|
|
|
FERC noticed the complaint and set a deadline of August 7 for answers, interventions, protests or comments.
If you'd like to contribute you own two cents, follow the instructions on the notice.
0 Comments
 This morning, PATH held their "Open Meeting" for interested parties and others PATH doesn't consider to be interested parties but who were nevertheless "invited" to "participate" in the meeting.
A picture is worth 1,000 words. But sometimes pictures aren't enough. PATH made the above quoted admission today in their Answer to Comments in the matter of Alison Haverty vs. Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline LLC, FERC Docket No. EL12-79-000. It's about time PATH realizes that it's in a "no-win situation," and the reason it finds itself in its current predicament is because they're wrong, plain and simple. "PATH is in a no-win situation. In the past, PATH has permitted individual end users to participate in Annual Update open meetings and has provided data in response to information requests propounded by those individuals. However, those individuals, including Complainant and Ms. Newman, abused their access to the information provided by PATH within the context of the Annual Update review by posting the data on the Stop Path blog. See generally www.stoppathwv.org PATH then agreed to provide the information under a protective order but the individuals refused to sign the protective order. PATH filed a motion with the Commission for adoption of a protective order, but the Commission did not act on PATH’s request to adopt the proposed protective order and request for an administrative law judge to be appointed as discovery master. See PATH Companies’ Motion to Dismiss the Formal Challenge and Motions to Compel, Docket Nos. ER08-386-000 and ER09-1256- 000 (filed Oct. 20, 2011)." Awww, c'mon Randy, don't be such a sour puss! How many outright lies can you count in that footnote? I see at least three.
1. "...abused their access to information by posting data on StopPATHWV Blog." Any of you seen any confidential "data" here? Yeah, me neither. Any of you seen PATH documents used as exhibits in publicly filed documents at the FERC that were linked here? Guess what? Once information is publicly filed with FERC, anybody with an internet connection can download it and use it for any purpose they desire! No where in PATH's protocols is use of information generally restricted. That's what protective agreements are for. Nobody ever signed one. *hiss* 2. "PATH agreed to provide the information under a protective order..." No, PATH didn't. They attempted to coerce interested parties to sign retroactive protective agreements to cover up PATH counsel's discovery errors that provided certain highly sensitive information that was never requested, disclosure of which could probably put them in serious legal jeopardy if the owner(s) of the information only knew what PATH counsel disclosed to interested parties. It is not incumbent upon interested parties to sign protective agreements to cover up PATH counsel's legal blunders. *growl* 3. "...request for an administrative law judge to be appointed as discovery master." What request? That flat out never happened. PATH only requested a protective order, not a discovery master. If they had, things would have run a lot smoother last year, and from the look of things, this year as well. *screech* Nice kitty, calm down, kitty! And again, PATH invites FERC to come have another ex parte with us on the blog. So, if PATH doesn't mind if we have this little private conversation with FERC's decisional staff here, let's get this parte started! All that and they still couldn't come up with any cites to support their contention that consumers have no interest in rates, and therefore no legal recourse against unjust and unreasonable rates they must pay that are under the Commission's jurisdiction (because further misuse of North Star Steel doesn't count!). What happens when sharks smell the blood of a creature in distress in the water? It's like ringing the dinner bell -- they come to feed.
My, my, my, how the tables have turned! :-) This afternoon was the deadline for motions to intervene in Alison Haverty vs. Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, LLC, FERC Docket No. EL12-79-000. Motion to Intervene and File Comments of Keryn Newman Motion to Intervene and File Comments of Patience Wait Alison Haverty's Answer to PATH Motion to Dismiss the Complaint The Notice of Complaint will be published in the Federal Register tomorrow, a day after the filing deadline. Does that serve notice requirements? I guess we'll find out. Read PATH's Answer to Alison Haverty's complaint. PATH has now "invited" us to this meeting, although they still insist we're not "interested parties." They also want FERC to dismiss the complaint as moot. But I would guess that Alison may feel differently.
PATH's little game of trying to intimidate consumers has backfired. They have no defense. Last year, FERC tossed out all the precedent PATH (mis)used in earlier filings as support for their contention that consumers are not "interested parties." Looks like the breakfast meeting on my patio will go on July 18 at 10:00 a.m. as planned. Please submit your basis for eligibility to breathe my air and drink my coffee no later than the night before the meeting. ;-) As stipulated in its federal Formula Rate that allows PATH to recover the cost of their project from over 60 million ratepayers in 13 states and the District of Columbia, PATH is obligated by certain rules crafted to provide rate transparency. These obligations are stipulated in PATH's PJM OATT Tariff Protocols, Attachment H-19B.
One of PATH's obligations is to hold an "Open Meeting" among interested parties after the filing of each yearly Actual Transmission Revenue Requirement and Projected Transmission Revenue Requirement. On June 1, PATH filed their ATRR for 2011. This filing compares the actual expenditures to PATH's estimate collected during 2011, and produces the actual rate consumers pay. As required by the Protocols, PATH posted an announcement of the meeting. As directed in the notice, several interested parties (as defined in the Protocols) submitted their RSVP for the meeting. Compare the tone of PATH's Notice of Open Meeting to that of another company who is following the exact same rule in its own Formula Rate Protocols. While PATH's meeting is held only over the telephone, Dominion's meeting is held both at their facility and over the telephone, for those who don't want to travel to Richmond. Dominion asks for 4 days notice of participant's attendance, while PATH demands you RSVP 5 days in advance, or you will not be permitted to "attend" and will not be provided the call-in information that Dominion freely provides in its Notice. Paranoid much, PATH? As if the Frau Farbissina tone of PATH's Notice isn't bad enough already, PATH sent the following email notice to certain interested parties, who had sent in their RSVPs weeks earlier, on June 24: "The open meeting conference call that Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, LLC ("PATH") will hold on July 18, 2012, to explain and clarify its Annual Update is to provide Interested Parties an opportunity to seek information and clarification concerning the Annual Update. Under Section I.H of the Protocols, an "Interested Party" means "An entity that is or may become a customer taking transmission service under [the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Open Access Transmission Tariff], a state public utility commission or state consumer advocate agency in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey or the District of Columbia, or any entity having standing under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act." It is not clear that you meet the definition of Interested Party under the Protocols. Please provide a response to this email by June 19, 2012 stating the basis for your status as an "Interested Party" under the Protocols." PATH has yet to respond to any of the parties who tried (in vain, judging from PATH's impossible deadline) to provide the required information. PATH is erecting additional hurdles for certain interested parties by requiring them to plead their case to PATH. PATH has appointed itself adjudicator of consumers' rights to participate in the setting of rates that they are required to pay. PATH's behavior is especially egregious in light of FERC's findings in PATH's request to change the definition of "interested party" in its Protocols last year. As certain parties contended in that case, PATH's proposal to change the definition was a not-so-cleverly disguised attempt to exclude certain parties who have participated in the review of PATH's Formula Rate and filed Challenges in the past. Because PATH has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar and has no logical defense, they simply seek to exclude parties who may take notice and challenge ongoing fraud. Interested party Alison Haverty has apparently grown tired of PATH's heavy-handed attempts to disenfranchise consumers and filed a Complaint against PATH at FERC (Docket No. EL12-79). PATH has 8 days to answer Alison's complaint. UPDATE: FERC has issued a Notice of Complaint setting a very short intervention, comment, protest and answer deadline. All filings are due by 5:00 p.m. July 5. If you want to participate, you'd best get crackin'. It looks like FERC wants to get this over with well before the July 18 meeting. The NERC-induced lickspittle lobby has begun at FERC, with regional reliability organizations petitioning to intervene in the NERC audit docket, and the much ballyhooed "trade associations" taking control of the matter with their fearsome comments.
Really? Haven't you all wasted enough of the ratepayers' money on this ridiculous spectacle already? How many billable hours just got wasted on these filings? Haven't you all got better things to do with my money, like, oh I dunno.... KEEP THE LIGHTS ON? The regional entities think they have a stake in the matter because their precious budgets (ratepayer gravy train) may be under attack. And the trade associations think they have a stake in it because... get this... "The ERO budget is funded by industry and load, which include members of the Trade Associations." They act like it's coming out of their own pockets when they just turn around and bill "the ERO budget" to ratepayers (now with lucrative lawyer loot added in!) The trade associations believe that a transparent and public audit process, open to participation by all stakeholders, will "best ensure stakeholder confidence in the performance audit results." If that's the case, I think we should increase stakeholder confidence all around by making ALL FERC audits public and open to participation by interested parties. Wouldn't that be fun? There's a couple of audits in process that I'd love to "participate" in. Do I need to hire an expensive lawyer to get that taken care of, or would a ratepayer cavalcade of kvetching do the trick? Those of us who look wistfully and admiringly upon the Illinois Commerce Commission as a staunch defender of the electric consumers they are mandated to protect because our own Consumer Advocate sees himself as someone who must balance the rights of consumers with the wants of investor owned utilities, now have one more reason to want to move to Illinois.
The ICC filed a motion to intervene in PJM's recent cost allocation filing at FERC that added a whole bunch of new RTEP projects approved earlier this month. At issue are three new allocations for 500kV projects located in Pennsylvania and Virginia. The ICC notes that ratepayers in Illinois will pay approximately $26M for these projects, but will receive no benefit. "Given that the three projects are to be constructed in Virginia and Pennsylvania, it is a reasonably safe assumption that the primary beneficiaries of the projects are not distributed evenly across the PJM footprint. Yet, PJM’s load-ratio share approach allocates the costs of these projects as if they were." "A second flaw in PJM’s load-ratio share cost allocation approach is that it typically results in customers in distant zones like ComEd paying more than the customers in the local zone where the facility is located. In this case, electricity consumers in the ComEd zone would pay a higher share of the cost of the three projects than the customers in any of the transmission zones in which facilities are to be located (14.64 percent for the ComEd zone versus 5.53 percent for APS, 1.92 percent for Metropolitan Edison and 12.45 percent for Dominion) simply because the ComEd zone’s non-coincident peak load is higher than the non-coincident peak load." The ICC requests that FERC dismiss cost responsibility for the ComEd zone, or "hold its consideration of this part of PJM’s May 2 Filing in abeyance until the Commission addresses the requests for rehearing of its order responding to the remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit." Ut-oh, FirstEnergy and Dominion! Looks like your transmission projects have run off the rails already! How completely delightful! One of the things we do here is pull bits and pieces together to see what kind of overall picture they make. Bill refers to it as "PATH Kremlinology," and I once referred to it as "putting together the world's biggest jigsaw puzzle."
NERC's arrogant stupidity in contesting FERC's audit just doesn't make sense. Maybe if NERC had no experience with audits, it could just be ignorance, however NERC performs audits of others. They should know better. Now here's the other piece that's starting to make a pattern. The WSJ, Fox News and some political blogs are categorizing the NERC audit as Obama's revenge against NERC for making some comment about coal-fired generation retirements causing reliability issues. This "reason" for auditing NERC doesn't even make sense! And if we combine this empty rhetoric with NERC's proposal for FERC to open "a paper hearing process that would allow all interested parties to express their views on all 42 recommendations contained in the Final Audit Report and allow the Commission to resolve them on a comprehensive basis," what do we get? Is NERC intending to turn FERC into a political circus? I'm really starting to wonder... After all, if NERC did not intend for the hoi polloi to comment on their audit, perhaps they would have seen the open invitation contained in their proposal after a concerned ratepayer submitted comment on the docket. However, NERC re-confirmed their support for their proposal today. NERC's letter was a rather quick and snarky reply to FERC staff's filing today that proved NERC's previous accusation that FERC refused to discuss the audit findings was baseless. Over and over again. Auditors are firm believers in documentary evidence, it is their bread and butter, after all. If you are gullible enough to believe that FERC's audit of NERC was political revenge, be assured it's not. FERC is legally required to perform audits of entities under their jurisdiction, it's part of their job to ensure just and reasonable rates. Just about everything FERC does comes back to this same basic premise. FERC is protecting YOUR interests here (and even the interests of the unenlightened who believe the politically motivated lies). "Audit staff has approached its review of NERC’s budget and the associated costs from a ratepayer’s perspective o Since the ERO is funded by public funds and those who pay the assessments (i.e. its Ratepayers) - whose interests are represented by the Commission o The expenses incurred by the ERO must be paid by its Ratepayers alone – therefore having controls in place to prevent unwarranted expenses is in the interest of the ratepayers o We have also recognize the fact that NERC, when acting as the ERO is under the authority of the Commission, but it is free to engage in other non-statutory activities that do not impinge upon its ability to perform its obligations to FERC." FERC had no prior knowledge of what it would find during the audit, making claims of "revenge" mere ignorant rubbish. All FERC staff's concerns are valid, for instance: "Second, audit staff noted that NERC incurred various expenses to entertain Trustees outside the official BOT meetings Audit staff is concerned for three reasons: 1. These costs were incurred outside (after or before) the actual Board meetings and activities during the day 2. This presents a potential conflict of interest concern in which NERC employees are providing entertainment to the Trustees that are responsible for determining employee compensation 3. NERC’s accounted for the costs as routine business expenses, which inflates NERC’s actual cost of business at the ERO As a result, the expenses incurred outside the official BOT meetings may have been improperly funded by ratepayers under section 215." or "Audit staff noted that NERC incurred costs for entertaining its employees, including annual holiday party expenses and employee reward meal expenses While audit staff believes NERC should have the discretion to incur these types of expenses, audit staff is concerned that: o The majority of these costs were accounted for as normal operating costs and not as employee entertainment or employee reward expenses o These costs were not transparently presented in the budgets or trueups as such o These costs were not governed by formal guidance for determining if entertainment expenses were reasonable and reimbursable From a rate-case perspective, such expenses would not be allowed as normal operating expenses Audit staff believes that if NERC management wishes to incur employee entertainment costs or costs to reward employees, such costs must be declared, budgeted, and approved as such through the budget process." FERC has merely switched NERC's speeding ratepayer gravy train onto a siding so it can be slowed down before it runs completely off the rails. If you pay an electric bill, you should be thanking FERC, not parroting conjectural, politically-motivated nonsense. I hope FERC has the good sense to deny NERC's proposal to turn this matter into a political circus. As a ratepayer that funds NERC, I'm now thoroughly disgusted with their antics. Next: Let's ALL Participate in FERC Audits! NERC (North American Electric Reliability Corporation) apparently isn't done having its audit tantrum yet, and in fact, has now started emitting high-pitched screams and banging its collective head on the floor. NERC's attention-seeking behavior could have the desired effect, however it may not exactly be the kind of attention they were aiming for, but the notice of some common ratepayer.
NERC filed a Request for Rehearing yesterday, listing a bunch of alleged "errors" committed by FERC audit & enforcement staff during and after the audit, and requesting that the Commission conduct a paper hearing and issue a decision to cut their own staff off at the knees and turn them into a paper tiger. NERC also filed a "Statement on Procedures" as a supposed better alternative for the Commission to resolve this matter. NERC proposes "a paper hearing process that would allow all interested parties to express their views on all 42 recommendations contained in the Final Audit Report and allow the Commission to resolve them on a comprehensive basis." So, NERC wants some FERC free-for-all where they imagine their fans will come rushing to their defense and attack FERC staff. NERC imagines that, "load serving entities (and the trade organizations representing them) that are directly impacted by NERC’s budget, programs and financial controls," will come rushing to their defense in order to brown nose shamelessly, because NERC will in turn audit these entities in the future. Well, now, isn't that a great idea? As if the audit didn't uncover enough problems, now NERC is soliciting favors from the entities it "regulates." Unfortunately for NERC, "interested parties" aren't limited to just "load serving entities," because load serving entities merely pass along NERC's costs to end users (you, the consumer). This also makes consumers "interested parties" encouraged to comment under NERC's proposed "procedures." FERC has previously found that "consumers that are not direct wholesale customers may have a sufficient direct interest in proceedings that affects their retail rates..." You could file your own comments. Since NERC has attempted to turn FERC into a circus, you could prepare a proper letter and let NERC know that you're tired of paying for their holiday galas, social events and other non-statutory programs. Some good points to make: how much NERC's high-priced outside counsel are going to cost YOU, the ratepayer, in addition to FERC's time and expense to entertain this ridiculous proposition. Use your best courtroom manners, please ;-) NERC just doesn't get it. Their pure, shameless arrogance is wasting everyone's time and money. If FERC's audit & enforcement staff is supposed to blindly accept NERC's re-write of their audit findings, what was the point of the audit in the first place? Is that the way NERC conducts audits of those entities under its jurisdiction? If so, run, don't walk, to your nearest solar dealer and arrange for them to install your own power generation system today because the lights may go off at any second. I wonder if what FERC has given (designation as the ERO), FERC can also take away? Or perhaps NERC will flounce out the door if they get their fee-fees further injured by interested parties' comments? For Thomas Edison's sake, NERC, grow up, you're acting like a bleating 2-year old! Next: NERC Whips Up Political Nonsense |
About the Author Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.
In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history. About
|
RSS Feed