In a previous post, we told you about FERC's new plan to take over NIETC designation in an attempt at trumping state authority to site new transmission projects.  This isn't a new plan, but simply another attempt at a plan that has been kicking around for more than two years.  In fact, the plan seems to have been born right around the time former FERC Commissioner Joseph Kelliher left the Commission and went to work as a lobbyist for NextEra Energy, Inc.  When current FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff was appointed, he was handed Kelliher's torch to federalize transmission siting and neutralize state authority. 

In the wake of the U.S. 4th Circuit decision in Piedmont Environmental Council v FERC that found FERC could not exercise its "backstop authority" and take over siting of a transmission line in the event a state issued a denial, FERC and the industry went back to Congress to "put in place" new legislation that created interregional planning and cost allocation to promote utility scale renewables and also made PEC v FERC moot by specifically granting FERC backstop authority in the event of a state's denial of a transmission line.   As discussed in an Energy Law Journal article from 2009, page 454, The 2009 Waxman-Markey bill H.R. 2454, Reid's S. 539, and Bingaman's S. 2454 were supposed to take care of FERC's and the industry's "little problem". 

Chairman Wellinghoff even testified before Congress during this time, begging for federal control of transmission siting in order to transport utility scale renewables great distances to load centers.  He also mentioned the need for interregional planning and cost allocation in order to achieve this huge, expensive grid build out.

"In summary, to achieve the Nation’s renewable energy goals, Congress and Federal and state regulators, including the Commission, must address in a timely manner the issues of transmission planning, transmission siting and transmission cost allocation. Congressional action to address all three of these related areas, particularly additional siting authority to build EHV transmission lines to accommodate high quality, location-constrained renewable energy, would provide greater ability to achieve these important goals. For example, both the bill that you, Mr. Chairman, have circulated and the bill introduced by Senator Reid last week address all three of these areas. I would be happy to work with the Congress as you consider legislation to provide a regulatory framework for tackling the challenging energy issues that we face, and to provide Commission staff technical assistance respecting any legislation the Committee may consider."

However, none of these pieces of legislation succeeded.  FERC and the industry had to find another way to federalize transmission siting in order to build their desired "national grid."

When their initiatives in Congress failed, FERC and the industry began to explore achieving their goals through manipulation of existing laws in order to bestow FERC with the authority it was not granted by Congress. 

Last fall, the Congressional Research Service was tasked with creating a report that "looks at the history of transmission siting and the reason behind the movement toward an increased federal role in siting decisions, explains the new federal role in transmission siting
pursuant to EPAct, and discusses legal issues related to this and any potential future expansions of the federal role."

According to this report, "The location and permitting of electricity transmission lines and facilities have traditionally been the exclusive province of the states, with only limited exceptions. However, the increasing complexity of the interstate transmission grid, as well as widespread power outages in recent history, has resulted in calls for an increased role for the federal government in transmission siting in an attempt to enhance reliability."

Get familiar with this theme, because it's prevalent throughout all the documents I've linked in this post.  Those "widespread power outages" apparently refers to the 2003 blackout in parts of the Northeast.  What's missing from this equation is the fact that the wide geographical reach of the blackout was caused by the increasing complexity and interconnected nature of our ever-expanding grid.  The blackout was caused by human error and lack of transmission line right-of-way maintenance as determined by a joint U.S.-Canadian task force.  It was not caused by lack of transmission infrastructure, therefore, building new transmission lines won't prevent another blackout.  A future blackout will only be exacerbated by addition of new transmission lines.

In addition, where are those "calls for an increased role for the federal government in transmission siting" coming from?  They're obviously not coming from the states or the citizen stakeholders, so they must be coming from the industry or the federal government itself. 

"The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct; P.L. 109-58) established a role for the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in making transmission siting decisions. The act directed DOE to create “transmission corridors” in locations that would help to ease strain on the interstate electricity transmission grid. The act also granted FERC secondary authority over transmission siting in the corridors. This new federal role in a decisionmaking process that had previously been the province of state governments was predictably met with resistance from those seeking to protect local and regional interests. However, the process of creating “transmission corridors” and increasing the federal role in transmission siting has moved forward. Indeed, there have been calls for further expansion of the federal role in transmission siting by some policymakers and commentators. This report looks at the history of transmission siting and the reason  behind the movement toward an increased federal role in siting decisions, explains the new federal role in transmission siting pursuant to EPAct, and discusses legal issues related to this and any potential future expansions of the federal role."

Policymakers?  What is that word supposed to mean?  Who are these people?  Please read the entire report yourself.  I guarantee it will be a real eye opener.

"One of the most prominent commentators on transmission siting policy has been former FERC Chair Joseph Kelliher. Kelliher served as a FERC commissioner for five years and as FERC chair for three years. In a letter written to Senator Bingaman dated January of 2009, Kelliher, in the midst of his departure as FERC chair, wrote that Congress should grant FERC “exclusive and preemptive federal siting for transmission facilities used in interstate commerce.” Kelliher stressed the importance of expanding transmission facilities in order to address reliability concerns, encourage competitive wholesale markets, and respond to climate change concerns (by allowing “green” energy sources increased access to the grid). Kelliher was critical of the existing framework for electric transmission facility siting, including the EPAct transmission corridor scheme, saying that it “promises years of litigation, while diffusing responsibility for siting electric transmission facilities.”

And Kelliher scored a cushy, new job with a Midwest wind producer, NextEra Energy, who needed new transmission lines to move their product around the country, and are the ones who originally proposed this power grab to preempt state authority to FERC.  What a coincidence!

The CRS report concludes that the legal problem presented by state authority to site transmission lines can be solved through use of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, giving Wellinghoff the green light for this new coup designed to put federal transmission siting in place.

"Legal precedent suggests that federal involvement with transmission siting would likely pass constitutional muster, assuming a connection to interstate commerce is shown." 

As both StopPATH WV and The Power Line told you in the spring, there is a huge race going on between midwest wind and offshore wind to corner the immensely profitable renewables market in the huge, coastal load centers.  However, energy corporations looking to profit from midwest wind need a $220B "national grid" to win the race.  Offshore wind is lagging behind, but it doesn't require a bunch of new land-based transmission due to its proximity to coastal load centers.  The concept of transporting midwest renewables thousands of miles to load centers doesn't make sense, physically or economically, when a different, more promising, renewable potential is located near load and is expected to be available in the very near future.  It looks like FERC has chosen to side with land-based wind by attempting to enable their necessary "national grid" that is going to be unjustly expensive to consumers and necessitate hundreds of thousands of citizens to sacrifice their properties for new transmission line rights-of-way.

The Energy Law Journal article comes to a conclusion that NIETC corridors and FERC backstop authority have not been effective in encouraging new transmission, and it has nothing to do with P.E.C v FERC.  In fact, new transmission was on the rise, even before the EPAct 2005.  The article concludes that the real driver has been FERC's transmission incentives.  In fact, they quote AEP as saying, "the Commission‘s incentive policies are the single biggest contributor to rapidly growing investor interest in new interstate transmission investment."  FERC currently has an open NOI on their transmission incentives policy.  Don't miss your opportunity to comment on the single biggest factor driving expensive and unnecessary transmission projects -- deadline is September 12.

Former FERC Commissioner Suedeen Kelly's dissent of Order No. 689 (2006) summed up the problem with federal transmission line siting quite well:

"The authority to lawfully deny a permit is critically important to the States for ensuring that the interests of local communities and their citizens are protected. What the Commission does today is a significant inroad into traditional state transmission siting authority. It gives states two options: either issue a permit, or we’ll do it for them. Obviously this is no choice. This is preemption."

Chairman's Wellinghoff's "three issues" mentioned in his 2009 testimony before Congress (planning, cost allocation and siting) are now being accomplished by doing an end run around Congress.  FERC Order No. 1000 took care of the planning and cost allocation.  It's not surprising that a review of the more than 60 requests for rehearing filed on the Order contain accusation after accusation that FERC has overstepped its statutory authority.  Now the last piece is being achieved by FERC's recent plan to assume DOE's authority to create NIETCs and wield the sledgehammer of interstate commerce to prevent any further meddling by states, environmental groups or citizens.  FERC's recent self-annointed "authority" will most likely be tied up in the courts for many years, which will allow offshore wind to catch up and ultimately allow sanity to prevail.

As long as energy corporate "persons" are permitted to continue unfettered lobbying of both Congress and FERC to advance their financial interests, we'll continue to see higher energy costs, a more vulnerable electric grid, eminent domain land grabs, increased federal preemption, a slow economic recovery in coastal states that are prevented from developing their own local renewables, and subversion of your individual rights.

The Power Line has the scoop on FERC's new plan to utilize DOE's failed NIETC designation power to usurp the authority of state Public Service Commissions to site new transmission lines.  This means that the power companies will be back to playing the FERC backstop authority joker card in state approval processes in an attempt to force state authorities to approve applications for new transmission projects.

Here's a link to FERC's plan.

The NIETCs (National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors) were a product of the industry-designed 2005 EPAct that was supposed to ease opposition to new transmission projects.  The DOE was tasked with developing "congestion" corridors that were creating a supposed transmission emergency necessitating new projects to ensure reliability and alleviate "congestion."  Under the original plan, a project sited in one of these corridors could not be denied by a state, or authority to site the line and grant the power of eminent domain to the power company would be given to FERC, removing the project from state authority and control.  In the PATH case, the power companies continually played this joker card on the state commissions as a way to make the states go along with numerous PATH-requested delays, lest they lose any control of siting.

However, the language of the EPAct only gave FERC backstop authority in the event that a state failed to make a decision within one year of application.  It did not give FERC backstop authority in the event that a transmission application was denied within one year.  This is a fine example of the industry trying to pervert existing law to suit their purposes.  The Piedmont Environmental Council took them on at the U.S. 4th Circuit in 2009, and won.

In February of this year, the U.S. 9th Circuit vacated the NIETCs that DOE had created and remanded the case back to DOE for another "congestion" study.  This effectively made FERC's backstop authority useless as a tool for PATH, which was sited in one of the vacated corridors.

Now FERC wants to take over designation of NIETCs and thinks they can do it better than DOE did.  They're trying to frame it as a "national security" issue -- just one step above the power company propaganda machine that's been screeching about "brownouts and blackouts" in an attempt to scare the American people into allowing new transmission projects that do nothing but increase corporate shareholder profits.  FERC's mission is to regulate utilities to benefit the interests of consumers.  FERC's getting a little far afield in their conspiracy with the energy corporations to build a "national grid" that the consumers don't want or need and cannot afford.

This is an industry attempt, aided by FERC, to subvert your state's authority to protect your interests.  If you think driving 6 hours to Charleston to defend yourself against eminent domain and the inherent health risks of living in close proximity to transmission lines is burdensome, along with spending your life savings on a lawyer and experts to protect your interests, imagine how much stress and money it's going to cost you to defend yourself at FERC when your state PSC is bound and gagged over in the corner and can't do anything to help you.

FERC is also trying to get control of the NIETCs while state authorities are still spinning and filing requests for rehearing of their recent Order No. 1000 and aren't paying attention to the other shoe that has dropped.  NARUC (National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners) recently filed their request for rehearing, stating:

The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, which had cautioned FERC about preserving states' rights in the proposed rule, argues in its request for rehearing that the order "oversteps FERC's jurisdiction, fails to recognize the states' decision-making authority, and may have the unintended consequence of actually stalling transmission planning and cost allocation."

If they're complaining about Order No. 1000 usurping states' rights... they need to refocus their attention on this issue!

It's all part of the industry's grand scheme to federalize transmission siting and run roughshod over those "NIMBYS", environmental organizations, and state authorities who have been effectively preventing costly, unneeded transmission projects from being built.  If you're a regular blog reader here, you've heard all this before.

Now they've got a plan from FERC to take over transmission siting, not by changing the law, but by manipulating the existing law.  And now it's all about midwest wind so that the environmental organizations that fought the manipulation of law in the past will be mollified into not challenging them this time.  If manipulation of law was wrong last time, it's still wrong this time, no matter the color of the electricity flowing through unneeded transmission lines. 

By eliminating one enemy, the industry is left with only opposition by states and citizens, so polish up your army boots and prepare for battle. 

UPDATE:  Click here to read more about this issue!

Victory today for the opponents of the MAPP project!  A news release says that PJM has determined that the project will not be needed until sometime in the 2019 - 2021 time frame.  Well, isn't that quite scientific?

"The letter states that PJM's action "does not constitute a directive by PJM to cancel or abandon the MAPP project," and also directs PHI to proceed with those development efforts "reasonably necessary to allow the MAPP project to be quickly re-started..."

Sound familiar, PATH opponents?  Yes, it's the same mushy-mouthed crap PJM said when they "suspended" the PATH project.

MAPP has asked for delays from the MD-PSC and the VA-SCC.

What this means is that the MAPP project is also a dead fish, however Pepco wants to continue to hold their FERC incentives and continue to collect a 12.8% return year after year on their investment in the project from all PJM ratepayers. 

"The notification also states that PJM will be using a new stakeholder process to evaluate its transmission planning methods, which could lead to changes in PJM's assessment of MAPP's in-service date. PJM does not expect the new evaluation to be completed until sometime in 2012."

This is the new planning "stakeholder process" that was supposed to re-evaluate the PATH project before the end of this year.  Looks like they're not planning to have it completed until sometime next year now.

Here's a link to PJM's letter holding MAPP in abeyance.  Looks like PJM learned a thing or two from our reaction to the PATH "abeyance."  They have not removed MAPP from the RTEP, but given it a new in-service date of "2019 - 2021."  Since when does an RTEP have such unclear in-service dates?  Oh, that's right, it's just PJM protecting another one of its pet projects...

Another Project Mountaineer failure that will linger on and cost the consumers money and provide absolutely no benefits.  MAPP opponents should join is in insisting that FERC take action on these "suspended" white elephants and derail their gravy train in the pursuit of just and reasonable electric rates.

Tom Johnson, NJ Spotlight's Energy & Environment reporter, quotes analyst Paul Patterson of Glen Rock Associates in this recent article. 

He also captures a great quote from PSEG's recent earnings call.

"Our assessment is that it's difficult in the current market to find projects that meet our threshold for adequate returns," Caroline Dorsa, the company’s chief financial officer told analysts on a conference call. "Some of the returns that we see some of these solar projects clearing are not the kind of returns that we think make senses for shareholders on a risk-adjusted basis."

The utility business is no longer about providing a needed service at just and reasonable rates to benefit consumers.  The main objective has become to provide "adequate returns" to company shareholders.

That's what is behind FERC Order No. 1000, the push for federal control of project siting and current transmission incentives.  FERC is tasked with ensuring that electric rates are just and reasonable, however they have been utterly captured by the industry they are supposed to regulate.

This costs you money every month when you pay your electric bill.  It also expects a sacrifice on the part of those unfortunate individuals who become ground zero for new transmission projects.  And it's being done simply to increase corporate shareholder returns.

Tell FERC what you think.

We've touched on this over at the Coalition for Reliable Power, but here's another, more recent article that spells out precisely why the need for PATH in its current form has completely evaporated.

Due to dropping demand and increasing demand response, the economic congestion that PATH pointed to as one of the needs for their transmission line has completely evaporated.  Prices in "eastern PJM" (the east coast load pockets) have levelized with prices in "western PJM" (home of all those coal-fired generating plants in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio).

This means that, in 2014/15, the price of electricity won't be appreciably higher in the eastern parts of the region than in the western parts of the region.  When prices are levelized like this, there is no need to transport "cheap" electricity from western PJM to eastern PJM.  That transfer was "needed" in order to alleviate the transmission congestion "bottle neck," and that was the problem PATH was supposed to solve.  Now that congestion bottle neck no longer exists.  If there's no need to transport power across the region, there's simply no need for PATH.

Remember that crazy congestion costs motion filed by the MD-PSC staff attorney in February that caused the Maryland Chamber of Commerce to file a late petition to intervene right before PATH went belly up and floated downstream?  That specious argument is now completely nullified.

This information isn't new.  The auction mentioned in the article happened three months ago.  There is a new angle presented in the article, however, whereby the new EPA rules and the TrAIL transmission project coming online are also credited for the evaporation of "congestion."  The TrAIL line helped, but the argument was made during the its approval process that demand response and energy efficiency would be able to solve the "congestion" problem without building a new transmission line.  It looks like The Sierra Club and other TrAIL opponents have been proven correct, although saying "I told you so" is a hollow victory in the face of the environmental destruction Allegheny Energy wrought while constructing the line, the burden to landowners that resulted, and the billions of dollars the unneeded TrAIL line is going to cost all PJM ratepayers over the next 70 years, plus.

The EPA rules have had the effect of adding some of the true cost of coal onto electricity prices in western PJM.  Seven gigawatts of coal-fired generation was priced out of the market at the auction.  The article points out that this is a good thing for all of us who like to breathe clean air.  It's a win-win, according to EnergyPulse!

So why is PATH continuing to waste our money appealing the decision of the Frederick County, Maryland, Board of Zoning Appeals against a special exception to construct the Mt. Airy substation?  PATH is trying to preserve the three long-term processes they will need to make a comeback, one of which is the court fight over siting of the substation.

PATH is not coming back in the form we knew it on February 28, 2011.  Whether they will try to "greenwash" it as a project with different goals depends on how stupid they think the state regulatory commissions and the opposition are, and remains to be seen.  We're all still here and we're still on to you, PATH.  It's time to abandon your silly, little project and put your efforts toward doing something constructive for society.  Quit wasting both your own, and our, time and money.  PATH is history.

This article from Ohio caught my eye this morning and reminded me that, not only is the Ohio Consumers Council dissatisfied with FirstEnergy's Energy Efficiency program in that state, but FirstEnergy is proposing an even more useless farce in West Virginia.

What the FirstEnergy talking head doesn't tell the consumer is that they're paying for this program.  Sure, you can buy a CFL light bulb for 50 cents, or get a small rebate on a new appliance, but all FirstEnergy's costs for the program are recovered from ratepayers, including their marketing costs for the program.

As part of their merger settlement in West Virginia, FirstEnergy was required to offer energy efficiency and demand response programs in the state.  Because consumers like you saving electricity cuts into their profit margin, FirstEnergy has proposed an ineffectual, weak energy efficiency program that's going to cost more than its potential savings.  And because out-of-state energy companies view the WV PSC as their champion against the citizens of this state, FirstEnergy expects their proposal to sail through PSC approvals.  Read about the program at Energy Efficient West Virginia's website. 

You will be paying for this program in your "Potomac Edison" bill, but unless you're a commercial/industrial customer who wants to change out the lighting in your business, or a low-income customer who needs a few free lightbulbs or a faucet aerator, you will get absolutely nothing in return for the monthly fee you will be charged for this program.  Why isn't this meager program offered to everyone?  Is FirstEnergy afraid that your electric bill might go down, along with their revenue?

FirstEnergy customers need to take action with the WV PSC to make FirstEnergy's Energy Efficiency program better.  PATH opponents know all about getting involved at the PSC, and we need to share our knowledge with all our neighbors.  We're not going to be asking anyone to intervene this time, merely to participate in public comment.  You PATH opponents know how easy that is (compared to all we've been through over the past 3 years!)

Energy Efficient West Virginia and the Coalition for Reliable Power will be co-hosting a series of public meetings designed to solicit input from FirstEnergy customers around the state beginning this month.  The first meeting will be held at the Martinsburg-Berkeley County Public Library on Tuesday, August 23, beginning at 6:45 p.m.  Come join us and save some money on your "Potomac Edison" bill!  More information can be obtained from The Coalition for Reliable Power or Energy Efficient West Virginia.

Read more about the upcoming meetings, including our meeting agenda, format and attendees, by checking the blog at Coalition for Reliable Power regularly.  If you are tired of constantly rising electric bills, come and find out how and why rates go up and the simple steps you can take to make your electric provider work for you to save money for your business and reduce your residential costs for power.

The investor owned utilities, with American Electric Power leading the pack, think that you have the I.Q. of a kindergarten student.  As if NEMA's "Chutes and Ladders"-themed push for federal transmission line siting and permitting authority isn't bad enough, now the Center for Rural Affairs follows on with its "Connect the Dots" Report.

FERC's recent Order No. 1000 set interregional planning and cost allocation in motion.  The effect of Order No. 1000 will be to enable a vast, new, interstate transmission build-out and spread the estimated costs of over $200 billion to as many electric customers as possible in order to dampen its effect and draw little attention or public opposition.  This push for a "national grid" isn't anything new.  Utilities such as AEP have been lobbying for a coast-to-coast transmission backbone that utilizes their 765-kV technology for many years.  This national grid plan was modeled after Eisenhower's interstate highway plan of the 1950 and 60s.  Just five years ago, the national grid was going to transport "cheap" coal-fired electricity to population centers on the coast with projects like their I-765 plan.  Now that coal is politically gauche, the utilities have shifted the focus of the national grid to take advantage of public sentiment supporting renewables by utilizing Midwest wind as a much more palatable driver of the need for their hugely profitable endeavor.  Don't be fooled, nothing has changed except the color of the sheep costume AEP is wearing.

Transmission lines don't categorize the electrons flowing through them by source.  All that "renewable" wind power being transported to the coasts via this new transmission backbone will be liberally mixed with good, old fashioned, coal-fired generation by the time it reaches coastal states and ostensibly fulfills their public policy RPS goals.  Land-based wind is intermittent and must be supplemented with fossil fuel generation to maintain an evenly sustained supply to the grid.  It will also travel more than a thousand miles through a transmission network being constantly fed with AEP and other investor owned utilities' Ohio Valley coal-burning power generating stations.  The "national grid" won't make your electric supply any "greener."  The only thing getting "greener" here is the pile of money the investor owned utilities are going to rake in if they succeed.

However, interregional planning and cost allocation won't accomplish the investor owned utilities' goal all by itself.  In order to get the national grid built, the utilities are going to need federally-controlled siting and permitting.  This second initiative is well under way and expensive propaganda advocating for federal control that is being championed by various organizations is permeating the media and sucking away your ability to think for yourself.  The industry's extensive use of the third-party propaganda technique relies on the seven common propaganda techniques:  Name-calling; Glittering generalities; Transfer; Testimonial; Plain folks; Card stacking and Bandwagon.

Federal control of transmission siting and permitting will subvert your right to due process, help itself to your property through eminent domain and make a mockery out of environmental reviews, just for starters.  Don't play the utilities' kindergarten games and believe that federal control of transmission siting & permitting will do anything other than grease the skids for a quick and regulation-free permitting system that will fill our landscape with unneeded, monstrous transmission towers & wires that we'll all be paying for in our electric bills for the next 70 years, or more.  It will also guarantee the investor owned utilities access to a reliable supply of too-good-to-be-true profit for the next 70 years through the use of FERC-granted transmission incentives and federal cost and rate control systems that are free of oversight.

It can best be summed up by this one sentence buried deep in the Center for Rural Affairs' report on page 21.

"To this end, FERC has issued a proposed rule that would remove much of an individual state’s siting power, instead requiring transmission planning to be handled regionally."

Since they deign to insult our intelligence by using a kindergarten classroom leitmotif in their propaganda, it's only fitting that we continue the pattern in our warning to you.   This is the real game we will be playing and losing if all the pieces of the investor owned utilities' plan come together with a streamlined federal regulatory process.  You may not even notice that you're stuck tight in Molasses Swamp while the utilities are feasting at King Kandy's Castle until it's too late.

It was a dark and stormy night...

Isn't that how all the best scary stories start?  Well, get your security blanket and your flashlight, little ratepayers, and settle in for a tale of terror!

Back in the early 2000s, Dick Cheney gathered his "secret energy task force" to set the stage for a hugely profitable transmission grid build out intended to bring coal-by-wire to every household in the U.S.  The Energy Policy Act of 2005 brought the regulatory plan to fruition.  Since then, the energy companies' scheme has been slowly dismantled piece-by-piece.  The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals watered down FERC's "backstop" authority to overrule state decisions and take over siting and permitting of transmission lines (Thanks, Piedmont Environmental Council!).  The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded regional cost allocation back to FERC (and FERC answered with its recent Order No. 1000).  The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated DOE's National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (Thanks, Sierra Club!).  The effect of this has left plans for a "national grid" stymied.

Not to be discouraged, the energy companies began setting another plan in motion.  The first part of their plan is now complete with issuance of FERC's Order No. 1000, which has brought us interregional transmission planning and cost allocation.  Bill has an excellent analysis of the lone article I've seen that actually gets to the truth behind Order No. 1000.  Dressed in a costume of "you won't pay if you don't benefit," Order No. 1000 now makes it easier for industry cartel Regional Transmission Organizations to find excuses for massive new transmission lines and a way to make you pay for the "national grid's" $220B cost.

So, what else do the energy companies need to pull off their plan?  They need to cut individual states and citizens out of the permitting process because all that burdensome citizens' rights stuff is getting in their way.  The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) lays out the second part of the industry's sinister plan very colorfully for you in Siting Transmission Corridors— A Real Life Game of Chutes and Ladders.  (I wonder if they got permission from Hasbro to use their trademarked name for that cutsie poo presentation?) 

It's all about establishing a streamlined federal transmission project permitting process that will make constructing new transmission lines a snap.  Maybe they can even install a drive-thru at 888 First Street N.E., Washington, D.C., for even faster service for greedy corporations!  NEMA's plan:  "Federal authority over transmission planning, siting, and cost allocation will significantly increase the likelihood that needed facilities will be constructed in a timely manner".  It will also increase the likelihood that transmission lines will be constructed anywhere and everywhere with no rules, oversight or forethought, except that of increased corporate profits (and that's where your wallet comes in!)

NEMA also wants to put FERC in charge of environmental reviews!  That sounds like a great plan, as long as they'll agree to let my auto mechanic perform their next open heart surgery.  Don't worry, NEMA, he's really good with mechanical things like engines and hearts...

Keep in mind what Bill said about the industry and FERC trying to "greenwash" another great transmission build-out renaissance.  It's all a bunch of propaganda and corporate public relations spin.  This is all about corporations making a HUGE profit constructing something that the American public doesn't need or want, AEP's "national grid."

So, what's in it for NEMA?   "Founded in 1926 and headquartered near Washington, D.C., its approximately 450 member companies manufacture products used in the generation, transmission and distribution, control, and end-use of electricity."  $$$

The industry wants to toss costly and time-consuming due process, state sovereignty, need determination and environmental reviews out the window because it's screwing up their plans to make a whole bunch of money. 

But NEMA isn't the only organization penciling "federally controlled transmission siting & permitting" in on their wish list for Santa Claus this year, though.  We've seen something very similar from the Chamber of Commerce recently.  And there are more, lots more!  It's sneaky and pervasive, and it's everywhere!  How many instances of expensive corporate spin pushing for federal jurisdiction over transmission permitting can you find?  Post them in the comments.

Keep your eye on this one and join us for a round or two of the opposition's favorite game, Whac-A-Mole, where we begin dismantling their new regulations again as fast as they create them.

For more about how AEP and other investor owned utilities are using propaganda to greenwash their sinister plan, here's some further reading.  And keep checking back here at StopPATH WV's blog to read the latest as AEP's scheme is uncovered and neutralized.

One of Missouri's PSC Commissioners has been beating the drum against regional cost allocation for transmission lines since last year.  It's no wonder that he's shown up in the news with a new quote... and it's a good one!

"It's like being able to remodel your house and assess your neighbors for the cost," he said.

In the above-linked AP article, Cost of high-voltage lines for wind irks utilities, there's a whole bunch of whining about regional cost allocation, with threats to withdraw from the RTO by some power companies.  It looks like most of this article, except for the last paragraph, pre-dates last week's issue of FERC Order No. 1000 because now these utilities CAN'T withdraw from SPP, even if they want to.  And the whole cost allocation thing just got even more appalling, with the new ability to spread costs over more than one region.  This means that these new transmission projects are going to get even more expensive and provide even more profits to the power companies who build them.  And you're going to pay the bill.

You can be sure that AEP is congratulating themselves on setting up the regulatory framework for their "national grid".  However, this 2010 study reveals that, "The AEP Study significantly underestimates the potential costs of a 765 kV national grid overlay."  It's going to cost you a lot more than AEP has been telling people.  How much?  "...we believe that the AEP Study’s cost estimate for a national EHV overlay of $60-$100 billion is considerably understated. Based on more recent and realistic cost figures, we estimate costs for a national 765 kV EHV overlay to be between $150 billion and $220 billion..." (and remember, this study is already more than a year old).

C'mon over to the Coalition for Reliable Power and find out how easy it is to opt out of Mikey's "National Grid."

I've been trying to plow through FERC's Order No. 1000 that was released last Thursday, but with all the other things I've got going on right now, it's not going to happen anytime soon.  Therefore, here's what I've gleaned from it in the little time I had available.  All the news reports so far have been disappointing.  None of these reporters have actually read Order No. 1000, but are depending on the CliffsNotes version provided by FERC's press release and the statements of the Commissioners.  I'd be an idiot if I was satisfied that these stories provided all the details I needed to decide if Order No. 1000 was a good thing or a bad thing (or somewhere in between).

Bill has a pretty good general overview over on TPL.  This is his initial reaction to the order, and it echos mine as well.  While it appears that this order is going to work against the PATH project, it's encouraging AEP's "national grid" fantasy.  FERC believes we need a whole bunch of new transmission lines hundreds of miles long to pump western renewables to coastal population centers and to increase long distance energy trading (Enron?  Hello?).  As you all know, spending billions to transport power hundreds of miles, when local renewables that don't require new transmission lines are available, is inefficient and uneconomic.  Off-shore wind is located within 10 miles of population centers, and I read something recently that said existing transmission networks can handle the additional power generated by off-shore projects.  Instead of the east coast's power traveling from the west, it should come from the east.  Of course, that would spell disaster for our coal-burning buddies, wouldn't it?  Heh, heh, heh!!

FERC states that their new transmission planning and cost allocation order will "...benefit consumers by enhancing the grid’s ability to support wholesale power markets and ensuring transmission services are provided at just and reasonable rates."  However, think about it while applying a little logic.  FERC is promoting billions of dollars worth of new transmission infrastructure (plus incentive payoffs to the energy companies) that needs to be paid for.  It's going to be paid for by YOU.  The first place I went in Order No. 1000 was the Commission Determination on their new cost allocation process.  Here are the six new principles of cost allocation:

1. Costs are to be allocated to those who benefit roughly commensurate with identifiable benefits received.  Some of these benefits are:  reliability & sharing reserves, production cost savings, congestion relief and meeting public policy goals.  Sounds great, doesn't it?  However here are a couple of things that bug me.  First, FERC prattles on about the "benefits of an interconnected transmission grid."  Scared yet?  Here's another:  In determining "benefits," power companies/RTOs can use "likely future scenarios."  To quote the Order, "Scenario analysis is a common feature of electric power system planning, and we believe that public utility transmission providers are in the best position to apply it in a way that achieves appropriate results in their respective transmission planning regions."  Now you're crouched in the corner doing some primal screaming, aren't you?  That's right, they can make up some fictional "scenario" whereby you might "benefit" from their project and assign you costs NOW.  That sounds fair, doesn't it?
2. No involuntary allocation of costs to non-beneficiaries.  A beneficiary is one who causes costs, or benefits from the facility (transmission line).  No, this doesn't mean you can refuse to pay your electric bill, this is all going on between the power companies, the RTOs and FERC.  Nobody cares what you think, little ratepayer stakeholder.
3. The benefit to cost ratio for selecting projects by an RTO cannot be higher than 1.25.  This means that your "benefits" must be at least .25 higher than the cost of the project that is selected.  However, this is no guarantee because this principle is merely intended to ensure that RTOs don't set too high a threshold for competing projects.  I just can't wait to see what kind of "PATH MATH" (lying with numbers) turns up in these benefit/cost ratios.
4. Costs cannot be allocated to another region without voluntary agreement. (Again, not YOUR agreement, silly!)
   
5. The method for determining benefits/beneficiaries must be transparent and provide adequate documentation that will allow stakeholders to determine how it was applied.  (Again, you're not a "stakeholder"!)
6. Different cost allocation methods may be created for different types of facilities (projects):  Reliability, Congestion or Public Policy.

A "public policy" project is driven by individual state (or federal if that ever happens) Renewable Portfolio Standards.  So, say Maryland needs additional renewables to meet their RPS.  PJM will want to build a gigantic new transmission line from the midwest to bring wind power to Maryland, because we know transmission is the PJM-preferred solution to EVERY problem.  It wouldn't matter if Maryland is planning to construct their own in-state renewables or hook up to the Atlantic wind backbone, PJM would propose a transmission line.  Said transmission line would traverse several other states on its course and "benefit" people along the way.  That way, laws being enacted in the state of Maryland by Maryland legislators will also affect citizens of other states who had no say in their creation.  Landowners in these other states will also have their property taken by eminent domain to satisfy Maryland's laws.  Kind of sticks in your craw, doesn't it?  I expect to see this one in court in the near future.

Anyhow, that's only the tip of the iceberg.  I'm sure there's lots more goodies in Order No. 1000 I haven't gotten to yet.  I hear there's some "backstop" provision in the planning section that will cause an evaluation of alternatives in the event of a stalled project.  Sounds good... probably will end up being bad, but that's fodder for another day when I find the time to finish reading Order No. 1000.  My advice... get yourself off the grid ASAP!  That's where I'm heading and I hope you join me in my monthly giggle-fest when I don't get a whopping electric bill that pays for Mikey's "national grid."  If we make our off-the-grid club big enough, there won't be anyone left to pay for the national grid and all the power companies left holding the bag will go belly-up.  You don't have to finance this ludicrous expenditure.  Your own power generating system is within your grasp.

In other news:  Today the WV PSC Consumer Advocate Division filed a scathing rebuttal to the power companies' answers to the Staff's Petition to require a report of the condition of their transmission systems in our state.  Bill has the scoop here.  I'm trying to decide what my favorite part is.  Initially, I got a kick out of how he lambasted PJM for their bias, but maybe that's only because I was right at the point in the draft of StopPATH's Transmission Incentives NOI comments where I call PJM a cartel...  That Transco thing was pretty good too...  What's your favorite?

And speaking of Transmission Incentives comments to FERC, are you working on yours?  They are due a month from today, so get busy!!  If you need help, go here.  As you can see, FERC needs a little consumer education from the consumers and it appears that this NOI is actually a spin-off from Order No. 1000.  Get writing, folks!

And finally, go check out Bill's analysis of what's going on with PJM's strawman planning process.  Thanks, Bill!  One less thing for me to do!  As he points out in his post, The Sierra Club, Piedmont Environmental Council and EarthJustice are acting on our concerns at PJM.  So, if you're a PATH opponent who is wondering what to do with your money now that the project is stalled and we're no longer funneling all our spare cash to a lawyer and experts, why not show these organizations a little love of the green variety?  Bill's got his comments turned on now -- you can post a comment (unless, like me, you suddenly find yourself speechless).

And last, but not least, come check out what's going on at the Coalition for Reliable Power.  We're planning a series of public meetings next month intended to empower "Potomac Edison" customers to improve that farce of an energy efficiency program they proposed in WV.  Hope to see you all there!

And now I'm going to go crawl back in my hole and get back to work on all these rotten projects sitting on my desk.  Thanks, PATH, you're a real PAL!