Another year, another PATH "Open Meeting" to discuss the true-up of PATH's formula rate project costs by comparing what they collected from ratepayers with what they actually spent for the year 2010.

Instead of an actual meeting, this year it was done via conference call.  Although I missed watching PATH's twitching (and I'm sure there was a lot of twitching this morning!), I didn't have to get up at 4:00 a.m., suit up and slog to the train.  And we polished off a pitcher of Mimosas during the meeting.  Much tastier than PATH's "free breakfast," and it helps make PATH's prevarication a little easier to swallow.

Here's PATH's presentation from the meeting.  They over collected another $5M from ratepayers again in 2010.  This is getting so old.  I think they're into us for something like $13M overall right now.  Robin Huyett Thomas from Jefferson Co., WV, questioned PATH along these lines during the call and was still left with a few lingering questions, which I explained to her after the call was over.  Here's how it works:  Each September, PATH submits a Proposed Transmission Revenue Requirement for the following year.  This is their estimate of how much you're going to pay for PATH the following calendar year.  The rates go into effect on January 1.  Each month, PJM bills your load serving entity (whoever you pay your electric bill to) for its monthly share of PATH's yearly estimated cost.  Your LSE pays PJM, who hands the money over to PATH, and your LSE adds your personal share to your electric bill.  When the calendar year ends, the estimate is compared to the actual amount spent, the ATRR Annual Update.  When PATH makes a bad estimate and collects too much (and conversely if they collect too little, but this never happens) the over/under collection, plus a paltry amount of interest, is rolled into the rates you will be charged for the following year.  For example, the amount you were overcharged in 2009 will be returned to you in 2011, however in 2011, you are also paying for PATH's estimated 2011 costs all year, so it's not like you're ever going to see a refund or reduction in your bill.

Jefferson County's Dan Lutz asked a question that PATH didn't answer to his satisfaction, and when PATH couldn't explain themselves, Dan got a little peeved that they tried to dismiss him.  Dan, I got so side-tracked by your little argument with Randy that I can't even remember your original question, but if you email it to me, I'll try to give you a real answer.  And I'll never tell you to shut up
;-)

I confirmed with PATH that both the WV and MD settlement agreements in the FirstEnergy/Allegheny Energy merger cases stipulated that no merger costs would be passed on to ratepayers.  I then asked them if any merger costs were reflected in the 2010 ATRR.  Milo said there were no merger costs in the ATRR.  I advised Milo that he might want to take a look at the discovery responses I have received from PATH because there are merger costs included in the 2010 ATRR that have been recovered from ratepayers.  So, happy hunting, fellas!  If you think it's bitchy of me not to tell them exactly where these charges appear, consider that it would have been even bitchier of me to keep quiet and not allow them this chance to fix their "mistake."  I could have just included them in a future Formal Challenge at FERC, if it was all about making PATH look bad.  Honestly, why do I have to do their accounting for them every year?  Don't they have a staff who's being paid to do their accounting correctly in the first place?

I also asked PATH if any costs were included in the 2010 ATRR that are the same as costs that were originally included in the 2009 ATRR "in error," and were subsequently removed from the ATRR by PATH in a Dec. 28, 2010 correction they filed at FERC.  You'd think that PATH wouldn't fall for this one again, right?  Well, you'd be wrong... they stepped right into it again and confirmed that none of the 2009 "errors" were made again in 2010.  So, once again I asked that they look at the discovery responses they had sent me because the same "errors" have shown up again in 2010.  Once is an "error," twice is "on purpose."  Of course, they had to take issue with that statement and plead that PATH makes lots of mistakes and never over recovers on purpose.  Good one!  If you believe that, I've got this bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale....  Again, happy hunting, fellas!

Esther Brinkmann from Frederick Co., MD, asked PATH if another Challenge is filed in January 2012 regarding the 2010 cost recovery, would FERC combine the two Challenge filings?  PATH didn't have an answer for that.  Esther... very funny!  :-)  Time for another Mimosa!

PATH then made another little presentation about the Formula Rate Implementation Protocols, PJM OATT Attachment H-19B, that governs their filings, these "meetings," and the discovery and challenge procedures.  Becky Bruner, PATH's outside counsel, said that PATH had the responsibility to work with interested parties to resolve conflicts in the time period between Preliminary and Formal Challenge filing dates.  Before the call was over, I asked Becky why PATH didn't fulfill its responsibility to work with Ali Haverty and myself to resolve the issues identified in our Preliminary Challenge before we filed the Formal Challenge.  Randy took over at this point (didn't he ever tell Becky that we had filed a Preliminary?) and said they were not required to work with us because PATH didn't agree with any of our issues in the Preliminary.  I reminded Randy that he filed a correction to PATH's 2009 ATRR on December 28 that included "mistakes" we had identified either through discovery or Preliminary, and PATH made no attempt to notify us that some corrections had been made until the resolution period was over.  All that aside, isn't the whole point of the resolution period to resolve issues where PATH and Challengers don't agree?  Maybe not when you're Randy and you think you're right, even when you're wrong, and the word compromise isn't in your vocabulary.

Patience Wait from Jefferson County began to ask PATH about "costs necessary to maintain the project in its current state" but quickly got off on a discussion about property purchase options.  PATH verified that they are releasing options when they become due for another payment at the renewal date.  Randy says that they are just going to repurchase the same options again later.  Patience asked if he thought he would be able to secure the options again at the same price.  I don't think Randy answered this, but here's the scoop.  PATH has already made at least an initial payment to secure these options.  When the option is released, all payments already made to property owners become wasted money.  PATH gets NOTHING for the money they spent and the property owner gets to keep their property.  If the options have to be repurchased, PATH will have to re-negotiate the price, make another initial payment, any payments due at renewal, and the final purchase payment to exercise the option.  PATH is tossing OUR money away by releasing the options now and planning to spend more of our money repurchasing them later.  Look up the word "imprudence" in the dictionary.  Randy got all defensive and tried to hide behind the discovery process, so Patience plans to pursue the issue through that process.  If you have questions for PATH that you didn't get a chance to ask this morning, contact me and I'll hook you up on the whole discovery thing.  The more ratepayers getting involved in discovery, the better!

Ali Haverty from Calhoun Co., WV, questioned PATH about which FERC dockets they had filed the 2010 ATRR in.  Becky and Randy insisted that it was filed on both ER08-386 and ER09-1256.  Ali tried to convince them that it had, indeed, not been filed in 1256.  Becky and Randy informed Ali that FERC doesn't do a docket notify for something like an ATRR filing because it is an "informational filing" and insisted the filing in 1256 had already been made.  Low and behold, less than a hour after the conference call concluded, I got a docket notify email from FERC informing me that PATH had just now filed the ATRR in 1256.  Are you keeping track of the number of lies?  I hope so, because I've lost count.

This whole issue of which docket PATH filed the ATRR in is only relevant because Ali is currently engaged in battle with PATH at FERC over confidentiality issues in discovery.  To see the Motions and Objections, go here and search for Docket ER08-386 and separately ER09-1256, because PATH has pulled a docket switcheroo.  PATH is attempting to alter H-19B through use of a Protective Order and by attaching senseless statements to their discovery responses.  H-19B can only be changed through a proper Section 205 filing with FERC on Docket ER08-386.  If PATH is successful here, the ratepayers will be shut out of knowing how their money is being spent by PATH because interested parties like Ali and myself will be required to keep all discovery and related challenges confidential and the rest of you ratepayers won't be able to view any of it unless you do your own discovery and challenge and sign a Protective Agreement.

So, PATH continues to rip us off and now wants to hide the evidence.

Interesting hearing at the WV PSC on Friday.  TrAILCo produced several witnesses in their defense... all on the TrAILCo payroll.

Jay Ruberto lived up to his landowner-given nickname of Snidely Whiplash by stating that he was "very proud" of the job TrAILCo did.  He's "very proud" of the way he treated John & Janie Ives, whose lives were turned upside down by TrAILCo's shifty land agents and the deceitful way they were treated?  In that case, I hope some greedy corporation treats his own parents in kind.  Karma is a cruel task master.

When asked what lesson the company had learned from TrAILCo, he said it was to keep the same land agents as a point of contact for landowners throughout the project.  Problems arose because landowners didn't hear land agents correctly and none of the land agent promises were in writing.  "It has to be in writing," said Ruberto.  Take a lesson, landowners -- TrAILCo has admitted how it was that they fleeced people.  A series of different land agents making promises that are never put into writing on the purchase agreement isn't a mistake.  It's done on purpose.  It's no coincidence that a land agent in a Canadian transmission case got busted for doing exactly what was done to landowners during the TrAILCo project.  A series of shifty land agents lying to landowners is an industry-wide transmission siting "Best Practice."  I guess TrAILCo hasn't really learned any lesson at all... yet.  Perhaps the WV PSC will stand up for West Virginians and teach the out-of-state TrAILCo corporation that they can't treat people that way.

TrAILCo also produced a trio of goofy kids from construction contractors and subcontractors who looked guilty as hell while testifying that all the destruction was caused by loggers hired by individual landowners, and the individual landowners themselves.  Next time, TrAILCo needs to hire some mature managers that look like they actually have some experience and not a bunch of kids who look nervous and guilty and treat the whole thing like a big, ol' funny joke.

TrAILCo's expert witness was a botanist, not a forester,  who shared that his contract with TrAILCo to evaluate the destruction in the ROW came after the March hearings and was subject to conflict between himself and TrAILCo.  I wonder what was in that contract?  He also testified that all the damage was done by landowner-hired loggers, but admitted that all his knowledge of these phantom destructive loggers came from TrAILCo (the guilty, smirking kids).  It's no wonder Commissioner Palmer demanded that TrAILCo submit a document stating their proof of independent loggers causing destruction at each contested site along the ROW.

The complainants entered a stack of DEP violation notices of individual incidences of environmental destruction for the TrAILCo project.

We gave TrAILCo's drama-queen, jack-in-the-box lawyer a new name after watching him pop out of his seat like it was spring-loaded with annoying regularity to object to everything and anything.  Me-me-me-me-me-lick (because it's all about "me") actually whined that TrAILCo's previously supplied map indicating which portions of the ROW were cleared by TrAILCo vs. which portions were cleared by landowners might not be correct because it was "only concerned with the 8 original sites identified in the complaint."  So, did TrAILCo lie when they submitted it, or are they lying now?

The Commission gave TrAILCo 30 days to submit their "proof" that all the instances of destruction in the ROW were caused by these mysterious "others."  The complainants will then have another 20 days to submit their rebuttal (which me-me-me-me-me-lick objected to and lost).  Then the Commission will issue its decision in the case.

Meanwhile, TrAILCo had best get busy repairing all the damage they did to private property while they built their transmission line and quit whining about how much it's going to cost.  Maybe if they hadn't offered all those bribes, like the new "transmission headquarters" and donations to energy assistance programs, in order to get their project approved by the PSC in the first place, they wouldn't be so hideously over budget now.  What do they care anyhow?  The ratepayers are footing the bill for all of it, and TrAILCo makes a pile of profit in yearly returns on the money they have invested in the project.  As a ratepayer, I'd much rather see my money being spent to return the private land to its former state, instead of leaving a trail of destruction and angry landowners as a legacy.  But then again, I must have a different definition of "proud" than the shysters at TrAILCo.

Since Randy Palmer is being a party-pooper this year and not hosting an actual Open Meeting at the offices of Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw & Pittman, you all are invited to my house for breakfast and to participate in the Open non-Meeting conference call via speaker phone on July 20 at 10 a.m.

In order to participate in the conference call, you need to RSVP with Randy no later than July 14 (that's tomorrow!)  For instructions on sending your RSVP to Randy, send him an email and required information as listed in this notice.

As far as sending an RSVP to me (because I'm not quite as anal retentive), just let me know you're coming no later than the night before the non-meeting conference call.

We'll be serving coffee and donuts, perhaps even Mimosas and Bloody Marys, on the patio during the conference call.  See?  You'll still get a free breakfast after all!

Bring your questions for PATH about how they spent your money in 2010.  Heck, you can even bring your recording devices and cameras and take pictures/record audio to your heart's delight!  And whatever else he tried to prohibit last time... you can do that too!!

See you all next Wednesday!

Looks like you're going to have to eat your Lucky Charms at home or in your own office this year because there will be no free breakfast buffet at Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw & Pittman for you! :-(

According to this notice posted at PJM, the Annual Update Open Meeting is going to be held only via conference call this year, instead of also live and in person at the DC offices of PATH's FERC attorney.  How many other precedent changes can PATH dream up to demonstrate how scared they are of us?

Despite PATH's attempt to take all the fun out of it, we can still gather in our little groups for the call, and this time we can politely mute the phone before we pass notes and snicker and giggle :-)

So, mark your calendar for July 20 and be sure to send in your "reservation" before July 14.  Of course, you *could* pretend that you don't have an email address, just so you can waste a bunch of Randy's time making phone calls the day before the meeting.

We could also go to DC anyhow and call in on our cell phones from outside the building while peering in the windows of the conference rooms until we find the one Randy's sitting in all by himself, hogging all the donuts.

I'm going to stop thinking about all the possibilities for mischief provided by this notice now, before I think up something truly weird.  When is Randy going to realize that he's never going to outsmart us? 

They're always after me Lucky Charms.......

PATH finally got it up on PJM's website late this afternoon, two days late.  We have yet to see it docketed at FERC, however FERC has had issues with unreliable electricity this week (isn't THAT a coincidence) so they are probably way behind in getting filings docketed.

Here is PATH's 2010 true-up of their actual revenue requirement vs. the projected revenue requirement that they collected from PJM ratepayers last year.  For the third time in as many years, PATH has collected lots more than they actually spent, to the tune of millions.  They owe us a refund, which will be wrapped into the rates we pay in 2012.  We won't see a credit on our bills, or a check in the mail, in exchange for floating PATH another loan at a paltry interest rate.  We just get to pay a little bit less two years down the road.

If you want to get in on the PATH companies' financial fun this year, this document is your starting point.  If you need help or an interpreter, just ask.

Still no word on the Annual Update Open Meeting.  *tick, tock*

PATH's Formula Rate Implementation Protocols, Attachment H-19B of PJM's Open Access Transmission Tariff, state, "On June 1 of each year subsequent to calendar year 2008, PATH shall submit its Annual Update as an informational filing to FERC and shall post the same on the PJM website."

It hasn't been filed with FERC or posted on PJM's website yet.  Looks like PATH is having a little trouble getting it up on the web.

I guess the Protocols are self-serving, to be used as fodder to have pointless arguments with "interested parties" and to make ridiculous confidentiality claims about information released in discovery without benefit of a Protective Agreement, isn't that right, Randy?

I guess PATH thinks they don't have to follow their Protocols if they don't feel like it.  We'll just be adding these additional days onto the end of the discovery period this year, won't we? :-)

The Protocols also state, "Within two business days of the Publication Date, PATH shall provide notice on PJM's website of the time, date and location of an open meeting among Interested Parties."  Since PATH has ignored the designated Publication Date, I don't suppose this is going to happen tomorrow either, like it should.

Those post-merger "economies of scale" are really working out for FirstEnergy's customers, aren't they?  Looks like the two PATH operating companies owe the ratepayers over $13M in over recovered revenue and return, and now they're not filing their annual true-up on time.  FirstEnergy, you have failed already!!!

Inquiring minds want to know:  Will PATH be able to get it up tomorrow?

Although the Formula Rate Annual Update of PATH's 2010 expenses isn't due to be filed until June 1, here's a little preview for all of you who are interested in getting more involved in the process this year.  All of the numbers in the Annual Update come from Form 1.  The PATH Companies filed their FERC Forms in mid-April.

For FERC accounting purposes, the PATH project is (unevenly) split between two PATH companies.  PATH-WV is AEP's portion of the project.  PATH-Allegheny is Allegheny/FirstEnergy's portion of the project.

Take a look at the Form 1 numbers.  You will notice account numbers on many of the line items.  These correspond with FERC's Uniform System of Accounts (USofA).  If you want to know what kind of expenses a certain account contains, you can look it up.

As an example, let's take a look at the numbers for some of the accounts that were part of the Formal Challenge on PATH's 2009 expenses.  This certainly isn't an exhaustive list of potential trouble spots, but are some of the places where PATH likes to "hide" the expenses of their External Affairs (PR spin) war on the citizens.

Account 426.1 - Donations
PATH combined expenses for 2010 - $65,090
Compare to combined 2009 expenses - $53,054

Account 426.4 - Certain Civic and Political Activities (lobbying)
PATH combined expenses for 2010 - $378,396
Compare to combined 2009 expenses - $314,793

Account 923 - Outside Services
PATH combined expenses for 2010 - $2,376,559
Compare to combined 2009 expenses - $2,025,624

Account 930.1 - General Advertising
PATH combined expenses for 2010 - $613,815
Compare to combined 2009 expenses - $2,104,925

Account 930.2 - Misc. General Expenses - This is where PATH stuffs their "industry association dues for company memberships."
PATH combined expenses for 2010 - $97,137
Compare to combined 2009 expenses - $77,037

The numbers tell a story.  PATH spent even more of your money on these activities in 2010, with the exception of advertising, which fell.  Why do you think that happened?  Interested in asking PATH some questions?  Hold on to that thought... you'll get your chance this summer when PATH holds their Annual Update meeting in July.  Meanwhile, take a look around...

When PATH filed their "Status Update" with FERC on March 7, they made the following statement:

"PATH LLC is evaluating the financial impact of PJM's suspension of the Project on the 2011 Projected Transmission Revenue Requirement ("PTRR") to determine whether a revised 2011 PTRR should be implemented to reflect the suspension of development activities."

The PTRR is PATH's estimate of yearly costs that are subsequently recovered from all ratepayers in the PJM region to finance their project.  The money is collected from you over the year as part of your monthly electric bill and given to PATH to finance their activities.  After the year ends, PATH goes through a true-up process whereby the PTRR is compared to the Actual Transmission Revenue Requirement (the actual amount they spent).  An under recovered balance is added to your electric rates the following year.  An over recovered balance is refunded to you in your electric rates the following year.  Both over and under recovery are subject to payment of interest at the average monthly interest rate of.... 0.2900%.  Yeah, don't spend all that money in one place, little ratepayer!

It's been a month now, and PATH is still "evaluating."  C'mon, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to "determine" that the cost of the PATH project in an active state is more than the cost of the PATH project in a "suspended" state.

PATH's PTRR filed on September 1, 2010 projected a revenue requirement of $40.5 million.  That's how much they will collect from you and other ratepayers in 2011.  This was based on, "Major projected activities in 2011 include receipt of CPCN approvals, continue securing ROW options, increased engineering and permitting activities, and start of Amos substation modifications."

None of that is going to happen this year.  PATH won't be spending your money on any of that, however, they will continue to collect money from you as if they were.  Oh, they'll give it back to you in 2013, with .2900% interest, but meanwhile they're going to float themselves a $40.5 million dollar loan for two years from the PJM Ratepayer Savings & Loan, better known as your wallet.

Let's compare the .29% ROE you're going to earn on the loan you're giving PATH to the yearly 14.3% ROE PATH earns on all of their money that they are "loaning" to you ratepayers to finance the cost of "your" transmission line.

PATH's rate/finance department needs to pony up and quit dithering.  We're not your piggy bank!*

*PowerMAD, cue the appropriate music! (snort, snort)

The comments from ratepayers regarding PATH's "suspension" have begun rolling in to FERC.

You can read the comments (or check to see if yours have been docketed yet) by clicking here and entering ER08-386 in the docket number field and then clicking search.  The docket will list the comments by author.  To read a certain comment, check your preferred file type over on the right-hand side and then click on the name of the file type you have selected (i.e. "word" or "pdf").

Keep 'em coming, folks!  I think FERC is going to find out just how many people are sick and tired of being tormented by PATH's shady practices while their wallets beg for mercy as a result of PATH's spending spree.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has issued a "study", Progress Denied:  A "Study" on the potential economic impact of permitting challenges facing proposed energy projects, a part of their Project No Project initiative, which purports to show that failed energy projects cost the economy a $1.1 trillion short-term boost to the economy and creation of 1.9 million jobs annually.

The "study" says these energy projects (55% of which are NOT renewable energy projects) are being stalled, stopped, or outright killed nationwide due to “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY) activism, a broken permitting process and a system that allows limitless challenges by opponents of development.  So, in the Chamber's perfect world, the citizens who are directly affected by these projects, both financially and physically, would have absolutely no right to challenge these projects through legal means.  The regulatory process would be a mere rubber stamp where challenge was not allowed to muck up the energy companies' plans for profit.  It looks like it says "U.S." in front of their name, but their Utopian society sounds more like a third world dictatorship.

The "study" uses fuzzy math and fails to consider the economic costs of these projects to the locality.  These dirty energy projects cost communities tax revenue, increased health care costs, lowered property values, increased costs for roads, emergency response and other infrastructure, and various other direct consequential costs to the locality.  They also fail to mention that most of the jobs they claim these projects "create" are short-term, temporary jobs that often import workers from elsewhere.  These temporary workers can and do go from project to project to project.  Is each "job" counting the same worker multiple times at different projects as they move from job to job?  "Studies" like these utilize all sorts of bogus "statistics" to inflate claims and cannot be taken seriously.

This summary claims that failed projects "impair private investment," and this article about the study looks at 6 failed projects in Maryland, two of which are transmission line projects (PATH and MAPP). These transmission projects are funded by electric ratepayers in 13 states and D.C.  The "private investment" loans for these projects net an average return of about 10%.  The power companies who own these projects earn a return as high as 14.3% on their investment equity.  Don't you wish you could get that kind of return on your money?  And who finances those huge returns, in addition to the eventual entire cost of the transmission project?  Ratepayers.  Is the cost of these projects to the ratepayers in the form of higher electric bills included in the Chamber's "study"?  No, of course not!

So, what's in it for the Chamber to prepare and promote such a bogus "study"?  Payoffs from energy companies, such as PATH partners American Electric Power and FirstEnergy, who paid various Chambers of Commerce $47,100 in the year 2009 alone.  A large portion of this amount consisted of a $26,000 payoff to the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce and a $15,745 payoff to the Maryland Chamber of Commerce, which were intended to coerce them to support the PATH project.  This "corporate stewardship" was then subsequently recovered from ratepayers.  That's right, the payoffs to the Chamber made by AEP and FE were added to your electric bill!

You know what the Chamber should do with their "study"?  Print it on toilet paper because that's the only way it's ever going to be useful.