I think someone handed the Little Drummer Boy the wrong script a couple weeks ago when he sat down with a reporter from the State Journal.

LDB says, "APCO – this territory – has borne the brunt of pretty sizable (rate) increases, and it's mainly due to environmental retrofitting of coal units. Still, the rates are lower than they are in other parts of the country, but that doesn't matter to the people paying the bills. The fact is that we've gotten ahead at APCO, so it should moderate future increases."

He also says that 35% rate increases are "needless."

But last week, AEP's spokes-flack said the rate increases were caused by coal that has already been burned:

"We have already bought the coal, we have already made the power and customers have already used that power," Matheney said. "We're facing this large amount of money that has already been spent."

I'd like to introduce you to

You two should get together some time and get to know each other.

Or, maybe the rate increases are caused by excessive AEP executive salaries

Or maybe the rate increases are caused by zombies?

FERC's Commissioners rubber stamped PATH's ROE Settlement today.  No surprise there.  The 14.3% ROE they were originally awarded is history, replaced by 12.4% and bolstered by a refund to ratepayers of over $2M.  Watch for it in your next bill ;-)  (I'm being sarcastic here folks, you're not going to notice any difference).

The small bit of news came from the Commissioners' attempts to do a little housekeeping on PATH's open FERC dockets.

In their letter order, FERC wants to inform all of you citizen ratepayers who submitted comments about PATH's suspension last year that the comments are "beyond the scope of the proceeding, and therefore will not be addressed in this proceeding."  I think that means that you are dismissed, but read it for yourself.  The "you" referred to by FERC is our pal Randy Palmer.

"On March 7, 2011, you also filed in Docket No. ER08-386-000, for informational purposes only, an update on the status of the PATH Project (Project Update). You indicate that PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. directed PATH to suspend development of the PATH Project other than activities needed to maintain the  PATH Project in its current state. Several individuals filed comments in response to this informational filing on the
Project Update, and PATH filed answer to these comments. These comments raise various challenges regarding the location of the Project, the need for the Project, and its costs. These comments raise issues which are beyond the scope of this proceeding, and
therefore will not be addressed in this proceeding."

I guess the Commissioners missed those parts of certain comments where it was pointed out that PATH's rebuttable presumption, upon which the granting of incentives was based, has run away from home.

However, the two outstanding Formal Challenges live on:

"Consistent with the Commission’s delegated letter order issued in Potomac-Appalachian Highline Transmission, L.L.C., Docket No. ER09-1256-000 at 2-3 (February 2, 2010), PATH’s Annual Updates and any related  challenges filed in the above dockets and Docket No. ER09-1256-000 will be addressed in Docket No. ER09-
1256-000, consistent with the formula rate  implementation protocols providing specific procedures for notice, review, and challenges to these Annual  Updates."

FERC also wanted to let Randy know:

"The Commission retains the right to investigate the rates, terms, and conditions under the just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential standard of section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 824e (2006)."

And I think that will about do it for now.

I don't have the time or energy left to cross post this... just go here and read it.

AEP subsidiary Appalachian Power sent a special Valentine to all their customers in West Virginia yesterday.  The Valentine admits that the company can no longer provide electric service to its customers at a rate that they can afford to pay.  This is the result of AEP's head-in-the-sand denial of the steadily increasing costs of the coal that fuels 99% of their electric generation that is sold to West Virginians.

Appalachian Power's lobbyist has been trying to short-circuit a WV Senate bill that would require power companies to file Integrated Resource Plans.  An IRP provides the Public Service Commission with the utility's plan for supplying electricity to its customers in the most cost-effective manner.  It requires the utility to evaluate costs and benefits of choices for power purchase contracts, the cost of new and existing generation facilities, making investments in demand-side resources, including energy efficiency, and to diversify its supply portfolio in order to protect ratepayers from unmanageable rate increases caused by over-dependence on only one source of fuel.

Yesterday, Appalachian Power's lobbyist introduced identical bills in both the House and Senate that would, "authorize the Public Service Commission of West Virginia to consider and authorize the recovery of certain expanded net energy costs by certain electric utilities through the issuance of consumer rate relief bonds where such financing is reasonably expected to result in cost savings and rate mitigation to customers when compared with traditional financing or cost-recovery methods."

Appalachian Power's spokeswoman explained it like this:

"We have already bought the coal, we have already made the power and customers have already used that power," Matheney said. "We're facing this large amount of money that has already been spent."

The utility estimates that its yearly per-ton coal costs jumped 70 percent between 2007 and this year. Matheney said the normal process has proved unable to cope with such circumstances.

"When it doesn't work well is when those expenses accumulate much faster and grow to become much larger than you anticipated," Matheney said. "We feel that's where we are right now."

What Appalachian Power intends to do with this legislation is to put their West Virginia customers into long-term debt to pay these fuel costs, while the company is immediately reimbursed for their out-of-pocket costs caused by their own bad planning. Simply stated, it will cause the company's customers to live above their means.  We all knows what happens when we live above our means for any extended length of time; eventually the house of cards collapses and we go bankrupt.  This method of avoiding rate increases cannot support itself over the long term.

Appalachian Power's proposed legislation is not limited to a one-time occurrence.  It will allow all WV utilities to issue bonds for past, present and future costs instead of raising rates through a standard rate case.  Utility bonds have been issued in the past to pay for capital expenditures on fixed assets, such as scrubbers or power lines.  In that instance, the customers who will finance the bond are receiving the benefit of the asset they are paying for over its lifetime.  They're getting something in return for their payment.  In Appalachian Power's world however, they would like for future customers to pay for current operating expenses, which only provide benefit to the current customers who are receiving the electricity generated by the coal that they can't pay for.  They are asking your children and grandchildren to pay for the electricity you use today.  This is not financially prudent.  In fact, it's stupid.  It also violates the basic premise of regulated rate recovery, which is that the charges you pay are "just and reasonable."  Appalachian Power's lawyers know this, but they are nevertheless setting up this customer-financed Ponzi scheme.

There's a lot of little things wrong with this bill that I won't spend time detailing, because I don't have that much time!  One I will mention -- this legislation will allow the unpaid customer debt to be shuffled among different rate classes for recovery before being financed through the bond.  In other words, they could reassign the substantial unpaid debt of big, industrial electric customers to other classes of ratepayers, such as residential ratepayers, so that industry does not have to pay back their share of the expense that has been financed.

Matheney says, "Without something unusual, we would have to put that in a rate increase this year," she said of the $350 million. "We know that this is something that our customers cannot handle."

This is true.  Appalachian Power's customers can no longer afford to pay for the service they receive.  Something has to be done.  Sweeping the debt under the rug for future generations to trip over is not the answer.  Sensible planning to diversify generation so rising fuel costs can be managed is the answer.  Until that can be accomplished, another reasonable solution has to be found.  Selling debt bonds is not reasonable.  A company that cannot provide a product at a cost that customers can afford to pay is usually headed for bankruptcy.  How about it, AEP?

Seven years ago, in the midst of contemplating policy to encourage investment in the nation's transmission grid, FERC held a series of technical conferences to hear new ideas and opinions.  One such conference, held in Charleston, WV on Friday, May 13, 2005, was entitled, "Promoting Regional Transmission Planning and Expansion to Facilitate Fuel Diversity Including Expanded Uses of Coal-Fired Resources."  One might question exactly what kind of "fuel diversity" was being facilitated by expanding the use of coal-fired resources in 2005, since over 56% of generation in PJM came from coal during the previous year.  However, Joe Manchin, Peabody Coal and American Electric Power were involved in the conference, so don't waste too much time thinking about it.

A transcript of this technical conference is available here.  It's long, but definitely not boring.  There are plenty of arrogant little nuggets spread throughout, documenting political, corporate and regulatory humor about how they were getting things "taken care of" without notice by the electric consumers who would pay for it all.  (Hint:  search the document for the word "laughter" to find the bulk of their little jokes at your expense.)

During this conference, PJM Western Region President Karl Pfirrmann unveiled his plan outlining "the potential for new transmission resources in the region to enhance opportunities for coal based generation to reach eastern markets."  He called this plan "Project Mountaineer."

Project Mountaineer envisioned two or more new transmission "backbone" projects to "enhance [coal-fired] power flows by up to 5,000 MW."

Project Mountaineer's "transmission enhancements included potentially 550 to 900 miles of new backbone 500 or 765 kv transmission at an approximate cost of $3.3 to $3.9 billion. Although a large number, if such costs are spread to all customers within the PJM footprint, the cost to a typical retail customer would amount to only one mill/kwh."

Pfirrman envisioned that PJM's Regional Transmission Expansion Plan could be utilized as a "vehicle" to create a smokescreen to advance these purely economic projects under the guise of reliability.  In the words of AEP's Mike Morris, "...it lends credibility to what you're trying to do." This resulted in power company propaganda telling electric consumers they would be subject to "brownouts and blackouts" unless Project Mountaineer was built.

In response to the profitable opportunities presented by Project Mountaineer, some of PJM's biggest investor owned utilities began proposing transmission projects that fit into the Project Mountaineer scheme, such as Allegheny Energy's "TrAIL" Project and AEP's I-765 Project.

Four projects that fit PJM's Project Mountaineer criteria were eventually selected as part of PJM's RTEP and "ordered" to be built.  They are:

1.  Allegheny Energy's modified TrAIL Project, a 500 kV line, 215 miles long, beginning in Southwestern Pennsylvania and ending in Northern Virginia.  Dominion Resources was "ordered" to build a second, smaller segment of this project in their territory in Virginia.  Estimated cost for this project was $960M.  The sponsors of this project claimed it would relieve some portion of "congestion," which was purportedly costing PJM electric consumers $1.6B yearly in 2006.  Allegheny Energy's portion of the project was awarded a return on equity of 12.7% by FERC.  This project originally included additional project miles in Pennsylvania that were abandoned after the Pennsylvania PUC denied their application.  TrAIL was ramrodded through approvals and built in 5 years, although purchasing approval in West Virginia resulted in millions of dollars worth of "concessions."

2.  Allegheny Energy and American Electric Power's PATH Project, a combination of parts of both original TrAIL and I-765 projects.  The companies formed a joint venture and were awarded an astounding 14.3% return on equity for their investment in the project by FERC.  The 765 kV project was 275 miles in length, stretching from southern West Virginia, across Northern Virginia and ending in Mt. Airy, Maryland, and was estimated to cost $2.1B.  PATH was supposed to save consumers $47M per year in "congestion" costs.  PATH was shelved last year and is currently "held in abeyance" by PJM.

3.  PSE&G and PPL's Susquehanna-Roseland Project.  This 145 mile long, 500kV project, stretches from Salem Township, PA to Roseland, NJ, and is estimated to cost $1.25B.  For its part of the project, PSE&G was granted a 12.93% return on equity by FERC.  PPL is earning 11.68% ROE through their FERC formula rate.  This project was originally proposed with additional segments in New Jersey that have since been tabled due to decreased demand for the project.  This project is supposed to save consumers $200M per year in "congestion" costs.  This project is still waiting for a permit from the National Park Service.

4.  Pepco Holdings Inc.'s Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP) was originally proposed as a 230 mile 500 kV project, stretching from a substation in Northern Virginia, across Maryland's Eastern Shore, through Delaware and ending in southern New Jersey.  Small fragments of this project were also awarded to VEPCO, Baltimore Gas & Electric and PSE&G.  The New Jersey and Delaware segments have since been tabled, again because of decreasing demand.  The current project is 152 miles long and is estimated to cost $1.2B and has also been put "in abeyance" by PJM.  MAPP earns a 12.8% return on equity for its owners and supposedly will alleviate $320M in annual "congestion" costs if built.

An attempt to add up the "benefits" for electric consumers in "congestion" cost savings provided by Project Mountaineer cannot be accomplished.  All the different "congestion" savings claims made by these four projects is calculated differently, is at least 5 years out-of-date, and cannot be verified.  In addition, it's not just a simple matter of adding the claimed savings because each project by itself changes the amount of remaining "congestion" and reduces possible additional savings by the other projects.  The nature of "congestion" itself has also changed dramatically since these projections were made.  Due to decreased demand projections, increased efficiency and demand response, and the TrAIL project going into service, the price differential between Western and Eastern PJM that formed the basis for these "congestion cost" claims has nearly levelized in PJM's 2011 RPM auction. 

"In PJM's MAAC area the price of capacity will be $136.50 MW-day, a decrease of about $100 from last year.  (The MAAC price applies to the transmission zones of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Metropolitan Edison Company, Pennsylvania Electric Company, and PPL Electric Utilities, Atlantic City Electric, Delmarva Power, Jersey Central Power and Light Company, PECO, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and Rockland Electric Company.) The non-MAAC region, will pay the RTO price of $125.99, an increase of about $100. This region includes western Pennsylvania, western Maryland, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky and Virginia.
"The convergence of prices between the eastern and western regions of the market is primarily driven by the significant reduction in forecasted load growth through 2014/2015," Ott said.

According to PJM, congestion is now occurring at PJM's borders:  "The trend of an increasing percentage of transmission congestion occurring on facilities at PJM‘s market borders is driven by 1) reduced west to east flows due to a relative increase in coal resource offer prices in the western part of the market and a relative reduction in gas-fired resource offer prices in the eastern part of the market, 2) increased wind resources impacting the western part of the market, and 3) the completion of the 500kV TrAIL Line."  That's because Western PJM's generators are now trying to unload their unneeded product into other RTOs and can't get rid of it fast enough.

In addition, new gas-fired generation is being planned and built near load on the East Coast, further obviating any economic justification for more expensive coal-by-wire from Western PJM.

The savings are an illusion, but the costs to electric consumers are real.  Let's add up the estimated project costs (although actual costs at completion will be much higher).  $5,510,000,000 - that's $5.51 Billion.

Even this staggering figure is an mirage, however.  It's going to cost electric consumers much, much more.  $5.51B is the estimated total of project assets at completion.  Electric consumers will pay these costs back to the power companies little by little over the projects' estimated 50 - 70 year lifespan.  In addition to the annual, incremental pay off of the principal, electric consumers will also pay annual interest on the remaining balance at rates varying from 11.68 to 12.93 percent.  Return is calculated and paid annually.  Electric consumers are also responsible for yearly expenses such as income and other taxes, and operations and maintenance costs.

Let's take a look at how much the power companies have already spent on project assets:

1. TrAIL's rate base (assets) is $921,926,774.67.  It currently earns them a return (interest) of $76,492,872 per year.  TrAIL's annual revenue requirement (the amount you will pay per year) is $129,108,109, which includes the return.  These figures do not include the cost of Dominion's segment of the TrAIL Project, so consider it a very conservative estimate.

2.  PATH's combined current rate base is $139,771,892 and earns an annual return of $13,347,885.  PATH's annual revenue requirement is $23,211,101, including return.

3.  Susquehanna-Roseland's combined current rate base is $131,284,693 and earns a yearly return in the neighborhood of $17.5M.  Revenue requirement is harder to calculate on this one because project totals are split between two different formula rates that also include other projects.

4.  MAPP's current rate base is $74.2M, with a return in the neighborhood of $7.3M.  Again, these are ballpark figures taken from a formula rate that also includes other projects.  The small segments awarded to other partners amounting to around $70M aren't worth looking up, so consider these cost estimates as conservative.

Here are the eye-opening, conservative totals:

Project Mountaineer has already put you in debt to the tune of $1,267,183,359 - that's $1.26 Billion that is earning the project owners a yearly profit of $114.6M.  In return for the substantial price paid by electric consumers in 13 states and the District of Columbia for Project Mountaineer, only one out of four projects is actually completed and delivering electricity, in order to save East Coast ratepayers some fanciful amount of "congestion" costs.

In addition, these four projects have affected, and continue to affect, thousands of directly impacted citizens in Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey in other ways.

The TrAIL Project required new rights-of-way, which thousands of landowners were forced to sacrifice at "fair market value."  In addition, it devalued thousands of properties in its proximity, for which damages were never paid.  Allegheny Energy contractors destroyed the environment while building the project.  A complaint about the environmental damage is still pending before the West Virginia PSC.

The Susquehanna-Roseland project has been "filibustered" by the federal Environmental Impact Statement and its owners are now offering a $40M "mitigation" concession to the National Park Service in exchange for a permit.  The cost of any concessions will be added into the ultimate cost of the project that ratepayers must repay to the companies.

MAPP continues to contract for long-term supplies, such as the underwater cable needed to cross the Chesapeake Bay, that may never be needed!

In addition, Project Mountaineer has cost thousands of landowners and project opponents hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs to intervene in state permit cases in order to protect their interests.  National non-profit organizations, such as The Sierra Club and EarthJustice and Virginia's Piedmont Environmental Council, have also spent heavily on legal costs to participate in permit cases in 6 different states.  And then there's the day-to-day costs of grassroots citizens' opposition groups that have formed to oppose the four Project Mountaineer transmission lines.  Although the cost of grassroots public relations campaigns are an incredible bargain when compared to the ratepayer funded PR campaigns of project owners, they still rely on donations from affected and sympathetic citizens.

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the indeterminable societal costs imposed on millions of people who are affected by the increased pollution and destruction of their environment caused by increased mining and burning of coal.

Project Mountaineer is an embarrassing faux pas on the part of both PJM and FERC that should now be retired to the annals of history, along with other politically gauche misconceptions spawned by corporate greed.  The sheer cost of it alone, at a time when electric consumers can least afford it, is not sufficiently offset by any illusory "benefits."  It's time to cancel the remaining three Project Mountaineer transmission lines and move forward with new, smart energy policy.

Pam Kasey did a great article about the PATH Formal Challenge in today's State Journal.  Easily one of the brightest and most knowledgeable reporters I have been interviewed by regarding the Challenge, Pam also asked the most pointed questions.  She spent a little time reading some of the background documents and investigating before calling.  She's a shining example of true investigative journalism.

I love the way she ended with my favorite quote from PATH's Answer.  Yeah, Randy, we'll see just who "fails to grasp the distinction between efforts to influence decision makers during the process of obtaining approval to construct a transmission project, and broad-based activities and distribution of information intended to educate government officials, business and community leaders, and the public at large...," won't we?

The Wall Street Journal reports that FirstEnergy could profit more than $200M from the closure of 6 of its old, coal-fired plants announced last week.

As reported earlier, this is a business decision intended to make more money for FE's stockholders.  Too bad, so sad for the 500 employees who will be in the unemployment line, and also for the towns who depended on these plants as as economic engine.

You'd think that a few of those millions could be parted with to set up programs to ensure that affected employees were given opportunities for equivalent jobs elsewhere, or given the benefit of retraining for equal jobs in another area of the energy industry, such as the booming renewable energy sector.  Transition programs for the affected localities could also be instituted.  Instead, FE is absconding with all that happy cash.

One word.  Karma.

AEP subsidiaries are "selling" assets to each other in another corporate shell game.  This article says that AEP-Ohio will be selling generation it owns in WV to fellow subsidiary Appalachian Power.  Meanwhile, they fired up their new gas-fired plant located in Ohio, which will be paid for, at least in part, by Appalachian Power customers in WV.  Confused yet?  AEP hopes so!

In this article, the reporter was treated to an explanation of AEP's "power pool" (probably because she asked tougher questions).

What's in neither article is the promised merging of AEP WV sudsidiaries Appalachian Power and Wheeling Power, which was promised to the WV-PSC in AEP's last rate case.

Why all this confusion?  Because Ohio is deregulating generation and AEP is trying to keep their costly generation behemoths in a regulated environment.  In a deregulated, or market-based, market, costly upgrades and other costs of running these plants are wrapped into the cost of the generation bid into market.  In a regulated state, these "extra" costs are covered by ratepayers of subsidiaries who "own" these assets.

Bottom line:  It's all about AEP making even MORE money at your expense!

If you've been wondering about the identity of the "mystery" administrator that has already been spending money that's being added to your electric bill, wonder no more.

Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line partners PSE&G and PPL announced in their comments on the National Park Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement earlier this week that they will "mitigate" for the permanent damage their new transmission line causes to the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area and the Appalachian Trail by way of a $30 - 40M "endowment" to "a not-for-profit organization with demonstrated expertise in land and resource conservation and successful collaboration with the Department of the Interior."  They also share that they "have engaged and provided funds to a nationally respected land conservation organization to begin acquiring interests in private properties of high value to the Department of the Interior’s conservation mission in the area around DEWA, MDSR, APPA and Cherry Valley National Wildlife Refuge."

It looks like PSE&G and PPL have quite a perverted definition of the word "respected".

According to this NPS document, Internal Scoping Meeting Report. Susquehanna to Roseland Transmission Line Proposal And Right-of-Way Request. Environmental Impact Statement from October 2009, one of the "Action" (as opposed to "No Action", or denial) alternatives to be considered was an "Alternative that outlines the proposal with a framework for mitigation based on a conservation plan being developed in conjunction with The Nature Conservancy."

Despite PSE&G & PPL's attempts to be coy, it's obvious that their purported "respected land conservation organization" is the infamous corporate greenwasher, The Nature Conservancy.

Who is The Nature Conservancy, other than one of America's most prolific junk mailers?  (Thanks for all those free address labels your contributors pay for -- I like to write nasty comments about The Nature Conservancy next to their logo before use.)

The Nature Conservancy describes themselves as "sleeping with the enemy" (well, someone is certainly getting screwed here, and it's not The Nature Conservancy), or as practicing "Development by Design".  Others opine that, "Perhaps TNC should turn itself into a for-profit, environmental mitigation company. Then again, perhaps it already has." 

The Nature Conservancy receives mediocre ratings from charity watchdog groups, with 14% of annual income spent on "administrative costs".  Let's see, 14% of $40M is $5.6M of additional costs you will pay in your electric bill to fund The Nature Conservancy's fat cats like CEO Mark Tercek, who pulled in $493,993 in compensation in 2009.  You'll also be supporting the other 22 officers, directors, trustees and key employees who make up their highest compensated employees.  On this list are 3 individuals making between $400 - 500K, 6 making between $300 - 400K, 12 making between $200 - 300K and 2 bringing home between $100 - 200K. See The Nature Conservancy's 2009 IRS Form 990 here.

But that's chump change in comparison to the real swindle going on here.  What The Nature Conservancy does is buy up private land "for conservation" at a reasonable price, then resell it at a much higher price to the federal, state or local government for use as a park, nature preserve, recreation area, etc.  That's where they make their real money.  So, if we look at the Susquehanna-Roseland bribe through this lens, it is also the taxpaying citizens of the United States who get screwed in this deal because The Nature Conservancy is playing the part of the well-heeled front man, or real estate broker, for the power companies and the National Park Service, who will eventually buy this land from The Nature Conservancy to complete the "mitigation."  How much will the federal government eventually spend as the ultimate purchaser of the $40M of "mitigation" land from The Nature Conservancy, in order to complete the deal to expand the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area?  Or will this land, paid for in your electric bill, be "donated" to the NPS by The Nature Conservancy?  That part isn't clear, but my guess is that The Nature Conservancy doesn't do anything for free.  But, of course, PSE&G and PPL are still keeping the details of this "deal" under wraps.  If it was such a great deal for the public, they'd be so proud of it that they'd be anxious to show it off, don't you think?

As a comparison, a truly "nationally respected" conservation organization would be The Sierra Club, but then again, The Sierra Club would never accept corporate blood money.  Although some have told me my opinion is "wrong," I have yet to be persuaded to change it.  However, in an effort to provide for the free flow of different opinions, here's a link to a Time magazine blog post about the recent brouhaha regarding Sierra Club's past acceptance of millions from Chesapeake.  Further, I'm really not a fan of how this is being spun to portray the WV Coal Association as a poor, downtrodden victim. If this outs me as "not a true environmentalist," so be it.  As well, I am opposed to fracking, but this isn't a fracking blog, so let's get back on topic.  If you want to continue this off-topic conversation, you're free to email me.

The National Park Service employees are being turned into stooges and their EIS process is being utilized as cover for a big money swindle of electric consumers taking place between the politically appointed Director of the Interior, Ken Salazar, and Susquehanna-Roseland project sponsors PSE&G and PPL, with the assistance of corporate greenwasher, The Nature Conservancy.  The Nature Conservancy's part in this charade involves "administration" of PSE&G and PPL's "mitigation" purchase of inferior quality parcels of land on the fringes of the current parks as a consolation prize to the citizens of the United States, who will lose the most scenic vistas of their park to an unnecessary electric transmission line.  For 61 million of these citizens in the PJM Region, insult will be added to injury by having the cost of the $40M bribe (plus 12.93% interest) added to their electric bill for the next 50 years.  This is outrageous!

Almost 10 years ago, The Washington Post did an expose of the corruption going on at The Nature Conservancy, which triggered a Senate investigation and caused them to pretend to clean up their act for a short time.

Range magazine also did a piece about The Nature Conservancy, with the opinion, "Unless we as a people are willing to accept the continued loss of not only private property and individual rights, but of large portions of our national culture and customs as well, the Nature Conservancy must be brought to heel. Right now, it is a well-fed and generally admired beast leading us in a wild run that is as destructive in its seemingly friendly character as it is in its seldom-seen attacks. This is no errant clumsy puppy we can finally calm. It is a runaway predator that will turn on us in defense of its territory. The Nature Conservancy is the wolf we raised ourselves, the grizzly we fed from the table. The monster we made with indifference. If it is left to go on growing, it will be the master and we the obedient slaves."  And again, I'm told I'm "wrong" for including this link.  I do realize there is an agenda at work in this article, however, it does a nice job of unmasking The Nature Conservancy's scam and their continued attack on private property rights.  I am a fierce defender of private property rights, but if you believe in the taking of private property to serve some other party's idea of a higher purpose, you're certainly entitled to that opinion.  Just don't try taking my property on that basis, because you'll have a fight on your hands.

The excellent Range piece talks about The Nature Conservancy's board and trustees, comprised of corporate bigwigs, like Anne E. Hoskins, PSE&G's federal and state governmental affairs director (i.e., political schmoozer).

The Nature Conservancy is like a toilet:  Every now and then it needs to be thoroughly scrubbed and flushed.

Grab your brush!

Despite their recent public posturing, Susquehanna-Roseland project owner PPL has absolutely no respect for the National Park Service or the federal Environmental Impact Statement process.  A December 2011 school project prepared by a Lehigh University student who spent some time at PPL with program director Patrick McMackin contains this quote:  "The park service has responded by filibustering the request by apportioning a 42-month period where they will accept and analyze public comments. Afterwards, public sentiment will factor into the creation of a preferred alternate route and a finalized EIS."

Filibustering?  Is that what PPL calls the NEPA process?  Just an unnecessary obstruction to their get rich quick scheme?  It seems to me that many hardworking, dedicated, ethical NPS personnel have put many, many hours into doing their jobs conscientiously.  Filibustering?

I'm sure PPL will be quick to point fingers at the student and accuse him of taking liberties or making this stuff up, but the truest way to see your own self is always through the eyes of an innocent.  This report is the impression PPL project managers left on this kid.  I guess they mixed a little too much reality into the koolaid they gave him to drink.

Here's a couple of other gems from the report:

1. "The subject was covered in the North American Electric Reliability report, which concluded a major investment in electric transmission would be essential to “keep pace” with the expected 18% growth in demand."  How old were the statistics they fed this kid anyhow?
2. "Because the situation will become increasingly
   volatile the longer the delays hold, PPL has stressed the perfection of its Preparedness, Prevention and Contingency (PPC) plan.  Although PPL is responsible for all aspects of permitting, the company cannot ensure total compliance once the instructions reach the contractor.  However, the existence of a well-defined plan covers any responsibility PPL shares in case of litigation."  What does that mean?  The company cannot ensure total compliance?  It means that any violations will be blamed on the contractor and responsible individuals at the contractor level will be "reprimanded," but PPL avoids legal responsibility.  This is exactly how these power companies operate.  We've seen this same behavior with their land agent contractors, who violate all laws and codes of conduct in the interest of getting the job done and the purchase and option agreements signed.  When a violation is reported, the power company pretends to slap the contractor on the wrist, *wink* and avoids all responsibility for the bad behavior, although this same bad behavior has been ordered by the power company.  They put a legal separation between themselves and the contractor in order to avoid responsibility for their own orders to take certain actions.  For its part in this charade, the contractor is paid well.  Is this the kind of for-profit corporation the NPS should allow to perform construction in one of our national parks? 
   
3. "Having a well-organized permitting portfolio that is readily accessible lubricates the project and keeps compliance agencies at bay."  So, it's all about showing those rabid compliance agencies that you have all the instructions (not that you necessarily follow them).  It's not about following the rules, but about not getting caught and held responsible for breaking them.
4. "The biggest concern the SRTP faces (outside of obtaining the overhead construction contract) is people. NIMBY protesters, environmentalists and politicians alike have rallied against the project.  Some have accused PPL and PSEG of being motivated to expand infrastructure and increase transfer capacity in order to increase their market values.  Organizations such as the Sierra Club and Stop the Lines! warn of the health hazards associated with high EMF levels and remind the public of the grotesque size of the towers. The electric commission determines the minimum cable height based on voltage and possible interference. In some instances, the existing line is over 90 years old and does not meet present codes. The public is often unaware of these mandates, and naturally condemns any attempt to increase the tower height. Ironically, all of the pictures comparing
   the size of the proposed monopoles to existing lattice structures do not come from cited sources, and are generally homemade.  The common theme throughout these opinions and complaints is their failure to acknowledge the work PPL has put in to see that the chosen route has a minimal impact on the environment and the community. Route B was chosen because 90% of the route was covered by existing easements. The snowstorm of October 2011 devastated the northeast, leading to 1.6 million power outages.  It took some utility companies over a week to return power to customers. If these blackouts were to become commonplace due to electrical overloading, I would expect the opinions of many of these protesters to reverse."  Those "homemade pictures comparing the size of the proposed towers to the existing" is illustrated by a piece of Sierra Club literature that looks like it was taken from a project Line Routing Evaluation.  Sierra Club didn't make this stuff up!  Kid, spit out that koolaid they gave you to drink, it's poison!
5. "The industry knew this project was coming for fifteen years. Now one organization (NPS) holds the SRTP back from success. If PPL’s project  management team succeeds in obtaining a
   construction and ROW permit, construction will begin in August 2012. Too much time and money has been consumed to acknowledge any other option."  Fifteen years?  Gee... we've only been able to trace it back to the 2005 Project Mountaineer scam.  The NPS is not "an organization," it's a federal governmental agency tasked with stewarding publicly owned resources and protecting parks from profiteering pirates like PPL.  They aren't "holding PPL back from success," they are doing their jobs under federal law!  And don't bet on that "too big to fail" thing, that's so last decade.

These are the things that PPL told a college student who spent some time with them.  The student didn't make all this stuff up, or "misunderstand" what he was told.  This is the TRUE face of PPL.  Pretty revolting, don't you think?

And... PPL had better NOT take this out on the student or it's going to get worse for them.  Students are like sponges, and this report is what this particular student absorbed at PPL.  The truth hurts!