TPL brings us the news that Susquehanna-Roseland partner PPL has made an announcement that they will begin construction on their part of the unneeded project next month.

Never mind that they only have "unofficial" approval from the NPS to annihilate the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area in exchange for some "mitigation" pay offs, and the EIS has not been completed yet.

Never mind that there's still a pending court case before the NJ Court of Appeals.

PPL wants affected citizens to step in line to receive their stipend of axle grease and Koolaid.  The first 50 to sample the beverages at PPL's "Open House" may also receive a limited edition crying towel.

The race to the "too big to fail gold-plated reliability project to nowhere" finish line has begun!

Back in 2005, Congress decided that not enough investment was being made in the transmission system, and this lack of investment was subsequently causing a decline in electric reliability.  They ordered FERC to concoct rules to provide for transmission investment incentives.  One of FERC's qualifications for incentives is based on the project's "challenges or risks," with the thought being that by making transmission investment less risky, it would become more attractive and result in increased investment.

What is the "risk" in building transmission?  The greatest risk is faced by new transmission projects that require new rights-of-way and new corridors through virgin territory, which will always be met with opposition from affected landowners and communities.  Replacement or upgrading of existing transmission faces much less risk and opposition, and should always be considered first before planning new builds.  However, industry continually fails to follow the path of least resistance because transmission incentives have made building and owning new assets a corporate profit-center in itself.  Investor owned utilities choose to take on riskier projects because they reap bigger financial rewards.  In addition, FERC has redirected all responsibility for financial risk from investors and transmission owners to consumers.

FERC defines risk this way:  "the challenges or risks faced by a project, e.g., siting, long lead times, regulatory and political risks, and financing challenges."  FERC attempts to financially reward investors and transmission owners for undertaking this risk, which has the effect of rewarding them for finding ways to overcome the risk.  Instead of removing risk, FERC attempts to financially compensate for it, and that increases consumers' ultimate cost of electricity.

The methods the industry has developed to overcome risk do not work and actually serve to increase the risk of successful opposition and the cost of the project.  Opposition fuels the siting, political, regulatory, long lead time (delay) and financial (cost allocation) risks.  The more opposition a project garners, the riskier and costlier it becomes.  A more costly project increases profit for investors and transmission owners.  They have no incentive to reduce risk.  As a result, we've reached a standoff where nothing of any substance is ever going to get built, even projects that are needed and economical.

The crux of this problem lies with transmission planning and siting "best practices" that rely on dishonesty, subversion of due process and dissemination of propaganda as a means to control "the public."  These self-defeating practices actually fuel more public anger, delay, political unpopularity and opposition entrenchment.  The solution is to change the transmission planning and siting processes undertaken by project owners, and to some extent by regulators, in order to prevent opposition and incite the support of the public as an equal partner in accomplishing a common goal.

The only way to accomplish this sea change is to throw everything the industry currently thinks they know about successful siting strategies out the window and start fresh with new perspectives.  The solutions have been right under the noses (and barking at the heels!) of transmission owners for quite a while, but they refuse to take the mental leap that would enable them to learn from experience.  Like a stubborn animal, transmission owners just keep butting their head into the same, old brick wall, and expecting different results.  It will never happen with the current "us vs. them" mindset that gives transmission owners a wholly unwarranted feeling of intellectual superiority over project opposition that allows them to incorrectly conclude that opposition can, or should, be dispersed through bullying, trickery or bribery tactics.  There is a complete lack of trust from square one when the root of a project lies in corporate or investor profit.

If you're a regular blog reader here, you might have seen an earlier post that featured the work of a couple of Brits who are nothing short of brilliant.  Patrick Devine-Wright and Matthew Cotton from the University of Exeter have continued their excellent research into the phenomenon of opposition to high-voltage electric transmission siting and, once again, they come to apt and stunning (to the industry, not to us opponents) conclusions.  What makes these guys so brilliant is that they spend time with the opposition and approach the problem honestly in search of a mutually acceptable solution.

Putting pylons into place: a UK case study of public beliefs about the impacts of electricity transmission-line-siting is the result of their work with a group of transmission line opponents.  I think it would be interesting to see their conclusions if they studied a successful opposition group, such as the tri-state PATH opposition, and the ways in which we manipulated, out-smarted and out-maneuvered PATH at every turn, but that's not particularly germane here, although there would undoubtedly be quite a lot of laughter and not a few pints of Raging Bitch ale consumed in the process...

The study comes to the conclusion that the industry and regulators are approaching the problem all wrong in the very beginning.  Transmission planning decisions are currently made at a level that is quite mysterious to the average citizen and subsequently presented to them as a front-loaded fait accompli where the community's only input is framed in an inaccurate "NIMBY" context that reduces their input to a choice between two evils that utilizes a "divide and conquer" methodology. The tone is dismissive and arrogant, whether intended or not. This approach breeds immediate mistrust of a self-interested "authority," and forces them into the hopeless position of attempting to justify and defend a previous decision, instead of a true community consultation process.  Trust, once lost, can never be regained. 

Once the industry has so kindly gathered affected individuals with common cause for these community exhibitions (referred to by PATH opponents as "dog & pony shows") opposition breeds and gathers steam.  The opposition groups satisfy the public's search for a trust-worthy, open and inclusive source of information and a plan for action that empowers and encourages the David vs. Goliath battle that will ensue.  The industry doesn't stand a chance here and have, in fact, already lost the battle at the first engagement.

By broadly painting any opposition with the selfish "NIMBY" brush, the industry is simply lying to themselves and ensuring their own defeat.  What the researchers found was that opposition is intellectually capable of, and indeed demands, a thorough discussion and debate of alternatives.  However, this discussion and debate has already taken place at a higher planning level where the interests of the public have been represented by disconnected and uninformed regulators and government-funded consumer advocates who are out of touch with the real world they supposedly represent.  The only mutually satisfactory conclusion at this point is an acceptable alternative (such as the Mt. Storm - Doubs rebuild in the case of the PATH Project).

Current industry "best practices" lack procedural fairness, effective consultation with affected individuals and consideration of acceptable alternatives.  Until that is remedied, transmission will continue to be "risky" and unduly costly and the stalemate will continue.

The Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission filed a complaint against FirstEnergy subsidiary West Penn Power last week related to their investigation of a 2009 incident in which a Pennsylvania woman was killed by a falling power line.

West Penn Power has repeatedly refused to provide internal investigation reports and information to the PUC for use in their own investigation.  Read PA PUC's complaint here.

The PUC is seeking to fine FirstEnergy $86,000, with additional fines of $1,000 per day accruing until FE coughs up the requested information.  They also ask that FE not be permitted to recover the fines from ratepayers.

FE is saying the same stupid stuff they always say... we're evaluating the complaint and will respond appropriately or some such nonsense.

The PUC complaint is an entirely separate matter from the lawsuit filed by the family of the woman killed by the falling power line.

Read the letter from the family's attorney to the PUC that details the improper training on splices Allegheny linemen received.  The letter states:  "Allegheny Power's witnesses continue to confirm the company's failure to follow the manufacturer's instructions and its own internal standards for splice installation, and there is obviously a grave concern for the safety of those living in Allegheny Power's service area because of its practices."

Allegheny Power, now FirstEnergy, just doesn't care how many of their power lines fail, fall and electrocute people. It's all about protecting themselves legally, who cares about public safety?  This is why corporations should never be considered "people."  People could never behave in such a vile fashion.

The Maryland Public Service Commission will hear the complaint of Sugarloaf Conservancy on June 20 at 10:00 a.m.  The item has been moved to the end of the agenda because the PSC suspects that they may have a full house on this matter, so expect to be there for a while.

The complaint details FirstEnergy subsidiary Potomac Edison's lack of performance reading residential electric meters as required by law.  The FirstEnergy Disappearing Meter Reader Scam has been going on since just after the Allegheny Energy/FirstEnergy merger last year.

You are welcome and encouraged to attend the hearing.  Directions to the PSC can be found here.  If you prefer not to deal with traffic and parking hassles in Baltimore, you can hitch a ride on Sugarloaf Conservancy's bus from Frederick County.  Cost for the bus is $20.  Contact Sugarloaf Conservancy to reserve your seat.

Potomac Edison is caught like a rat in a trap!  Cue the dissembling -- Potomac Edison is all of a sudden pretending that there is a great meter reader shortage and they're hiring.  Don't get too excited if you're looking for a job though... it only pays $12.31 an hour.  Who can support a family on that pittance?  No wonder they have a shortage of meter readers.  Perhaps they're desperate for help because they don't pay a living wage, ya think?  Staffing shortage is no excuse for violating Maryland law by not reading meters as required.

Todd, Todd, Todd... it's "unfortunate timing" that you're still completely full of crap!  The only thing that "comes out in the end" are the fabrications Todd continually spins.  I think Todd should get in his car and start reading meters instead of sitting uselessly around the office and making crap up.  He can start here, my meter hasn't been read in over 6 months.

FirstEnergy made some big, stinking deal out of packaging their profiteering on coal plant retirements as "an initiative" today.  Their "initiative" will increase their profits and energize their future [profits] at your expense.  However, a turd by any other name still stinks just as bad.

FirstEnergy's big transmission play has been common knowledge since April 26.  Take a look at PJM's April 27 TEAC presentation to find a FirstEnergy transmission project near you.

But suddenly, FirstEnergy attempts to package $1B worth of transmission projects as "an initiative."  They are simply revving their propaganda engines -- more improper influencing of regulators, shifty land agents, divide and conquer "open houses," and astroturf front groups coming right up!

"Whether it's new high voltage transmission lines, new substations, or installing voltage regulating equipment at the power plants being deactivated, we are committed to providing ongoing communications to affected stakeholders - particularly governmental officials and customers - and will minimize impacts to property owners and the environment wherever possible as these projects are built."

And about those, "impacts to property owners and the environment"...

During their 4th quarter 2011 earnings call, FirstEnergy bragged that, "The skill sets acquired from Allegheny on transmission siting and construction will also be invaluable going forward as future projects are completed." 

In that case, check out Allegheny Energy's transmission "skill sets" in minimizing impact to the environment (pictures!). Also check out Allegheny Energy's impacts on property owners here and here (letters from affected landowners).  See one of Allegheny Energy's Option for Real Estate Purchase, or a Right-of-Way Purchase Agreement and read about how Allegheny Energy treated landowners during their failed PATH transmission project in West Virginia, Virginia and Maryland.  Expect to be treated accordingly because these old dogs will never learn new tricks, they just move on to fresh meat with their "skill sets" intact.

And how does Ohio feel about FirstEnergy's "Energizing the Future" initiative?  Lance S. Traves, president of Labyrinth Management Group Inc. in Medina, a strategic environmental, health and safety consulting firm, thinks FirstEnergy's initiative is "bad energy policy for Ohio."

"FirstEnergy Corp.'s recent announcement that it will spend up to $1 billion to upgrade the electricity transmission system in Ohio to further support centralized generation is another example of a short-term energy policy that is bad for the state.

These costs to be paid by Ohio ratepayers will only heighten existing barriers to more efficient and cleaner forms of distributed electricity such as industrial co-generation and combined heat and power (CHP) in Ohio.

Second, the planned transmission upgrades will subsidize FirstEnergy's ability to use more distant power plants to provide power to Ohio. Longer transmission distances result in increased transmission line electricity losses and lower overall efficiency. However, when rate payers cover the capital cost for transmission, FirstEnergy and other investor-owned utilities can afford the additional transmission losses."

Gotta introduce this guy to Bill  :-)

FirstEnergy -- out of your backyard and into someone else's.  It would be nice if they could at least finish their last failure by properly abandoning the PATH project before moving on to new profit-making "initiatives" and having their "best practices" turned upside down by a new crop of transmission project opponents.

*cue the circus music*  FirstEnergy has finally lobbed a ball at AEP in the corporate dodge ball game going on in the state of Ohio.  Unfortunately, FirstEnergy throws like a flabby, middle-aged nerd, but hey, at least they finally showed up for the game!

FirstEnergy finally abandoned their loser ad campaign and has upped their budget to create a real commercial that answers one of AEP's very creative commercials, the "dodge ball" commercial.

In FE's version of the game, AEP runs from the game and hides behind a bunch of little kids.  I give it a 5 on the scale of creativity, but you just can't quite dance to it.  I said creative, FE!  Isn't there one among you who's twisted just enough to be truly creative?  Keep trying, I know you can do it!

The only real humor to be found in the commercial is the actor FirstEnergy hired to portray themselves... young, good looking and athletic.  I'm sorry, but I've seen you guys before, and I didn't see anyone even close to that guy.  Character FAIL!

So, what are these companies fighting about anyhow?  I know you are all insanely curious.  Here's a simplistic explanation:  FirstEnergy is buying electricity AEP generates at bargain basement prices and then marking it up in order to resell it to AEP customers at lower prices than AEP charges.  AEP makes money by competing to sell electricity it generates, and FirstEnergy makes money by being the middleman and reselling it to you at a lower price.  What's at issue here is the amount AEP can charge for its electricity.  AEP wants to raise the price so that FirstEnergy can no longer make a big profit as the middle man.  This would effectively kill the current competition going on in AEP's Ohio service territory and stop AEP's customer migration to FirstEnergy and other competitive suppliers.  To further simplify, it's all about money.  Both companies are greedy shysters who are milking consumers for every dime they can.  Neither one is any better than the other.  You might as well toss a coin, or make your selection based on how hard their commercials make you laugh.  The company with the funniest commercial wins the customers!

Read More

Yesterday, attorneys for environmental groups, along with attorneys for the utilities and the BPU, presented arguments before a New Jersey Court of Appeals on the BPU's approval of the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission project.  The Court now has to decide whether to let the BPU's decision stand, or remand the case back to the BPU for further consideration or a whole new hearing.

I wonder what the BPU would do with the S-R line if it came back under their jurisdiction at this point in time?  I'm guessing it could get pretty interesting!

The article says that the arguments centered on whether S-R is still needed in light of lowered demand. 

"But neither PJM nor the BPU can rely on future events, attorney Marc Lasky told the judges in his arguments on behalf of PSE&G.

"PJM determined whether there was a need for some project to address reliability issues," he told the panel. "It was not PSE&G which decided on its own Roseland-Susquehanna was needed."

He said neither the regional operator nor the utility can "rely on wishes and hope. Does one put the reliability of the entire power grid at risk by wishes and hopes?"

PJM uses "wishes and hopes" to predict need for projects like S-R in the future, and how much of PJM's
"wishes and hopes" RTEP is based on old (or manufactured) data?  Would a new, honest evaluation show that other cheaper, faster solutions to any remaining violations may now be a more viable alternative to an increasingly expensive transmission over-build that relies on Project Mountaineer's 2005 "wishes and hopes" to increase the import of Ohio Valley coal-fired electric generation to the east coast by 5,000 MW?  The economic scenario upon which Project Mountaineer relied no longer exists.  Coal-fired generation is no longer "cheaper."  Are electric consumers in the PJM region truly being served by PJM's transmission planning process here?  I'm thinking not.

PSE&G probably thinks their project is "too big to fail" at this point in time.  After all, they have sprinkled over $70M of your money around to various groups and entities in order to silence any opposition to their project and grease certain strategic wheels. 

Here's a list of the publicly admitted "financial inducements" the utilities have agreed to pay to date:

$40M to The Nature Conservancy to perform "mitigation" in exchange for approval by the National Park Service of the destruction of The Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area and The Appalachian Trail.

$20M to the NJ Highlands Council in exchange for dropping their opposition to S-R.

A total somewhere in the neighborhood of $4M to various New Jersey towns for "mitigation" in exchange for the towns dropping their opposition to S-R.

$1.5M to the Montville Board of Education for "mitigation" of S-R's EMF on a school.

$1M to the Fredon School for "mitigation" of EMF at the school.

An "undisclosed amount" to the Saw Creek community in Pennsylvania in exchange for dropping their opposition to the project.

An unknown amount for strategic property purchases and other expenditures (estimated in the millions).

Totaling up just the known amounts, the utilities have already spent around $70M of their project's estimated $1B cost.  How much did the utilities budget for these kinds of "financial inducements" in their cost estimates?  When a cost estimate for S-R that includes this $70M of "inducements" is compared to other other alternatives, is S-R still the most cost effective solution?  What alternatives were even considered in the first place?

The cost of the S-R project, including all these "inducements," will be repaid to the utilities, along with a 12.9% yearly return, by the 60 million electric consumers in the 13-state PJM region.  The press persists in wrongly claiming that the utilities are paying these "inducements."  They're not.  The utility is merely "loaning" you the money for "your" transmission project now, and and will be well paid by you for doing so.  And the more they spend, the more they make!

But now, a court stands in their way.  They wouldn't be so bold as to try to "induce" a court, now would they?  I wonder how much something like that would cost?  Can someone contact John Grisham and let him know that we may have the plot of his next novel forming here?

Yesterday was the deadline for FirstEnergy to submit ordered information regarding their WV plant closures to the PSC.  FirstEnergy didn't really provide any new information.

I couldn't help but notice the way FirstEnergy avoided answering the PSC's questions related to FE's scheme to enrich themselves with higher capacity prices as a result of their wave of coal plant closures.  FE told the PSC, "It's not prudent to speculate..."  FE isn't doing that great a job hiding the real reason for the plant closures, are they?

Too bad the PSC didn't ask them about how their premature plant closures could pad FE's bottom line by forcing some tasty RMR contracts.  (RMR = Reliability Must Run - payments FE will receive to keep 5 of their Ohio units slated for closure available until transmission improvements are completed.) 

FE told the WV PSC that they have no authority to order the plants to stay open.  And we all know who wears the pants at the WV PSC, don't we?  They put on a good act, but it's quite obvious they're nothing but Tony the Trickster's lapdog.  Nobody is fooled anymore.

FE is quite a bit smarter than AEP, however.  While AEP wasted time and money bellyaching over plant closures, Tony the Trickster was scheming up a way to make a bunch of money on plant closures.  Of course, that's only smarter if FE doesn't get caught....

AEP held their annual stockholders' meeting the other day and this photo pretty much sums up the state of AEP's affairs:

Although "retired," our pal Mikey continues to control the strings of AEP's LittleDrummerBoy.  Pretty hard to step away from the throne, isn't it, Mikey?  You're going to continue to meddle for a long, long time, aren't you?

Anyhow, AEP has finally admitted that their Mikey-designed business plan was driving them to financial ruin and promises to wean themselves off their coal addiction by "repositioning their assets" to rely on coal for no more than 50% of their generation by 2020.  Over-reliance on any one type of fuel, such as coal, makes an electric company uncompetitive, doesn't it?  Duh, fellas!

Well, it's about time AEP abandoned their fruitless efforts to bully and buy the continued legislative maintenance of the dirty power company status quo under which they have operated for so long and admitted that their dirty business model and sworn allegiance to coal was not only unsustainable, but unprofitable as well, and was leaving AEP in the dust behind other companies that were willing to change with the times.  Let's hope their new found diversification plans actually translate into actual changes.

Let's take a look at AEP's Annual Report, called "AEP Sustainability."   Blah, blah, blah... we love being regulated because we get a guaranteed return in a regulated environment and don't have to compete with other companies!  And there's no better place to be regulated than at the bosom of Mother FERC while building unnecessary (but highly profitable!) long-distance high-voltage transmission lines!  Take a look at AEP's transmission plans.  PATH is still on the list, albeit all the way down at the bottom.  It looks like they deleted a sentence that was originally in the PATH blurb (see space and double periods).  So, therefore, it's up to your creative minds to decide what else AEP said about PATH.  Let us know in the comments what you think AEP may have tacked onto the end of their PATH paragraph and then deleted.

The DOE recently requested comments on Obama's Rapid Response Transmission Team ("er-tit," as Bill has coined it).  Some of these comments are just plain funny (try not to giggle at EEI's desperation), but AEP's comments revise history!

AEP trots out the predictable, tired, 16-year odyssey of their badly planned Jacksons Ferry - Wyoming Project as an example of the "broken" transmission siting process.  There was nothing wrong with the siting process, the project's problems stemmed from AEP's poor planning, as Bill has aptly demonstrated.

But, here's the biggest lie:

"The delays experienced with the Wyoming-Jacksons Ferry line were so pronounced that AEP has since avoided crossing federal lands in siting projects."

Well, except for their PATH Project, which came AFTER Jacksons Ferry-Wyoming.  AEP didn't seem to have a problem siting that thing through a national forest and three national park units, did they?  They didn't even seem to have a problem with PATH's federal EIS process, until the NPS denied their request for indefinite abeyance of the process and tossed out PATH's application.  Now the federal permitting process is broken and AEP can re-write history.

AEP also presents a few nifty timelines showing how a proper transmission planning, permitting, siting and construction process should work.  It's pretty hard not to notice that right of entry onto private property for surveying purposes only begins AFTER the project receives state approval.  Remember all the trespassing and landowner harassment by PATH contractors doing "surveys" before they'd received a permit?  And check it out... initial contacts with identified landowners to negotiate rights-of-way and purchase begins at least six months AFTER the project receives state approval!  What the heck is PATH doing with millions of dollars of unneeded property and purchase options on their hands right now, after they voluntarily withdrew from the state approval process, and while their project dangles from the cliff of abandonment?  Seems to me if they'd waited to purchase needed property until AFTER receiving state approvals, as their own ideal plan dictates, us ratepayers could have saved well over a hundred million dollars in imprudent land purchases and options (plus 12.4% interest compounded yearly for 4 years) upon which PATH seems to have jumped the gun.  In 2011, PATH tossed away over $2.5M of YOUR money on forfeited purchase options that they removed from CWIP and expensed (but that's another topic - come back tomorrow to see how PATH wasted your money in 2011, I'm still crunching the numbers.)

AEP's project timeline is one for the scrapbooks...