      Picture this...  Tony the Trickster reassured the analysts by telling them that his staff presented him with a weekly win/lose customer switching report.  See?  Being a CEO who makes millions every year really is as simple as sitting around, smoking cigars, and looking at pictures!

5.    FirstEnergy mentioned that transmission drives their profit... over and over again, in many different ways.  Has FirstEnergy told you lately that transmission is where they're hanging their hat to meet next year's "guidance"?  Yes, it's true, FirstEnergy needs to "accelerate" that $1B in "transmission spend" and push it up to 2012 or 2013, instead of later years.  Here's why:  Transmission spending earns a bigger return, 12.7% for their TrAILCo affiliate's projects.  Once they've spent capital on transmission assets, it begins earning in the world's sweetest investment account with absolutely NO RISK involved!  The quicker they can "deposit" their "transmission spend" in their own little investment account, the sooner it can start earning big profits that will enable even bigger earnings.  There's just one little problem -- sometimes Tony can't "accelerate" his "transmission spend" fast enough and get his transmission projects ramrodded through with enough alacrity to satisfy his financial needs.  Whatever could it be that might get in Tony's way?

"The real issue I see in terms of being able to get many of those transmission facilities in place, will not necessarily be driven by the construction schedule, but will be more affected by our ability to acquire rights of way, abilities to get outside crews in to support it, and doing that and getting the permits necessary to complete that amount of work in the timeframe that we’ve laid out in front of us.

So, we have some work to do, there’s a lot involved in the process, we’re in the early stages now, we’re preparing environmental impact statements and all of the other parts, pieces and parts that will require regulatory approval, primarily from siting organizations, and as we move in that timeframe, we’ll be better able to predict when we will have the particular parts of those projects in place. Because this is not just one project, there are a number of things that are going to be done. Substations are going to be enhanced, additional ones are going to be built, new lines are going to be brought in to serve those."


Delay might not be Tony's friend, but it can be a transmission opponent's BFF!

First, we need to set the proper mood.  Click here before reading the rest of this post.

Today, PJM staff released the rest of their analyses of the PATH and MAPP projects.

PJM recommends that PATH (and MAPP) be cancelled due to there being NO NEED to construct the projects to ensure reliability.

"PJM staff will be recommending to the PJM Board at their Friday, August 24th, 2012 meeting to cancel the PATH Project."

PJM also issued a press release.

"The PJM transmission planning staff will recommend to the PJM Board that the Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) and the Mid Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP) lines be removed from PJM’s regional transmission plans. The recommendations are contained in slides posted today that will be presented tomorrow, Aug. 9, at a meeting of PJM’s the Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee.

A media briefing for reporters will be held Thursday at 3:30 p.m. following the advisory committee meeting. Steve Herling, vice president – Planning, will offer comments and take questions. To register for the briefing, please call PJM News at 866-756-6397.

Grid conditions have changed since the lines were originally planned, and our updated analysis no longer shows a need for the lines to maintain grid stability.

–         A slow economy has reduced the projected growth in the use of electricity.

–         PJM’s most recent capacity auction added 4,900 megawatts (MW) of new generation and procured 14,833 MW of demand response.

–         Although PJM’s analysis last year showed a diminished need for the two transmission lines the most responsible course was to wait to make a  recommendation after analyzing the updated forecast of peak use of electricity (the load forecast), the results of the 2012 capacity auction and the effects on grid stability of the anticipated announcement of generation retirements (16,000 MW) due to environmental regulations.

PJM’s regional planning process looks 15 years into the future to determine necessary changes to the transmission system to keep power flows stable. Planners study long-term growth in electricity use, generating plant retirements, broader generation development patterns, such as integration of renewable energy resources, and demand response and energy efficiency resources.

Since PJM’s first regional transmission plan in 2000, the PJM Board has approved more than $24.3 billion in new transmission lines and improvements and upgrades to existing facilities.

Just this year, PJM staff recommended and the board approved $2.8 billion in electric transmission improvements including new lines needed to keep the grid stable as generating units are retired in response to environmental regulations.

The staff recommendation will be presented to the PJM Board’s Reliability Committee later this month."

The State Journal was right on top of the story.  Click here to read Pam Kasey's story, PATH, likely canceled, cost $225 million.

All of the reasons PJM is now citing as reasons for cancelling (abandoning) the PATH Project are the very same reasons that PATH (and TrAIL) opponents have cited since the inception of the project in 2007.  Perhaps PJM should also take a fresh look at the Susquehanna-Roseland project at this time, because we don't need that one either.

PJM's errors in determining "need" for the PATH Project have cost PJM's 60 million ratepayers $95M in expenses since 2008.  In 2008, FERC granted PATH an incentive enabling the company to make a filing to recover the cost of its project from consumers in the event of abandonment.  PATH needs to prove to FERC's satisfaction that the company had no fault in the abandonment and that all amounts proposed to be recovered were prudently incurred.  PATH's current investment in the project totals slightly more than $130M.  $95M of our money + $130M of PATH's investment that they will attempt to recover from us = $225M wasted on the PATH project.

Goodbye, PATH!

Read more to find out why PJM cancelled PATH and MAPP here!