StopPATH WV
  • News
  • StopPATH WV Blog
  • FAQ
  • Events
  • Fundraisers
  • Make a Donation
  • Landowner Resources
  • About PATH
  • Get Involved
  • Commercials
  • Links
  • About Us
  • Contact

FERC OPP Director Ought To Be Fired For Comments At Industry Shindig

7/6/2022

4 Comments

 
I have to admit I've never been a fan of FERC's new Office of Public Participation.  Created by Congress in the 1970's, the office was only recently funded and came into being.  The idea of the office is that "the public" can use it as a liaison to learn how to "participate" in FERC proceedings.  This part sort of makes my eyes roll back in my head a bit.  I've been "participating" at FERC since before "public participation" was cool.  It really wasn't that hard to figure out.  I'm not sure an OPP would have actually been helpful, probably a bunch of misdirection and discouragement from participating.  Anyhow, it's not like "the public" actually pushed to finally create this office because they needed an education about how to participate.  It was the statute's language about intervenor funding that appealed to the advocacy groups who pushed the OPP into being.  They saw a quick pay day for their bleary legal work at FERC advocating for special interests that have other sources of funding.  It was all "belly up to the bar" old boys, we're going to get paid to file clueless, useless documents at FERC.  It has never been about funding "public" landowners and communities adversely affected by FERC's actions.  Instead, self-appointed "public advocates" and special interest and political groups have shoved their way to the front of the chow line to make sure there's nothing left for regular folks whose property or business is impacted by FERC actions.  This is how intervenor funding programs have worked in individual states, where special interest groups intervening to support the utilities plan to build things have sucked up all the funding, leaving affected landowners with nothing.

But, anyhow, this crap office is already giving itself a crap reputation with "the public."  The FERC Office of Public Participation Director, Elin Katz, was recently quoted during a webinar for WIRES (the voice of the electric transmission industry!)  You might want to ponder why Elin was hob nobbing at an industry shindig and not in a tool shed gathering in your community. 

Elin appears to have used the term "NIMBY" to refer to grassroots opposition to new transmission lines.
FERC OFFICIAL AIMS TO TACKLE NIMBYISM: Elin Katz, FERC’s director of the relatively new Office of Public Participation, is thinking about how to avoid more disorderly forms of public engagement that have plagued FERC and the power sector in recent years — such as demonstrations and lawsuits against new energy infrastructure, including pipelines. She also hopes to better educate the public about the benefits of electric transmission in particular to mitigate the “NIMBYism” often associated with the large-scale power lines needed to decarbonize the power grid.

“One of my main goals is to provide a constructive outlet for public concerns,” she said during a webinar hosted by utility transmission group WIRES. “We've seen a lot of what I consider more disruptive activities around when the public becomes concerned about energy or infrastructure.”

This is so horrifying, it's hard to know where to begin.

NIMBY?  The FERC employee in charge of encouraging the public to participate in FERC proceedings has called the public "NIMBYs"?  Does she know that's a pejorative insult to grassroots groups?  I'm sure she'd never use a racial slur, but yet she thinks belittling and marginalizing public participation is okay?  She ought to be fired.

Better education?  Again, Elin insults "the public" by calling them uneducated.  As if grassroots groups need to be "educated" about impacts to their communities by some woman who hates them, peering out from her ivory tower in Washington, DC.  There are no benefits to communities impacted by transmission lines that can outweigh the detrimental impacts.  Elin telling "the public" that there are "benefits" is not going to change anyone's mind.  What a completely ignorant approach to interacting with "the public."  Did she get that idea from the industries she actually works for?  She ought to be fired.

And what about her apparent disconnect between gas pipelines and electric transmission?  Somehow the landowners affected by pipelines matter, but the landowners affected by electric transmission don't?  That's not about the landowners, it's about politically-motivated ideology related to energy source.  It's not about the "public" at all.  She ought to be fired.

Disruptive activities?  That's called "mostly peaceful protest".  It's a new thing invented during the pandemic.  Transmission opposition is unlikely to engage in those kinds of things.  Our protests are more along the lines of free speech, due process, and public participation.  If she wants to squelch free speech and due process of "the public" she's not a good fit.  She ought to be fired.

Elin is the WRONG person to be assisting "the public" with participating in electric transmission proceedings at FERC.  It's obvious she believes that "large-scale power lines are needed to decarbonize the grid."  She's already weighed in on the side of the utilities and environmental groups and against "the public" who would be affected by FERC's actions.  She ought to be fired.

If I wasn't disgusted enough by FERC's OPP before reading this news blurb, I'd be pretty disappointed.  What a disgusting creature.  She ought to be fired.
4 Comments

The Government Wants To Designate Your Property As A Renewable Energy Zone

6/22/2022

0 Comments

 
The federal government has no authority over electric generators, except for hydroelectric facilities.  Instead, authority over building new generators is an affair of state and local governments.  But the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission wants to interfere by designating "resource zones"  for building renewable generators (industrial scale wind and solar installations).  FERC has no legal authority to do so -- it's overreach of the most egregious kind.

Over the last couple of years, FERC has issued several notices of a proposed rulemaking entitled "Building for the Future Through Electric Regional Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation and Generator Interconnection".  That's word salad for building a whole bunch of new transmission for the purpose of connecting renewable energy installations around the country.  Who says we need a whole bunch of new generation and transmission?  There isn't a real reason, it's just about pushing the green agenda.  Build it and they will come.

Except they won't.  Who is going to buy all this renewable energy?  Is it the utilities whose current generation has been shut down and may be facing blackouts?  That's a false narrative.  Current generation shortages stem from the intermittent nature of wind and solar.  It cannot be depended on to generate when needed.  Wind and solar only generate when nature produces their fuel.  Build a lot of wind and solar, price fossil fuel generators out of the market so they shut down, and suddenly you have shortages at the most inopportune times... like during extreme heat or cold.  Some geniuses believe they can import electricity from other regions when that happens.  Except those regions with excess generation are fossil fuel heavy.  What happens when all regions overbuild renewables and we're at "net zero"?  There's nobody to borrow from.  Then the lights go out.  This is a future train wreck from which we may never recover.

FERC is ignoring the train whistle in the distance, preferring to believe that if they force the building of enough new electric transmission, all the borrowing can happen between renewable generators.  To this end, FERC wants to encourage the building of new renewable generators by building new transmission to newly designated "resource zones".

What are "resource zones"?  In FERCenese, they are "geographic zones that have the potential for the development of large amounts of new generation, particularly renewable resources."  The designation is to be made by a FERC-jurisdictional regional transmission planner, after considering the following:
  1. Assess geographic zones that have the potential for the development of large amounts of new generation, particularly renewable resources. 
  2. Use best available data, including atmospheric, meteorological, geophysical, and other surveys, to identify geographic zones with potential for development of large amounts of new generation.
  3. Identify known siting, permitting, or other anticipated development challenges or opportunities associated with the draft geographic zones.
  4. Assess generation developers’ commercial interest in developing generation within each designated geographic zone.
  5. Consider a generation developer’s leasing agreements with landowners within the zone.
  6. Consider a generation developer’s power purchase agreements with a credit-worthy counterparty associated with generation within the zone.
Where do you come in, little zonal landowner?  The planner is going to seek "stakeholder comment" where you will be able to voice your opinion.  FERC proposes to require "public utility transmission providers in each transmission planning region post on their OASIS or other public websites maps of the designated geographic zones and information related to the designation of those zones." 

OASIS?
No, not those guys.

Maybe this?
Picture
No, not that either. 

OASIS is an acronym that stands for Open Access Same-Time Information Systems used by the electric industry that provide information about available transmission capability for point-to-point service and a process for requesting transmission service on a non-discriminatory basis. OASIS enables transmission providers and transmission customers to communicate requests and responses to buy and sell available transmission capacity offered under the Open Access Transmission Tariff.

Say what?  You've never been to this oasis, and you're likely to spend years wandering through the desert before you find it, if ever.

FERC thinks "relevant federal and state siting authorities" and transmission and generation builders are the only "stakeholders" who shall be involved in commenting on a proposed zone.  You landowners at ground zero are not invited to the party.  Neither are your local governments, who have authority over zoning restrictions for siting new industrial electric generation facilities.  As folks on the ground have found over the years, zoning restrictions are what makes or breaks the siting of new generators. 

So, what happens when FERC and its preferred "stakeholders" designate a zone that the local government shuts down through restrictions or moratoriums?  There is no authority for these entities to override local government siting requirements, however, the zone designation requires regional transmission planners to plan and build new electric transmission to the zone in order to enable the generators that cannot be sited or built.  In that instance, the zone will be the desert where no generation oasis can be located.  We will have paid to build a literal road to nowhere.

Poor planning, FERC.  Get your head out of the sand.  Building transmission to zones that do not want to live in industrial energy generation facilities is pure fantasy.

Do you want the federal government to designate a "zone" to build industrial electric generation plants in your neighborhood?  Feel free to comment.  Comment deadline has been extended through August 17, although Federal Register has not yet caught up with that.  You may also upload your comments to FERC directly.  Instructions are here.

Tell FERC you don't want a zone in your backyard, community, or county.
0 Comments

Grain Belt Express Seeks to Push Costs onto Kansas and Missouri

6/8/2022

1 Comment

 
Picture
Remember the good old days when Clean Line Energy Partners promised the state regulatory commissions that it would not recover its costs from Kansans and Missourians?  CLEP thought it was a negotiated rate merchant transmission project where only its voluntary, contracted customers would pay for the project.

Those days are over.  New owner Invenergy has been begging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to create a new revenue stream for GBE from captive regional electric ratepayers.  This means that electric customers that will receive no benefit from GBE would end up paying for a portion of it.

Why?  Apparently Invenergy "needs" this additional revenue because it doesn't have anywhere near enough customers for GBE to support the financing of the project.  Invenergy wants FERC to create new "products" that GBE can supply, such as "standby" emergency service to supply energy in an emergency.  By "standby" they mean they need to be paid to stand by in case of emergency and promise to commandeer capacity from their paying customers to serve some future "emergency" that may or may not occur.  GBE proposes:
...large, merchant interregional HVDC transmission lines that, although in non-emergencies are contractually dedicated to the interregional delivery of a pool of renewable resources to more distant loads, can nonetheless also be made available should explicitly designated contingencies arise such that the power from these different capacity sources can then be available to help mitigate the designated contingency -- even where such delivery could require the power to flow in the opposite direction from that called for in the usual schedules. For example, the GBX Line could have in place arrangements in advance that would allow any of the regional transmission systems to override its dispatch for a period of time so that the GBX Line could be dedicated to addressing contingencies when they arise. It will be important that these arrangements allow such transmission systems to relax the interconnection and/or
injection limits that may have been authorized for normal operations. For example, if the
prevailing dispatch would deliver Midwestern power to Eastern markets, there must be
arrangements in place to ensure that when necessary to schedule power in the opposite
direction, such Midwestern transmission system is not constrained from receiving such power based on interconnection or injection limits that might be in place during non-
contingencies.
In other words, GBE wants to sell capacity attached to a string so that it can pull back when it wants to. 
Indeed, assuming the GBX Line was subscribed to its full capacity (approximately 4,000 MW), had only a fourth of its subscribers agreed in advance to be curtailed if required for certain emergencies, an additional 1,000 MW would have been available to the system operator to alleviate the shortages in local capacity resulting from the storm.
Gosh, I wonder who would reap the rewards of emergency use?  Would it be the contracted customers, or would it be Invenergy?  What customer would sign up to use this line with the knowledge that it can be shut off at any point in time?  Grain Belt Express cannot be relied upon to meet customer energy needs.  What happens if two "emergencies" (or just one wide-spread one) occur at the same time?  Who has priority over capacity?  Which emergency is more severe?  Which one pays the most to Invenergy?  Yup, this is all just crazy talk.

GBE also tells FERC that it needs these things:
Grain Belt Express requests that the Commission initiate a study to value the reliability benefits that interregional merchant transmission lines will provide and develop a template of the types of tariff-based arrangements that the Commission would accept. The Commission should direct regional markets to: (1) establish products or services to capture those reliability and resilience benefits; (2) develop specific methodologies to place a value on these services; (3) confirm that transmission systems will be allowed to relax interconnection and/or injection limits for deliveries from interregional merchant transmission lines during system emergency conditions; (4) direct system planners to account for and adequately value interregional merchant transmission in planning efforts; and (5) when accounting for interregional merchant transmission in planning, properly allocate network upgrades required to integrate and interconnect interregional HVDC lines, consistent with beneficiary pays cost allocation principles.
Translation:
1)  Pay GBE for "reliability and resilience" benefits that it provides but that the paying ratepayers don't actually need (because if they were needed, the regional planners would order the upgrades and the costs would be paid by everyone in the region).  GBE proposes that all ratepayers in up to three planning regions (SPP, MISO and PJM) that span 2/3 of the continental U.S. pay these charges although they aren't GBE customers and don't get any benefit from the project.
2)  Find a way to create a regional rate scheme for GBE.
3)  Allow GBE to take over control of the grid when there's an emergency in order to inject more power.  Safety limits be damned.
4)  Include GBE in regional transmission plans, even though the regional planning authority doesn't find a need for the project.  If they can shoehorn it in the plan, next they'll claim regional ratepayers have to pay for it, too.
5)  Don't make GBE pay to interconnect its project to the transmission system.  Instead, make captive regional electric consumers foot the bill for GBE's connections.  When a new generator or merchant transmission line wants to connect to the existing grid, studies must be done to ensure that the new connection won't overload the grid and cause outages.  Any upgrades necessary to the grid to support the new connection become the financial responsibility of the interconnection customer (GBE).  GBE wants to upset that now and make captive customers pay those upgrades, claiming they somehow get some "benefit" although they are not customers of the project.

The long and short of it is that GBE is trying to get captive electric consumers in Kansas and Missouri to pay for a portion of its merchant transmission project that will benefit voluntary customers in other states or regions.  All promises to state utility commissions that GBE won't charge its project to in-state consumers are now void.  But why should the consumers of Kansas and Missouri pay for an electric transmission line that does nothing but burden them?

But wait... there's more!  In a different recent FERC comment, Invenergy shares the latest news on GBE:
"Many regions lack clear and consistent rules for the interconnection of transmission lines.
For instance, MISO currently allocates all transmission interconnection upgrade costs entirely to the customer, but may allocate a portion of those same upgrades to load if they were identified within the generator interconnection process, and some regions (i.e., SPP) have no applicable rules that govern injection from such lines. Grain Belt Express has experienced this first hand in developing an approximately 800-mile, 4,000 MW high voltage direct current transmission line that will interconnect in and carry power to and from the SPP, MISO and PJM regions. But its development is complicated by the lack of any consistent rules governing its interconnections in the different regions. And further complicating the process, MISO has refused to include Grain Belt Express’ interconnection positions as assumptions in the base case models and studies for its long-range transmission planning initiative (“LRTP”), which is intended to identify and address issues looking 10-20 years into the future. This refusal to account for the expected injections and withdrawals of an advanced-stage merchant transmission project not only complicates Grain Belt Express’ own development, it means that MISO’s LRTP results may themselves be flawed and inefficient.”
So while GBE is moseying around Kansas, Missouri and Illinois telling people it is "wrapping up" its pre-construction activities and needs to condemn and take private property in a big ol' hurry so it can get started, the truth is that Invenergy can't connect its project.  Its development is "complicated" by interconnection requirements.  It is literally a road to nowhere right now.

Have a good long look, everyone, at the stuff that Invenergy hoped you wouldn't see.
1 Comment

FERC Chairman Suggests You Adjust to "New Normal" Where Blackouts are Common

5/22/2022

0 Comments

 
The federal grid reliability watchdog issued a dire report last week that warned of a potentially severe electric generation shortage this summer.  That is, we may not have enough electricity to serve everyone if there are any weather extremes, fuel shortages, or equipment failure.  Mainly, these problems are likely in the Midwest, Texas, and the west (California).

It's no coincidence that these are the places where a lot of renewable energy generators (wind and solar) have been built in recent years.  The cause of that is political goals, availability of "cheap" land, and federal tax incentive windfalls for the companies who construct them. 

This coming shortage of electricity should come as no surprise to regular readers of this blog.  I've been talking about it for years as government subsidies for renewable generators effectively price baseload generators, that can run when called because they can simply add fuel and generate when the need arises, out of the market.  Renewables are intermittent resources, they only run when mother nature supplies their fuel.  She's a fickle mistress.
The problem spilled over into a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission monthly meeting last week when staff presented a report on summer grid performance.  At the new, politicized FERC disagreements cropped up.  Commission Chairman Glick blamed the problem on extreme weather caused by climate change and suggested that we all need to adjust to "the new normal."
The growing threat of power outages fueled by extreme weather calls for new approaches to grid oversight, the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said yesterday, adding that utilities and grid operators should “think differently.”
In the face of droughts and heat waves worsened by climate change, the commission must advance new policies to modernize power markets, build more transmission lines and safeguard energy infrastructure, said FERC Chair Richard Glick. Regulators, energy providers and others also need to adjust to the “new normal” as extreme weather events become more common, according to Glick.
“The old way doesn’t work anymore. We need to figure out a new approach, a much more reliable approach, and that’s what we’re trying to do here at FERC,” he said.

His "new normal" includes fewer baseload generators and more intermittent renewables.  Instead of recognizing the real problem, he chooses to blame the weather for creating shortages.  The weather hasn't been a problem, until just recently, so his approach makes no sense at all.  Relying on transmission to solve the problem is no solution at all.  The report pointed to one shortage being caused by a transmission line that has been out of service for months due to tornado damage.  Building more transmission in tornado alley is hardly a solution to this problem, unless it is built underground, perhaps on existing highway or railroad rights of way.  However, FERC has chosen to ignore new technology that can accomplish this, complaining that it's "too expensive."  How expensive will that one transmission outage be when it causes blackouts?  It would have been cheaper to bury it in the first place so that this outage never occurred.  The report also highlighted above-ground transmission causing wildfires in the west, as well as transmission lines that were blocked by wildfires and couldn't deliver energy.  More transmission is not the solution.

Chairman Glick got push back from a couple of other Commissioners, who made a lot more sense.
While Glick, a Democrat, said the FERC report underscored the need for more transmission lines and changes in U.S. power markets, Republican commissioners highlighted how retiring fossil fuel power plants may be exacerbating reliability challenges.

The Midwestern grid region, for example, is at a “high risk” of power shortfalls due to a decline in generation capacity this year relative to last year. Power shortfalls could occur during extreme temperatures, during periods of low wind power or in the event of generation outages in the coming months, FERC staff said in a presentation on the findings.

The staff analysis showcased the need for more natural gas infrastructure to support generators, and for regulators to address state energy policies that are “reliability-impairing,” said Republican Commissioner James Danly. He also questioned whether more investments in the electric transmission system would solve the reliability challenges.

“There is, in the minds of some, an idea that as long as we get the transmission issue correct, everything else will eventually solve itself. I am simply a skeptic,” Danly said.

Me too, Commissioner!  It is simply unrealistic to believe that we can power our country reliably with intermittent renewables in far off places that would depend on above-ground transmission lines hundreds or thousands of miles long that would deliver the power to urban areas.  It's simply fantasy... an equation that only works on paper.

But it was Commissioner Christie who succinctly nailed the problem with today's double time march toward zero carbon.
“There is clear, objective, conclusive data indicating that the pace of our grid transformation is out of sync with the underlying realities and physics of our system,” Christie said.
That's it, exactly.  The forced closure of baseload plants is ignoring the fact that we don't have the right technology to replace them.

Many years ago, I opined that we shouldn't allow a bunch of environmentalist policy wonks to plan our electricity supply because they did not have the working knowledge to do so, simply a desire to meet their impossible goals.  Keeping the lights on and keeping power affordable is simply not one of them.

Plunging headlong into a carbon-free energy future without the resources to support it is simply foolish!
0 Comments

Heads We Win; Tails You Lose

5/18/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
FERC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Transmission Planning, officially known as  Building for the Future Through Electric Regional Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation and Generator Interconnection, contains some pretty questionable proposals.  But the one that is making the most people scratch their heads is the proposal that new "long-term" transmission plan projects be prohibited from asking for and receiving FERC's current CWIP in ratebase incentive.  Instead, these new projects planned to be used and useful 20 years in the future must instead use AFUDC.  Sounds like complete gibberish, doesn't it?  Pull up a chair... you're going to understand this when we're done.

FERC proclaims that using AFUDC will "protect" ratepayers.  But, is that really true?  No, it's not.  Ratepayers will end up paying more for these transmission projects, even when they are subsequently cancelled and never provide any service whatsoever.

When a utility builds new infrastructure, it must front up the full cost of constructing the project before it goes into service.  There are two different rate methods to account for the use of this money to build things that end up being useful for the consumer.

CWIP, which stands for Construction Work in Progress, is a method whereby a utility collects its capital construction costs for a new project into a special account, which is then added to the ratebase.  The utility earns its awarded return on the amount in ratebase each year, and in the case of CWIP in ratebase, it earns a return on the money it has invested in the project before the project goes into service.  The benefits of this is that it creates cash flow for the utility to pay interest on the money it borrows for the project.  Having that cash flow also bolsters the utility's credit rating and lowers the utility's cost of capital, allowing it to borrow at reduced rates.  Lower interest costs to the utility flow through to customers, who always end up paying the utility's borrowing costs.  In addition, CWIP in ratebase has the benefit of increasing the rates due to the new addition gradually, in real time, instead of all at once when the new infrastructure goes into service.  The consumer will see their bill go up gradually, and will notice these increases over time and may plan accordingly.

AFUDC, which stands for Allowance of Funds Used During Construction, is a method whereby the utility still collects its construction costs into a special account, but it is not added to the ratebase until the project goes in service.  The project costs keep building in this account, plus interest, and the utility collects nothing until the project goes in service.  There is no cash flow for the utility during planning and construction, therefore it must find money elsewhere to pay interest on the money it has borrowed.  This can affect the financial health of the utility with a large AFUDC burden, and increase its cost of borrowing, which is flowed through to customers.  Customers will pay more to finance a project using AFUDC.  When a project using AFUDC goes into service, the customer will see a huge spike in their rates to pay for the total cost of the project, plus all the accumulated interest.  The consumer will be completely flummoxed (and ticked off) about this huge spike it his electric bill.  He won't see it coming and has no opportunity to plan his usage accordingly.

But there can be advantages to AFUDC, if a proposed project is cancelled before it is put into service because the utility will have not collected any of its costs from ratepayers before then.  In that instance, the utility absorbs the loss and ratepayers are off the hook.

HOWEVER (because here's where the real rub comes in) FERC has also routinely granted an abandonment incentive to all regionally planned projects, like the future long-term planning projects.  The thinking is that the utility is being "forced" to attempt to construct the project by regional planners and therefore has no fault if the planner subsequently cancels the project after the utility has spent money on it.  FERC wants to make these utilities whole by giving them back all the money they have spent, plus interest, if the project is cancelled through no fault of the utility.  Ratepayers are the bank here and are required to shoulder all the risk and cost of planned projects that end up being cancelled before being completed. 

So, it wouldn't matter if the project used CWIP in ratebase or AFUDC to account for its costs if the project was subsequently abandoned.  Ratepayers would still be on the hook to cover the costs, and the AFUDC project would end up costing them more.

AFUDC does not protect consumers as long as FERC continues to use its abandonment incentive to place all risk for project abandonment on consumers.  Consumers have asked FERC several times to take a deep dive into its abandonment incentive to collect the data necessary to evaluate the wisdom of continuing it.  How many regionally planned projects with this incentive have been abandoned?  How much have ratepayers paid for projects that have never become used and useful to them?  (Hint:  It's easily more than a billion dollars.)  How can FERC take action to ameliorate this burden on consumers?  Can it place some burden on the utilities where abandoned project costs are shared between utilities and consumers?  Should it place stricter requirements on regional planners to engage in more due diligence when planning projects, such as more effort to evaluate the likeliness that the project will not be delayed or denied important permits because of opposition in affected communities?  What surety can FERC impose on regional planners to discourage the wasting of ratepayer funds on pipe dream projects that have no realistic expectation to ever be built?  You know, that sort of sounds like these long-term planning projects of which FERC is so enamored.

As Commissioner Christie said in his concurrence:

Based on my experience as a state regulator with IRPs and computer models purporting to predict the future two or more decades down the road, I regard 20-year projections of this sort as, at best, occasionally interesting, but they certainly provide no basis whatsoever for saddling consumers with the costs of a billion-dollar transmission line.
But yet he thinks AFUDC will fix everything.
AFUDC is booked during the pre-service phases, but cannot be recovered from customers until the project is completed and actually serving customers, i.e., “used and useful.”  The NOPR proposal is simply in keeping with traditional good utility ratemaking principles.  Booking these costs as AFUDC also recognizes the reality that just because an LTRT project is selected for a regional plan, it still has to obtain all state siting, certificate of public convenience and necessity  and other, including environmental, approvals, and survive what may be the subsequent litigation, before it is actually built.
But it can still collect its costs from customers using FERC's abandonment incentive.  It's like locking the barn door after the horse escapes!

I'm not fooled by this, and you shouldn't be either.  AFUDC only works if the abandonment incentive is... well... abandoned, and it doesn't look like FERC has any intention of doing so.

And here's the second big fool for consumers... using AFUDC actually hides the huge electric rate increases consumers will face due to the euphemistic "changes in the resource mix" (read more wind and solar and less coal, gas and nukes) until it's way too late to do something about it.  If the costs of the trillions of dollars of new transmission the Commission is trying to encourage with this action don't find their way into your bill until they have either been built or abandoned, you will have no chance to adjust your power consumption behavior, or even to speak out, before the damage is done and your power bill ends up doubling (or more).  The money will have already been spent, and consumers are already on the hook.

If FERC gets away with this... heads utilities win, tails you lose.
0 Comments

FERC Mistakes Grain Belt Express for Shinola

4/27/2022

0 Comments

 
...and that's why its shoes don't shine.
Picture
Last week, FERC issued a proposed new transmission planning and cost allocation rule.  It's a beast of more than 400 pages of FERCenese and I'm not sure anyone  has finished reading it yet since all the news stories about it are generalized and not specific, such as this story.

FERC's rule proposes that state regulatory and permitting agencies have a 90-day period to negotiate cost allocation for the transmission project among themselves before the planning agency imposes its own cost allocation rule.  FERC believes "...state siting proceedings may proceed more efficiently if states have better information about the costs and benefits of such regional transmission facilities."

The real purpose of this is for the states to indicate that they support the transmission project before it gets added to the regional plan, therefore greasing state siting and permitting approvals.  Did Pollyanna write that part?  FERC is ginning up a state vs. state battle that is going to guarantee rancor and disapproval before the project is even approved by the planning agency. 

There is lots of praise in the media trumpeting that FERC's proposed rule is Shinola, but little substance.  Even FERC's Chairman can't tell the difference between Grain Belt Express and Shinola, as evidenced by this delightful little revelation:
In a press conference after Thursday’s meeting, Glick said that active state involvement could help forestall state conflicts like those that have arisen in Missouri, where state lawmakers are seeking to pass a law that would threaten the viability of the Grain Belt Express, a massive proposed transmission project that would deliver power from Kansas across Missouri to the Illinois-Indiana border. 

The NOPR is ​“aimed at bringing the states together and hopefully developing their own approach to cost allocation,” Glick said. For example, ​“it might determine that State A and State C should pay for that line, not State B.”
Why doesn't he know that Grain Belt Express is NOT a cost allocated project?  It's a merchant transmission project without captive customers.  It may only collect its costs through negotiated rates with voluntary customers.  Therefore, FERC's proposed rule would not apply because there is no cost allocation!  He also confuses the Missouri Public Service Commission (the state regulatory permitting agency) with the Missouri Legislature, which is pursuing legislation to end eminent domain for transmission projects that do not provide ample benefit to Missouri.  Even though the PSC approved Grain Belt Express to use eminent domain under existing laws that do not contemplate merchant transmission "fly over" projects, the Missouri Legislature is in the process of correcting that because it is the will of the people of Missouri.  FERC's new rule is completely useless to circumvent the will of the people of Missouri.  Even if a state utility commission agreed to a cost allocation method for a new transmission project, and subsequently approved it, the legislature has the final say because it has the power to change the laws under which the utility commission must operate.

It's not going to grease new transmission projects.  It may simply develop individual state conflicts and guarantee that nothing ever gets built.

People who oppose the transmission project will still put appropriate pressure on the state legislature, such as they have done in Missouri.  The only way to get new transmission built is to prevent the impacts that cause opposition, like burying the project on existing rights of way, such as along highways or rail.  Requiring transmission planners to select projects that have no impacts on landowners and communities crossed would have been a better rule, but FERC is all about the politics and propaganda these days, and not about sensible regulation that creates just and reasonable outcomes.  Today's FERC seems to know little about transmission in the real world outside the DC political bubble, where its unworkable ideas look like Shinola.
0 Comments

The Cost of Questioning Absolute Authority

4/14/2022

1 Comment

 
Stunning story out of Wisconsin.  Former PSC Commissioner Mike Huebsch has racked up over $800K in legal bills defending himself against accusations of bias in his approval of the Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission project.  The story tells us that the PSC has paid Huebsch's outside counsel to defend him, even after state attorneys bowed out of the case when it was revealed that Huebsch was trading encrypted messages with employees of the utilities proposing the project.  The PSC says it could have a conflict of interest and therefore cannot defend Huebsch in-house.
PSC spokesperson Matthew Sweeney said the commission “has unique obligations and could have different interests and duties relating to transparency than former Commissioner Huebsch would have in his capacity as a private citizen,” which could have created a conflict of interest for PSC attorneys.
It would be logical, then, that Huebsch is on his own to defend his actions as a private citizen.  But yet the PSC thinks it should cover his expenses under state law.  The state law covers the actions of state employees "acting within the scope of employment."  Is trading personal messages with utility employees a required or recommended job function of a PSC Commissioner?  Regardless of whether communicating with utilities is a job function, Huebsch says the messages were of a personal nature.
Huebsch, a former state legislator who served in Gov. Scott Walker’s cabinet before joining the PSC in 2015, says the messages were purely personal exchanges with old friends and that he never discussed PSC business outside of official proceedings.
Therefore the messages were not within Huebsch's scope of employment and defending him should not be the state's financial responsibility.  The law is clear.
Regardless of the results of the litigation the governmental unit, if it does not provide legal counsel to the defendant officer or employee, shall pay reasonable attorney fees and costs of defending the action, unless it is found by the court or jury that the defendant officer or employee did not act within the scope of employment.
But what does the PSC care?  It thinks that it can simply shift the costs of Huebsch's legal bills onto the utilities it regulates under a different state law. 
The public service commission is authorized by s. 196.85, Stats., to charge any public utility, power district, or sewerage system the expenses attributable to the performance of the commission's duties.
If the messages were personal and not part of Huebsch's job function, then the cost of defending them may not be passed to the utilities.

Huebsch makes a giant leap in logic to presume that these costs wrongly paid by the PSC and wrongly charged to the utilities would be passed through to electric ratepayers in their electric bills.
Through his attorney, Huebsch blamed the plaintiffs for running up the tab on utility customers who will ultimately absorb the costs of defending the PSC’s decisions.
The news article says, "Under state law, legal expenses are assessed to the utilities involved, in this case American Transmission Company, ITC Midwest and Dairyland Power Cooperative, which don’t serve retail customers but charge transmission rates that ultimately affect electricity costs."

And who has jurisdiction over transmission rates?  It's not the Wisconsin PSC, it's the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  Wisconsin has no authority to determine that these legal fees should be a ratepayer responsibility.  Indeed, the case could be made that Huebsch's legal expenses to defend his personal actions while serving as PSC Commissioner do not belong in an account that is passed through to ratepayers through the utilities' formula rates.  FERC administrates an accounting classification system known as the Uniform System of Accounts, which sorts utility expenditures into categories, or accounts, based on their nature and purpose.  Where does Huebsch think his legal expenses belong under the USoA?  Do they belong under Regulatory Commission Expenses (Account 928) or do they more properly belong in the 426 account series as a non-operating expense?  An argument could be made that they are a non-operating expense.  Do the utilities involved bear any responsibility for communicating with Huebsch in a secretive manner while he was considering their permit application?  If the messages were not entirely personal, then they could be seen as "for the purpose of influencing the decisions of public officials", which belongs in Account 426.4.  If the messages cannot be produced for judicial review, how could anyone ever know what they said?  The utility could never PROVE that the messages were harmless, routine operating expenses that should be recovered from ratepayers, and the utilities have the burden of proof.  They won't have enough proof to recover these expenses from electric ratepayers.

Unbelievably, Huebsch whines that nobody should be allowed to question whether his decision was biased because it's just too expensive for ratepayers.

“The best outcome for ratepayers in Wisconsin and across the country would be for this unfounded ‘bias’ claim to be dismissed as soon as possible,” Huebsch said. “Every dime they have had to pay until now — including for the co-owners’ numerous law firms and PSC legal staff — is because of the plaintiffs and their choices.”

Huebsch said if the Supreme Court doesn’t throw out the bias claim, ratepayers will end up paying to litigate an “untold number of copycat ‘bias’ lawsuits.”
Can we talk about "choices" here?  Huebsch CHOSE to carry on personal conversations with employees of utilities that he regulates.  That's the "choice" that has caused these costs, not the filing of lawsuits that resulted from Huebsch's "choice." 

The idea that anyone affected by regulatory decisions should be prohibited from challenging those decisions in court is a non-starter, no matter who is paying. 

If Huebsch was really worried about electric rates, perhaps he should have considered the cost of the project itself?  It's out of his hands now, of course, but the utilities behind it continue to spend money knowing that they can apply at FERC to collect their sunk investment, plus generous double digit return, even if the project is never built (which looks like a real possibility lately).

Is this really about the ratepayers?  Or is that just an excuse to shift attention away from Huebsch's personal choices?
1 Comment

Putting Congress in CHARGE of Energy Regulation

3/25/2022

1 Comment

 
Picture
Honestly, these guys just don't know how to play fair.  Several special interest groups have written a new law that ensures they will get their way in an ongoing FERC rulemaking.  Congress writes law.  Agencies write regulations that become the nuts and bolts of how the law Congress makes is carried out. 

Last year, FERC opened a rulemaking to make new regulations governing interstate transmission planning, cost allocation and generator interconnection.  FERC claimed its existing regulations had become unjust and unreasonable and no longer comported with the law Congress had made.  That's justification enough to change the regulations.

FERC sought comments on its new transmission rulemaking.  Lots of concerned companies, groups, and government officials responded, including a group of consumer organizations with a history of defending themselves against unneeded, unwanted transmission projects.  (See initial comments here, and reply comments here.)  FERC has the issue under consideration and has said it hopes to release a proposed rule by the end of this year.

However, last week Senator Sheldon Whitehouse introduced legislation he called the CHARGE Act.  (Connecting Hard-to-reach Areas with Renewably Generated Energy - Maybe they're only hard to reach because they are energy parasites who refuse to create any energy in their own back yards?).  The CHARGE Act is "endorsed by Public Citizen, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), New Consensus, Grid Strategies, and Digital Climate Action."  And it sounds incredibly familiar.  In fact, it's just a slimmed down version of these groups comments on FERC's transmission planning rulemaking docket.  Instead of allowing FERC to finish its rulemaking docket, these special interest groups have attempted to short-circuit and second guess FERC's process by having Congress enshrine the rule they want into law.  FERC might as well tear up all the stuff that hundreds of parties spent time and money creating... the spoiled babies are attempting an end run around FERC in order to get their own way in a FERC proceeding by going through Congress instead.

If this is the way things are going to proceed from now on, FERC might as well just stop doing anything except rubber stamping the political wish list of the party in power.  That's pretty much what it has been doing since at least 2017, anyhow. 

Maybe Congress needs to be reminded that when it created the DOE, it retained an impartial regulator (FERC) to be independent from DOE because the DOE was expected to be too political to regulate impartially and effectively?

At any rate, take a look at the CHARGE act and see if you can figure out who's missing from this FERC technical conference guest list:

(A) LEADERSHIP.—A technical conference convened under paragraph (1) may be led by the members of the Commission.
(B) PARTICIPATION.—The Commission may invite to participate in a technical conference convened under paragraph (1)
rep
resentatives of residential ratepayers, transmission providers,
environmental justice and eq
uity groups, Tribal communities,
Independent
System Operators,
Regional Transmission Or
ganizations, consumer protection groups,
renew
able energy advocates,
State utility commission
and energy offices, and such other entities as the Commission determines appropriate.
This is a conference to determine transmission planning... what shall we build and where shall we build it?  Who's missing?  Landowners and affected communities.  They are the biggest stakeholders of all because they will be forced against their will to host new transmission planned by all these NIMBYs at the technical conference.  Of course they don't want to invite the people who are going to end up holding the hot potato of unwanted energy infrastructure to their conference.  It's a club of the chosen who can decide to conscript your home, your business, your economic prosperity, and your future, without giving you a seat at the table.

Here's another... who is missing from this transmission advisory committee?
(b) REPRESENTATION.—The committee shall be composed of not more than 30 members, including--
(1) at least 2 representatives of end-use customers;
(2) at least 1 representative of transmission providers;
(3) at least 2 representatives of environmental justice and equity groups;
(4) at least 1 representative of Tribal communities;
(5) at least 1 representative of Independent System Operators;
(6) at least 1 representative of Regional Transmission Organizations;
(7) at least 1 representative of consumer protection groups;
(8) at least 2 representatives of renewable energy advocates;
(9) at least 1 representative of State commissions;
(10) at least 1 representative of public power entities;
(11) at least 1 representative of marketers; and
(12) at least 1 representative of generators.
Who's missing?  Landowners and affected communities, again.  The very people who would have to live with the new transmission.

It's not like they think landowners are represented by any of these groups.  It's clear in another part of the bill that landowners and affected communities are something that must be communicated with. 
(c) OFFICE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.—The Commission shall consult the Office of Public Participation during the rulemaking process under subsection (a), including with respect to--(1) guidance on public participation requirements; (2) communications with the public concerning transmission planning that may impact local communities and land owners, including Tribal, indigenous, and environmental justice communities; and (3) minimum data transparency and access requirements.
The landowners and affected communities don't get invited to any committees or conferences though.  And it's not like they are excluding the entire public, just landowners and affected communities.  Tribal and environmental justice communities are both recognized as "the public" AND ALSO included in the committees and conferences  (go ahead, compare to the first two quotes I included).   This is obviously on purpose in order to exclude these very important stakeholders like they don't matter.

And then they wonder why transmission opposition forms and ends up cancelling or delaying their project?

I miss democracy.
1 Comment

PATH Must Pay For Its Own Advertising and Influencing

3/17/2022

0 Comments

 
Mandate.  What a lovely word!

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its mandate today.
Picture
Our petition for review is granted, the portions of FERC's Opinions 554-A and 554-B that authorized PATH to book the disputed expenditures in accounts other than Account 426.4 are vacated, and the case is remanded to FERC for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion.

You can read the Court's amended opinion here.
0 Comments

Utilities + Bribery = $$$

3/9/2022

0 Comments

 
Well, would you look at that?  Another state legislative leader gets indicted on charges that he engineered the success of utility profits through legislation in exchange for financial favors from the utility.

What are the odds that two powerful investor owned utilities participated in schemes to provide financial favors to state legislative leaders in exchange for legislation that financially benefited the utility in two different states?  Are these two unrelated and isolated incidents that just so happened to be uncovered around the same time.... or is there a bigger scandal waiting to be uncovered?

FirstEnergy was outed in Ohio, and then it was ComEd's turn in Illinois.  ComEd has been accused of providing jobs for people directed by Michael Madigan.  How much of the money ComEd paid to these people in exchange for little to no work came out of the pockets of struggling electric consumers?  In the case of FirstEnergy, it was millions that "accidentally" (or on purpose) got accounted for wrong and recovered through electric rates.  ComEd is accused of funneling money through lobbying firms (which would not be recovered from ratepayers if ComEd accounted for it without "accident"), but also for paying a law firm for legal work that never occurred, hiring numerous paid interns, and appointing a ComEd board member that the company didn't really have a use for.  All of those payments probably came out of the common man's pocket through electric rates.

When is FERC going to treat their rate cheaters like the criminals they are?  When it is discovered through audit that the utility recovered expenditures it was not entitled to, FERC gives them a slap on the wrist and makes them give back the money they stole.  There are no penalties or punishment whatsoever.  The utility is free to go forth and commit the same errors again.  Maybe they're caught at it in the future, or maybe they simply get away with it because nobody is paying attention.

But what happens when FERC detects market manipulation by an outsider, like an energy trader?  These accused violators are hounded to the ends of the earth and assessed outrageous fines in the millions of dollars.

There's no equity here.  FERC's utility pets are given free rein to steal as much as they want from electric consumers, while electric market traders are prosecuted for things that aren't even against FERC's rules, because the trader "should have known" that making money in electric markets was somehow wrong.  How does this protect electric ratepayers?  FERC's inequitable treatment of entities that steal from ratepayers needs to be fixed.

And there's probably plenty of stealing going on.  What are the chances that if two totally separate utilities in two different states were caught bribing state officials for financial benefit that EVERY utility does the same, in some form or other?  Of course they do.  Despite flowery corporate ethics policies, making money trumps everything.  Handing out money and favors is how utility profits are made.  They all do it.

Time to crack down...
0 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    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
    StopPATH Blog

    StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project.  The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

    StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view.  If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty.  People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself.  If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

    Got something to say?  Submit your own opinion for publication.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories

    All
    $$$$$$
    2023 PJM Transmission
    Aep Vs Firstenergy
    Arkansas
    Best Practices
    Best Practices
    Big Winds Big Lie
    Can Of Worms
    Carolinas
    Citizen Action
    Colorado
    Corporate Propaganda
    Data Centers
    Democracy Failures
    DOE Failure
    Emf
    Eminent Domain
    Events
    Ferc Action
    FERC Incentives Part Deux
    Ferc Transmission Noi
    Firstenergy Failure
    Good Ideas
    Illinois
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Land Agents
    Legislative Action
    Marketing To Mayberry
    MARL
    Missouri
    Mtstorm Doubs Rebuild
    Mtstormdoubs Rebuild
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    Newslinks
    NIETC
    Opinion
    Path Alternatives
    Path Failures
    Path Intimidation Attempts
    Pay To Play
    Potomac Edison Investigation
    Power Company Propaganda
    Psc Failure
    Rates
    Regulatory Capture
    Skelly Fail
    The Pjm Cartel
    Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes
    Transource
    Valley Link Transmission
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.