The Coalition for Reliable Power filed their comments on FERC's Promoting Transmission Investment Through Pricing Reform Notice of Inquiry on Friday.

Click here to read the Coalition's comments.  These comments center on how FERC can utilize existing state transmission project approval processes to assist them in evaluating projects when granting incentives.  It's too bad FERC is considering usurping state authority and making transmission project siting a federal process because they could make great use of the state processes already in place, which are the result of many years of experience in evaluating and siting transmission projects.

Good news for everyone who pays an electric bill in the 13-state PJM region today!  Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline and Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line have recently filed required financial reporting forms with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that show a rebate of over a million dollars coming to ratepayers via the companies' FERC Revenue Requirements.

As you regular readers may recall, during an "Open Meeting" to discuss PATH's revenue requirement filing in July, I mentioned to PATH's attorneys and accountants that I had found merger charges which were recovered from ratepayers reflected in PATH's 2010 Revenue Requirement.  These merger expenses, related to the FirstEnergy/Allegheny Energy merger in February of this year, were prohibited from being passed through to ratepayers by stipulations in the companies' settlements with the Public Service Commissions of both West Virginia and Maryland.

I'm glad to see that they did their due diligence after the phone conference and located and re-classified these amounts to other FERC accounts that are not collected from ratepayers.  By removing these expenses from the amounts we were charged in our electric rates in 2010, and adding them to another account that acts as an income deduction (write-off) and is not collected from ratepayers, means that they now owe PJM's ratepayers a rebate of an additional $1,086,487 in over-recovered billings, with interest.

PATH's FERC Form 3Q for the second quarter 2011 included this note:

Schedule Page: 114 Line No.: 4 Column: d
Reflects a reclass of merger costs of $99,318 from Outside Services (FERC 923) to Other
Deductions (FERC 426.5).

TrAIL's FERC Form 3Q for the second quarter 2011 included this note:

Schedule Page: 114 Line No.: 49 Column: d
Reflects a reclass of merger costs of $987,169 from Outside Services (FERC 923) to Other
Deductions (FERC 426.5).

I will try to get copies of the actual forms up a little later today, but right now I have an appointment with an "old friend" that I need to rush off to.  Perhaps I'll elaborate on that later, depending on outcome.  ;-)

Now that's some real "energy efficiency" from the folks at FirstEnergy!

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!

Apparently the utility industry has been sitting around twiddling their thumbs all summer and now they don't have time to file requests for rehearing on Order No. 1000 and comment on transmission incentives all in the same week!

Therefore, FERC has extended the deadline again until September 12.

But that also gives you extra time to get your comments in, so get busy!

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.

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.

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!

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.