What happens when sharks smell the blood of a creature in distress in the water?  It's like ringing the dinner bell -- they come to feed.

My, my, my, how the tables have turned!  :-)

This afternoon was the deadline for motions to intervene in Alison Haverty vs. Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, LLC, FERC Docket No. EL12-79-000.

Motion to Intervene and File Comments of Keryn Newman

Motion to Intervene and File Comments of Patience Wait

Alison Haverty's Answer to PATH Motion to Dismiss the Complaint

The Notice of Complaint will be published in the Federal Register tomorrow, a day after the filing deadline.  Does that serve notice requirements?  I guess we'll find out.

As stipulated in its federal Formula Rate that allows PATH to recover the cost of their project from over 60 million ratepayers in 13 states and the District of Columbia, PATH is obligated by certain rules crafted to provide rate transparency.  These obligations are stipulated in PATH's PJM OATT Tariff Protocols, Attachment H-19B.

One of PATH's obligations is to hold an "Open Meeting" among interested parties after the filing of each yearly Actual Transmission Revenue Requirement and Projected Transmission Revenue Requirement.

On June 1, PATH filed their ATRR for 2011.  This filing compares the actual expenditures to PATH's estimate collected during 2011, and produces the actual rate consumers pay.  As required by the Protocols, PATH posted an announcement of the meeting.  As directed in the notice, several interested parties (as defined in the Protocols) submitted their RSVP for the meeting.

Compare the tone of PATH's Notice of Open Meeting to that of another company who is following the exact same rule in its own Formula Rate Protocols.  While PATH's meeting is held only over the telephone, Dominion's meeting is held both at their facility and over the telephone, for those who don't want to travel to Richmond.  Dominion asks for 4 days notice of participant's attendance, while PATH demands you RSVP 5 days in advance, or you will not be permitted to "attend" and will not be provided the call-in information that Dominion freely provides in its Notice.  Paranoid much, PATH?

As if the Frau Farbissina tone of PATH's Notice isn't bad enough already, PATH sent the following email notice to certain interested parties, who had sent in their RSVPs weeks earlier, on June 24:

"The open meeting conference call that Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, LLC ("PATH") will hold on July 18, 2012, to explain and clarify its Annual Update is to provide Interested Parties an opportunity to seek information and clarification concerning the Annual Update. Under Section I.H of the Protocols, an  "Interested Party" means  "An entity that is or may become a customer taking transmission service under [the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Open Access Transmission Tariff], a state public utility commission or state consumer advocate agency in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey or the District of Columbia, or any entity having standing under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act."
It is not clear that you meet the definition of Interested Party under the Protocols. Please provide a response to this email by June 19, 2012 stating the basis for your status as an "Interested Party" under the Protocols."

PATH has yet to respond to any of the parties who tried (in vain, judging from PATH's impossible deadline) to provide the required information.  PATH is erecting additional hurdles for certain interested parties by requiring them to plead their case to PATH.  PATH has appointed itself adjudicator of consumers' rights to participate in the setting of rates that they are required to pay.

PATH's behavior is especially egregious in light of FERC's findings in PATH's request to change the definition of "interested party" in its Protocols last year.  As certain parties contended in that case, PATH's proposal to change the definition was a not-so-cleverly disguised attempt to exclude certain parties who have participated in the review of PATH's Formula Rate and filed Challenges in the past.  Because PATH has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar and has no logical defense, they simply seek to exclude parties who may take notice and challenge ongoing fraud.

Interested party Alison Haverty has apparently grown tired of PATH's heavy-handed attempts to disenfranchise consumers and filed a Complaint against PATH at FERC (Docket No. EL12-79).  PATH has 8 days to answer Alison's complaint.

UPDATE:  FERC has issued a Notice of Complaint setting a very short intervention, comment, protest and answer deadline.  All filings are due by 5:00 p.m. July 5.  If you want to participate, you'd best get crackin'.  It looks like FERC wants to get this over with well before the July 18 meeting.

I got word from Sugarloaf Conservancy today that the public hearing/administrative meeting that they had originally been told would occur on June 20 at 10:00 has been temporarily cancelled.  The Maryland PSC says:

"As I explained in my e-mail below, a filing as listed on a 'draft' agenda does not indicate it will necessarily be addressed at that specific Administrative Meeting or through some other means.  In this case, your filing is being treated as a Formal Complaint and therefore removed from the draft agenda. Instead, on June 5, 2012, the Commission directed Potomac Edison to Satisfy or Answer the Complaint on or before July 6, 2012.  You personally were copied on that directive and should have received it in the mail.  You will be provided a copy of Potomac Edison's response.  After that response is received, the Commission will then determine its next course of action, if any."

If any?  Perhaps the MD PSC needs some additional information about how widespread this problem is.  If you've had too many estimated bills, see how to help spur the PSC into action below.

So if you were planning to attend the public hearing/meeting, hang onto that thought as we wait for Potomac Edison to manufacture some excuses for their questionable billing practices.

Meanwhile, keep those complaints coming if you have been experiencing Potomac Edison (or other FirstEnergy subsidiary's) Disappearing Meter Reader Scam where all your bills are "estimated" and charges are out-of-sync (along with all the other seemingly unrelated complaints about the utility that we have been receiving).  Contact Sugarloaf Conservancy here, or StopPATH WV here, or simply add them to the comments on this post.

We also encourage you to submit your concerns to the Maryland PSC.  You can send your comments via snail mail or try using the PSC's online form, but be sure to reference Mail Log#139432 in your comments.

The Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission filed a complaint against FirstEnergy subsidiary West Penn Power last week related to their investigation of a 2009 incident in which a Pennsylvania woman was killed by a falling power line.

West Penn Power has repeatedly refused to provide internal investigation reports and information to the PUC for use in their own investigation.  Read PA PUC's complaint here.

The PUC is seeking to fine FirstEnergy $86,000, with additional fines of $1,000 per day accruing until FE coughs up the requested information.  They also ask that FE not be permitted to recover the fines from ratepayers.

FE is saying the same stupid stuff they always say... we're evaluating the complaint and will respond appropriately or some such nonsense.

The PUC complaint is an entirely separate matter from the lawsuit filed by the family of the woman killed by the falling power line.

Read the letter from the family's attorney to the PUC that details the improper training on splices Allegheny linemen received.  The letter states:  "Allegheny Power's witnesses continue to confirm the company's failure to follow the manufacturer's instructions and its own internal standards for splice installation, and there is obviously a grave concern for the safety of those living in Allegheny Power's service area because of its practices."

Allegheny Power, now FirstEnergy, just doesn't care how many of their power lines fail, fall and electrocute people. It's all about protecting themselves legally, who cares about public safety?  This is why corporations should never be considered "people."  People could never behave in such a vile fashion.

The Maryland Public Service Commission will hear the complaint of Sugarloaf Conservancy on June 20 at 10:00 a.m.  The item has been moved to the end of the agenda because the PSC suspects that they may have a full house on this matter, so expect to be there for a while.

The complaint details FirstEnergy subsidiary Potomac Edison's lack of performance reading residential electric meters as required by law.  The FirstEnergy Disappearing Meter Reader Scam has been going on since just after the Allegheny Energy/FirstEnergy merger last year.

You are welcome and encouraged to attend the hearing.  Directions to the PSC can be found here.  If you prefer not to deal with traffic and parking hassles in Baltimore, you can hitch a ride on Sugarloaf Conservancy's bus from Frederick County.  Cost for the bus is $20.  Contact Sugarloaf Conservancy to reserve your seat.

Potomac Edison is caught like a rat in a trap!  Cue the dissembling -- Potomac Edison is all of a sudden pretending that there is a great meter reader shortage and they're hiring.  Don't get too excited if you're looking for a job though... it only pays $12.31 an hour.  Who can support a family on that pittance?  No wonder they have a shortage of meter readers.  Perhaps they're desperate for help because they don't pay a living wage, ya think?  Staffing shortage is no excuse for violating Maryland law by not reading meters as required.

Todd, Todd, Todd... it's "unfortunate timing" that you're still completely full of crap!  The only thing that "comes out in the end" are the fabrications Todd continually spins.  I think Todd should get in his car and start reading meters instead of sitting uselessly around the office and making crap up.  He can start here, my meter hasn't been read in over 6 months.

Those of us who look wistfully and admiringly upon the Illinois Commerce Commission as a staunch defender of the electric consumers they are mandated to protect because our own Consumer Advocate sees himself as someone who must balance the rights of consumers with the wants of investor owned utilities, now have one more reason to want to move to Illinois.

The ICC filed a motion to intervene in PJM's recent cost allocation filing at FERC that added a whole bunch of new RTEP projects approved earlier this month.  At issue are three new allocations for 500kV projects located in  Pennsylvania and Virginia.  The ICC notes that ratepayers in Illinois will pay approximately $26M for these projects, but will receive no benefit.

"Given that the three projects are to be constructed in Virginia and Pennsylvania, it is a reasonably safe assumption that the primary beneficiaries of the projects are not distributed evenly across the PJM footprint. Yet, PJM’s load-ratio share approach allocates the costs of these projects as if they were."

"A second flaw in PJM’s load-ratio share cost allocation approach is that it typically results in customers in distant zones like ComEd paying more than the customers in the local zone where the facility is located. In this case, electricity consumers in the ComEd zone would pay a higher share of the cost of the three projects than the customers in any of the transmission zones in which facilities are to be located (14.64 percent for the ComEd zone versus 5.53 percent for APS, 1.92 percent for Metropolitan Edison and 12.45 percent for Dominion) simply because the ComEd zone’s non-coincident peak load is higher than the non-coincident peak load."

The ICC requests that FERC dismiss cost responsibility for the ComEd zone, or "hold its consideration of this part of PJM’s May 2 Filing in abeyance until the Commission addresses the requests for rehearing of its order responding to the remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit."

Ut-oh, FirstEnergy and Dominion!  Looks like your transmission projects have run off the rails already!

How completely delightful!

Sugarloaf Conservancy filed a complaint with the Maryland Public Service Commission today, requesting that the Commission open an investigation into the billing practices of FirstEnergy subsidiary Potomac Edison.

Sugarloaf Conservancy noticed and took assertive action regarding the same scam that we have all been experiencing for the past year.  For brevity, I will call it The Disappearing Meter Reader Scam.

In Potomac Edison's Disappearing Meter Reader Scam, the company fails to read your electric meter for months on end, sending you an "estimated" bill instead of one based on your actual usage.  Potomac Edison has plenty of excuses for not performing a scheduled reading.  Two I have personally heard are:  1)  There was a snowstorm and the meter readers were pulled from their duties to perform other work; and 2)  The meter reader "probably" called in sick that day.  So, instead of reading your meter at least every other month, as required by Maryland law, Potomac Edison sends you an estimated bill that may be much higher than your actual use.

Personally, I'd like to see staffing levels for meter readers before the FirstEnergy/Allegheny Energy merger compared to current levels, along with an analysis of necessary staffing levels to to accomplish bi-monthly readings.  I'm betting that Potomac Edison comes up short.

When consumers receive higher bills than normal and notice that their meter has not been read, what do you suppose they do?  Why, they go read their meter, and compare it to the bill, don't they?  Potomac Edison will reward them with a credit for the over billing if they call in their own reading.  And then the next month, that same consumer isn't going to trust Potomac Edison's estimate, are they?  No, of course not, they're going to start calling in regular meter readings every month, making the meter reader's regular visits unnecessary in the future.  Oh sure, they'd probably check it once a year to make sure you're not lying to them, or perhaps sooner if your usage drops significantly, but they can probably accomplish that with a skeleton staff, can't they?  Meanwhile, Potomac Edison is charging you for staff and expense to read your meter at least every other month, but you are doing all the work!  It's nothing but pure profit for Potomac Edison, and it's a great big scam.

Word is that this same scam is also taking place in other FirstEnergy subsidiaries in other states. 

Ut-oh, FirstEnergy!

Oh behalf of Potomac Edison customers in two states, thank you, Sugarloaf Conservancy, for taking action!

*cue the circus music*  FirstEnergy has finally lobbed a ball at AEP in the corporate dodge ball game going on in the state of Ohio.  Unfortunately, FirstEnergy throws like a flabby, middle-aged nerd, but hey, at least they finally showed up for the game!

FirstEnergy finally abandoned their loser ad campaign and has upped their budget to create a real commercial that answers one of AEP's very creative commercials, the "dodge ball" commercial.

In FE's version of the game, AEP runs from the game and hides behind a bunch of little kids.  I give it a 5 on the scale of creativity, but you just can't quite dance to it.  I said creative, FE!  Isn't there one among you who's twisted just enough to be truly creative?  Keep trying, I know you can do it!

The only real humor to be found in the commercial is the actor FirstEnergy hired to portray themselves... young, good looking and athletic.  I'm sorry, but I've seen you guys before, and I didn't see anyone even close to that guy.  Character FAIL!

So, what are these companies fighting about anyhow?  I know you are all insanely curious.  Here's a simplistic explanation:  FirstEnergy is buying electricity AEP generates at bargain basement prices and then marking it up in order to resell it to AEP customers at lower prices than AEP charges.  AEP makes money by competing to sell electricity it generates, and FirstEnergy makes money by being the middleman and reselling it to you at a lower price.  What's at issue here is the amount AEP can charge for its electricity.  AEP wants to raise the price so that FirstEnergy can no longer make a big profit as the middle man.  This would effectively kill the current competition going on in AEP's Ohio service territory and stop AEP's customer migration to FirstEnergy and other competitive suppliers.  To further simplify, it's all about money.  Both companies are greedy shysters who are milking consumers for every dime they can.  Neither one is any better than the other.  You might as well toss a coin, or make your selection based on how hard their commercials make you laugh.  The company with the funniest commercial wins the customers!

Read More

Parties had 30 days to file requests for rehearing on FERC's March 30 Order on Remand reaffirming that PJM's "Postage Stamp" rates for transmission lines 500kV or greater are just and reasonable.  Several parties filed requests, and I've just now managed to plow through them all.

The Illinois Commerce Commission is the winner for style.  In addition to pointing out the reasons why FERC's Order fails to meet the 7th Circuit's standard of showing benefit commensurate with costs, ICC adds so many zingers, it's like a treasure hunt.  "The Commission’s statement in this regard calls to mind the story of the fellow with one arm in the freezer and one arm in the oven who, on average, was quite  comfortable." or "In making that statement, the Commission shows mastery in the art of understatement."

ICC points out that the 500kV lines (TrAIL, PATH, MAPP and Susquehanna-Roseland -- the Project Mountaineer collection) were designed to alleviate reliability violations in eastern PJM (New Jersey, eastern Pennsylvania, eastern Maryland, Delaware, Northern Virginia) caused by this area's demand for imported electricity.  In addition, these projects were touted to reduce economic congestion and cause a drop in electricity prices in eastern PJM.  They also get pretty tweaked about those PJM "positive externalities" that the Commission used to attempt to show benefit to western PJM flowing from their membership in PJM.  ICC pointed out that the PJM report cited was not properly brought into evidence and that the report is highly disputed.  It's apparently just some PJM fluff they issue every year to justify their miserable existence.  At any rate, the "benefits" of PJM membership flow from PJM itself, and not from the 500kV lines.  In other words, western PJM would receive those "benefits" whether the lines were constructed or not.  They also took issue with the Commission's redefinition of what is east and what is west by including West Virginia in western PJM in order to show that PATH and TrAIL were providing some benefit to western PJM.  West Virginia was never the intended "beneficiary" of those transmission projects, just the victim.

"Clearly, the Commission’s re-definition of “western PJM” is nonsense and the purpose of that re-definition is to obscure and mislead regarding the extent that true Midwestern utilities benefit from the 500 kV and above transmission lines planned and built in eastern PJM.  Notably, using the Commission’s creative new definition of western PJM, the Commission designates significant 500 KV projects such as TrAIL and PATH as being at least partially located in “western PJM”, particularly noting the State of West Virginia as being in western PJM.  The Commission states that TrAIL and PATH, which are both major 500 kV and above projects, “were approved to be located in western PJM, and to address reliability violations in western PJM.” Once again, the Commission particularly cites the state of West Virginia as being in western PJM."

Also be sure to read Bill's post about the history behind postage stamp rates and his take on the ICC filing.

Dayton Power & Light's filing has to be the substance winner.  Although it's 150 pages, their filing provides documentation of all points raised, ad nauseam!  If you like references and statistics, this is a great read!  DPL's filing starts out with this great quote that they attribute to Everett Dirksen, Senator from Illinois"

"A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money."

In addition to fleshing out and backing up ICC's points, DPL spends ink pointing out the true beneficiaries of Project Mountaineer's transmission projects.

"Even the two transmission lines that start in western Pennsylvania or central West Virginia to points east were not proposed by PJM to resolve any reliability problems within West Virginia or western Pennsylvania."

They also provide granularity* on the congestion costs argument.  When construction of transmission lines cause lower prices on the east coast, they also cause the equal and opposite reaction of causing higher prices in the west, where the transmission line originates.  This is undisputed fact.  Here are the benefits received by eastern PJM from Project Mountaineer:  increased reliability, lower prices, and only a fraction of the costs of the transmission project.  In addition, DPL turns one of FERC's arguments about "benefits" received by western PJM on its head.  The supposed "benefits" to the western "generation" area all flow to the utilities owning generation and transmission, and not to the ratepayers!

DPL has great statistics, for instance: 

"...the TrAIL line alone (already built and in-service) provides Pepco (D.C. and Maryland) and BG&E (Maryland) annual benefits in the form of lower energy costs in excess of $100 million. PSEG in New Jersey receives an estimated $99 million annually, and the big winner is Dominion Resources in Virginia with annual LMP savings of $835 million. The PATH line (currently delayed) provides the same pattern of benefits, again with Dominion Resources, Pepco and BG&E receiving more than $100 million annually in a reduced LMP benefit."

Here's a breakdown of an analysis of the cost of the Susquehanna-Roseland Project (and the exhibits do a similar job on all 4 Project Mountaineer projects):

"PJM analyses identified numerous overloads on critical 230 kV circuits across Eastern Pennsylvania and Northern New Jersey and the proposed fix to the problem was the $1.161 billion Susquehanna-Roseland new 500 kV transmission line to be built from eastern Pennsylvania into New Jersey. Significantly, application of the DFAX methodology would result in virtually all
the costs of the line being allocated to New Jersey  utilities and eastern Pennsylvania utilities operating directly across the river from New Jersey. Eight  variations of a DFAX analysis were presented in this proceeding for this project using different time periods or other different assumptions, including multiple scenarios submitted by a witness opposed to the DFAX method. Under each analysis, 92% to 99% of the load on the facility that was overloaded and created the reliability problem came from the same eastern utilities that then would be assigned between 92% and 99% of the costs of the solution. 

Consider again the $1.161 billion Susquehanna-Roseland new transmission line. Socialization would result in the eastern Pennsylvania and northern New Jersey zones paying only 23% of the costs, while the rest of PJM would assume 77% of the costs."

And, just one of many comparisons in the data:

"Under socialization, PSEG‘s shareholders and/or customers pay only $12.6 million of the annual costs, but enjoy $31 million per year in energy savings..."

DPL also points out another eastern PJM benefit -- incentive rates of return (which FERC granted in part because of congestion cost reductions) that flow only to the utilities constructing these transmission projects.

The Captain Obvious award still sits on a shelf, however, because nobody pointed out how socialization of costs region-wide skews PJM's markets in favor of incumbent generators.  When an eastern PJM state, say for instance New Jersey, has reliability issues that need to be solved, the violations can be solved any of three ways:  increased transmission, increased generation near load, or load reduction.  Load reduction is the cheapest option, but is never PJM's choice to solve violations.  Increased generation will be paid for only by local load that benefits from it, making it the most expensive option.  However, new transmission lines will be paid for by the entire region, making local New Jersey costs for transmission less than building new generation.  This skewing of PJM markets in favor of transmission, as the "cheaper" solution, favors incumbent generators, and as we all now know, PIG rules!

DPL also uses a creative argument I know all you readers of this blog and TPL have heard a thousand times before.  Referencing the recommendations in the official report on the 2003 blackout, DPL points out:

"Not one of those 46 recommendations was to build new high-voltage transmission lines. The Joint Task Force
Report did not conclude, for example, that more high voltage lines should be constructed in Ohio, Michigan, Ontario or New York or eastern PJM (or within any PJM zone) to prevent future cascades."

PJM's (and their "pigs") plan to build new transmission lines to transport 5,000 MW of coal-fired electric power to the east coast provides no benefits to the state of West Virginia and in fact causes higher electricity prices, additional destruction of the environment and a higher than warranted share of the cost of the transmission projects.  Any "benefits" FERC proffered flow only to the utilities, such as increased generation, increased sale of power, transmission line return on equity incentives and ownership of the transmission lines.  No benefits derived from the building of new transmission lines are enjoyed by West Virginia's electric consumers!

Now the ball is back in FERC's court.  Will they man up and reconsider what was a bad decision, or would they rather be embarrassed before the 7th Circuit again?  Keep watching this one!


*stupid business buzzword I despise

Don't you just love the smell of audits in the morning?  I happened to catch this article on Friday.  It seems that FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission),  performed an audit of NERC (North American Electric Reliability Corporation) over several months last year.  NERC didn't like FERC audit staff's findings and now they're having a big, ol' public tantrum about it and whining to the FERC Commissioners.  NERC thinks they are somehow "special" and should have been permitted to "work toward resolution" (read "sweep under the rug if we promise not to do it again") instead of being held accountable for their actions.  Because NERC decided to have a tantrum and contest the audit findings, the whole thing got made public on Friday.  Not too smart, NERC!

NERC describes its mission as: "to ensure the reliability of the North American bulk power system. NERC is the electric reliability organization (ERO) certified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to establish and enforce reliability standards for the bulk-power system. NERC develops and enforces reliability standards; assesses adequacy annually via a 10-year forecast, and summer and winter forecasts; monitors the bulk power system; and educates, trains and certifies industry personnel."

NERC's statutory authority, once designated the ERO by FERC, comes from Section 215 of the Federal Power Act, and they may "allocate equitably reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among end users for all activities under this section;"  I didn't see a definition for "end users" in the FPA, but I will assume "end users" are electric consumers/ratepayers.

So, what did the audit turn up?  Lots of interesting stuff, including a couple of "Holiday Galas" NERC held in 2010 & 2011 that cost us ratepayers $74,748 and $109,474, respectively.  The totals included expenses such as travel, lodging, car rentals, "gifts," food and beverage, entertainment and "miscellaneous."  NERC prefers that FERC audit staff refer to them as "year-end events, or year-end employee dinners and meetings" (pg. 63), although the term "Holiday Gala" came from internal NERC documents.  NERC advertised the parties as "Holiday Galas" in-house, but when the auditors showed up they called them "year-end events."  You can download a copy of FERC's audit report here.  The Holiday Gala stuff starts on page 52 of the report.

So, while senior citizens on a fixed income and single parents are struggling to pay their monthly electric bills, NERC is spending nearly $185,000 on holiday parties.  Nice.  NERC is statutorily permitted to spend funds on activities necessary for its duties under Sec. 215.  Are Holiday Galas necessary to the reliability of the electric grid?  I wonder if there was no holiday party for NERC employees if the lights would have gone out?  Maybe we'll find out in 2012 :-)

NERC needs to get off its "special" pedestal and learn how to behave during an audit.  Don't argue with the auditors, you're not going to win.  Auditors are like The Child Catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, "There are improper expenses around here somewhere... I can smell them!"  If there's one transaction that isn't quite right in a computer printout 3 inches thick, an auditor will zero in on that particular transaction and start asking for documents, guaranteed.  Quit your whining, NERC, and clean up your act!

And, from an electric ratepayer's perspective... Thank you, FERC audit staff!  We appreciate you, even if NERC doesn't.

Update:  Check out NERC's latest ridiculous hissy fit here.