StopPATH WV
  • News
  • StopPATH WV Blog
  • FAQ
  • Events
  • Fundraisers
  • Make a Donation
  • Landowner Resources
  • About PATH
  • Get Involved
  • Commercials
  • Links
  • About Us
  • Contact

Thirty Parties File to Intervene in PATH Abandonment - Battle Lines Drawn

10/20/2012

0 Comments

 
Yesterday was the deadline for parties to intervene, comment or protest on PATH's proposal to collect its $121M investment in the PATH Project.  This amount is in addition to the $95M PATH has already collected from consumers in 13 states and the District of Columbia since 2008.  In order to collect on the abandonment incentive they were granted by FERC in 2008, PATH has to prove that the abandonment was beyond their control and that all costs they propose to collect were prudently incurred.  The burden is PATH's.  Of course, other parties can intervene and protest PATH's contentions.

And then the flood gates opened.  Thirty parties have intervened and some have filed comments and protests.  Nine state PSCs and/or consumer advocates intervened.  Many filed comments or protests.

The consumer advocates of six states (PA, VA, DE, WV, NJ & MD) filed a joint motion and protest.  In their protest, the Joint Consumer Advocates question the prudence of PATH's expenditures, especially in the last few years in light of the fact that PATH misfiled applications, withdrew and tolled their cases numerous times, and PJM's continuing analysis of the project pointed to serious questions about the need for the project.  The JCA question PATH's $30M expenditure on land in light of the fact that they had no permits to build.  They point out that PATH's proposed 5-year recovery period for the $121M will end up costing consumers an additional $25,782,017 of carrying costs & return.  The JCA dispute PATH's proposed ROE, both the base ROE of 10.4% and the .5% PJM membership adder.  They do some math to show that the amount PATH spent on its project is more than 1,000% higher than similar transmission projects that have applied for abandonment.  They also point out that the Commission has set all these other cases for hearing and therefore must set PATH's for hearing as well.

The Illinois Commerce Commission filed a motion to intervene and comments.  The ICC takes issue with PATH's assertion that costs were prudently incurred.  The ICC wants the Commission to assert some control over PATH's sale or transfer of assets to maximize the sale proceeds, such as requiring PATH to sell them via public auction or requiring PATH to file FMV determination documents before a sale.  The ICC argues that PATH did not make a proper showing that its proposed ROE is just and reasonable.  They also bring up all the same old cost allocation arguments that aren't particularly germane to this proceeding, but still valid arguments.  Then they went a bit crazy talking about having the prudence of PATH's costs challenged yearly through the Formula Rate Protocols.  Obviously they don't understand the process or the fact that the bulk of the costs aren't going to change year to year and that perhaps they should have been involved in the process all along.  Just because PATH filed for abandonment does not mean ICC cannot monitor and challenge the prudence of costs in successive formula rate filings.  The process is still going to be there, and has been there all along.  But ICC isn't the only state that doesn't seem to understand FERC formula rates, and sadly none of the states seem inclined to learn the process.  As long as the states that supposedly protect consumers continue to fail to educate themselves and get involved in this process, transmission owners will continue to rip off consumers.  States complain that they do not have in-house expertise or funds to hire any so therefore they don't get involved.  It ain't rocket science, and if the JCA can get together to file a joint petition in this matter, what's stopping them from joining together to fund joint participation in formula rate filings on a yearly basis?

The Maryland Public Service Commission filed a protest and comments.  The PSC questions the prudence of PATH's expenses and other requests and asks that the Commission set the matter for hearing.  They also take the opportunity to continue their opposition to FERC's transmission incentives policy as "overly generous and incompatible with the risks faced by project developers," and suggest that FERC consider the quarter billion dollar waste of consumer money the PATH project represents as they continue their deliberations about the incentives Notice of Inquiry currently in progress.

The Virginia State Corporation Commission filed a motion to intervene and protest.  The SCC protests PATH's proposed 10.9% ROE and, like the ICC, contends that PATH did not make a showing to support it.  They further argue that that the risks and need to raise capital upon which PATH's original ROE was based have died with the project.  Then the SCC urges the Commission to compel an audit of PATH to ensure the prudence of the $121M to make sure PATH wasn't "throwing good money after bad."  That's what the Formula Rate Protocols are for - the VA-SCC should have been participating all along.  Now because the SCC hasn't been doing its due diligence, they want FERC staff to do it for them.  Perhaps the SCC should raise this issue with FERC enforcement staff because the Commission said in P. 27 of a recent order that only OE decides who to audit when.  The SCC also asks that FERC staff monitor PATH's sale and transfer of assets.

The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission filed a motion to intervene and protest.  The URC states that PATH has not supported the prudence of their expenses nor explained why it kept moving toward completion of its project despite in-service delays.  They point out that PATH witnesses used the word "aggressive" six times in their testimony to describe the project schedule, but failed to provide a copy of the schedule.  URC believes PATH put the cart before the horse when they purchased land before receiving a CPCN in any state.

In addition, to the above, the Ohio Consumer's Counsel, the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission and the West Virginia Public Service Commission filed motions to intervene without comment or protest.

Four consumers from West Virginia and eight from Maryland also filed motions to intervene, some with protests.

Ken Sanders, Dave Fenstermacher, Catherine Combs, Ginny MacColl, Ricky Young, Lisa Jarosinski, Brent Simmons and Mary Ann Aellen from the Frederick area filed petitions to intervene.

Bill Howley of Chloe, WV filed a motion to intervene and protest.  Bill questions whether PATH's abandonment was beyond PATH's control and points out that PATH failed to disclose PJM trends and analysis that undermined their state CPCN cases.  Bill questions whether any of PATH's costs after 2009 were prudent due to PATH's failure to support their cases at the PSCs.  He questions PATH's purchase of the Kemptown substation property before fully exploring Frederick County's zoning requirements.

Patience Wait of Shepherdstown, WV filed a motion to intervene and protest.  Patience contends that PATH has not carried its burden in its filing.  Patience says "...there is evidence to indicate that PATH incurred excessive costs in order to manipulate state-level  regulatory processes, to try to create a sense of “inevitability” to the project and avoid rejection of their application – which would indicate, to a “reasonable person,” that PATH recognized its justification for the project was fatally flawed."  She documents her contentions with examples from each state, including PATH's February 25, 2011 purchase of property in Hardy County, WV (just 3 days before the suspension) and PATH's premature clearing of land at their Welton Springs Substation before PATH had a permit, a violation of WV law.

Alison Haverty of Chloe, WV, filed a motion to intervene and protest.  Ali contrasts PATH's continued project spending to PSEG's curtailment of spending on another project they subsequently abandoned.  Ali states, "PSEG didn't wait for PJM to do their thinking for them."  Ali also contends that PATH did not seek a refund for amounts paid prospectively to the NPS and NFS for the EIS process, after PATH delayed that process.  Ali contrasts PATH's lack of detail with the TrAILCo Prexy abandonment filing, where 10 pages of cost detail was included.  Ali asks the Commission to suspend PATH's rates and replace the tariff sheets at a later date.

Keryn Newman of Shepherdstown, WV, filed a motion to intervene and protest.  (exhibits to filing can be found here.)   Keryn states that the PATH project will cost consumers $242,559,680.48, nearly a quarter billion dollars and deserves the Commission's scrutiny.  She also raises the issue of PATH's recently filed 2013 Projected Transmission Revenue Requirement, which she calls "completely invented" because PATH has recently transferred all CWIP totals to a regulatory asset account.  She asks the Commission to suspend PATH's rates until this matter is settled.  Keryn contends that PATH had fault in the abandonment, bungled state permitting and made no showing of the prudence of their expenses.  She also contends that "a reasonable utility manager" would not have purchased property before receipt of a CPCN, and provides several examples of other utilities that do not purchase land until CPCN completes.  Among the examples are PATH parent AEP's transmission line construction time table.  Keryn provides a list of the properties PATH purchased or optioned and presents specific examples backing up her contention that, "PATH had ulterior motives for purchasing or optioning certain properties at inflated prices that had nothing to do with simply acquiring necessary ROW," including PATH's land purchases in the River's Edge subdivision and an inflated option price in Jefferson County, WV.  Keryn contends that PATH has serious accounting deficiencies, protests PATH's proposed ROE, and compares PATH's abandonment to other recent cases, showing that PATH's $121M expenditure was incongruent with other cases.

Old Dominion Electric Cooperative filed a motion to intervene and protest.  ODEC protests PATH's proposed ROE.

In addition, American Municipal Power and the North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation filed motions to intervene.  These are non-profit municipal electric cooperatives.

The PJM Industrial Customer Coalition filed a motion to intervene.  This "coalition" includes large, industrial power customers who will pay a portion of the rate set in this proceeding.

The following investor-owned utilities filed motions to intervene:  PSE&G, Dominion, Exelon, Rockland Electric Co. and LSP Transmission Holdings.

And, of course, the PJM cartel, the ultimate perpetrator of this whole stinking mess, filed a motion to intervene.

I don't envy the Commission here.  The thirty parties raised a lot of issues to be considered.  What is obvious here is that there's no way FERC is going to approve PATH's filing before January, which is the absurd contention Becky Bruner was making on PATH's 2013 PTRR "Open meeting" phone conference last week.  I wonder if she's still insisting to her PATH masters that collecting this $121M is a "sure thing?"




0 Comments

News Flash:  PATH Counted Chickens Before They Hatched

10/16/2012

0 Comments

 
After years of telling people that the depreciation of PATH-Allegheny's Plant in Service was related to PATH's ROW office that they opened in Martinsburg before the project died, today the truth finally came out during PATH's 2013 PTRR Open Meeting.

After Maryland Office of People's Counsel's Gary Alexander verified with PATH that they never "put a shovel in the ground" PATH turned right around and told me that the depreciation was linked to amounts PATH spent to clear land at the old chicken farm they bought as a site for their mid-point Welton Springs substation.  I guess it technically wasn't "a shovel"... more like a backhoe or a bulldozer.

PATH never had a permit to do any construction (or destruction) of any kind in West Virginia, so what were they doing clearing land and recording the expense in their construction accounts that they now want to recover from 60 million PJM ratepayers?

Although all this will be dealt with later, I'm sure you CAKES folks can consider yourself really lucky that PATH never showed up and razed the farm they purchased for their "Kemptown" substation during the permitting process.

Silly PATH!  Never thought your project wasn't going to happen, did you?  Ut-oh!  That's probably going to cost you...
0 Comments

Groups File Complaint Against Salazar Over Susquehanna-Roseland EIS

10/15/2012

0 Comments

 
A complaint was filed today in federal court alleging that Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and NPS Regional Director Dennis Reidenbach violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the NPS Organic Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act when they issued a decision granting PSEG & PPL a permit to destroy national parks with their unneeded Susquehanna-Roseland power line two weeks ago.

Here's a link to the complaint.  Very interesting reading.  I think my favorite part was this:

"The EIS must be prepared so as to “serve practically as an important contribution to the decisionmaking process” and cannot be “used to rationalize or justify decisions already made.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.5; see also id. §§ 1502.2(f), 1506.1. The inclusion of the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line in the set of projects to be “fast-tracked” by the Rapid Response Team for Transmission placed undue pressure on rapid approval of the Project and influenced the Park Service to commit to a determination about the preferred alternatives before environmental review under NEPA had been properly concluded. Such prejudgment by the
agency is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with NEPA and its implementing regulations."


The groups also complain about the mysterious $56 million dollar "mitigation" plan that was never presented to the public.  There's some shady involvement by a greenwashing "conservation" group that involves buying additional property.

And guess what?  Y-O-U are going to pay every last penny of that $56M "mitigation" fund, plus 12.9% interest yearly on the remaining balance for the next 50 years or so. 

"Johnson said the rate of return is in fact 12.93 percent and said it is true PSE&G would earn a rate of return on the land purchase.
"The current rules say the cost of a project such as this will be shared by electric customers who will benefit," she said."


Perhaps it's time to start asking some questions about Susquehanna-Roseland's shifty financial schemes and collection of the amount they donated to the NPS from ratepayers, ya think?

Bravo to all the groups who are persevering in their fight to preserve national parks that belong to all of us while staring down political skulduggery, bribery, and two huge corporations' attempt to hurry up and get their project built before the truth gets out.  The truth is that the power line isn't even needed!
0 Comments

Why your electric bill keeps going up

10/11/2012

2 Comments

 
This article, Meet the 10 highest paid utility CEOs, was sent to me by a friend today in the form of a guessing game.  The question posed was, "I wonder if you can guess who's #1?"  No fair peeking!

Go ahead, guess in the comments.  Then read the article.

(And yes, I guessed correctly.)

How utterly revolting.
2 Comments

FERC Grants Formal Challenges and Complaints

9/24/2012

0 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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







0 Comments

Looks like there's going to be another PATH Hearing...

9/20/2012

3 Comments

 
... AT FERC.

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

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

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

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

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

Mood music!


Read a copy of FERC's Order here.

3 Comments

PATH Gravy Train Continues Chugging Along in 2013

9/5/2012

0 Comments

 
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.
0 Comments

Susquehanna Roseland Federal Environmental Review Was "Rigged"

9/4/2012

0 Comments

 
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.

0 Comments

PATH's Sense of Entitlement

8/31/2012

0 Comments

 
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.  :-)
0 Comments

TrAILCo Contractors Fight Over Ratepayer Booty

8/12/2012

1 Comment

 
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.
1 Comment
<<Previous
Forward>>

    About the Author

    Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.
    In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history.

    About
    StopPATH Blog

    StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project.  The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

    StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view.  If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty.  People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself.  If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

    Got something to say?  Submit your own opinion for publication.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories

    All
    $$$$$$
    2023 PJM Transmission
    Aep Vs Firstenergy
    Arkansas
    Best Practices
    Best Practices
    Big Winds Big Lie
    Can Of Worms
    Carolinas
    Citizen Action
    Colorado
    Corporate Propaganda
    Data Centers
    Democracy Failures
    DOE Failure
    Emf
    Eminent Domain
    Events
    Ferc Action
    FERC Incentives Part Deux
    Ferc Transmission Noi
    Firstenergy Failure
    Good Ideas
    Illinois
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Land Agents
    Legislative Action
    Marketing To Mayberry
    MARL
    Missouri
    Mtstorm Doubs Rebuild
    Mtstormdoubs Rebuild
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    Newslinks
    NIETC
    Opinion
    Path Alternatives
    Path Failures
    Path Intimidation Attempts
    Pay To Play
    Potomac Edison Investigation
    Power Company Propaganda
    Psc Failure
    Rates
    Regulatory Capture
    Skelly Fail
    The Pjm Cartel
    Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes
    Transource
    Valley Link Transmission
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.