Guess what, "Potomac Edison" and "Mon Power" customers?  FirstEnergy wants you to pay more for electricity in 2012.  The company filed for another ENEC rate increase on September 1, 2011.

According to their filing with the WV-PSC,

"The Companies propose a $31,909,406 annual increase in rates effective January 1, 2012, representing an overall increase of 2.7%.    This amount is comprised of an actual $57,313,276 under-recovery balance at June 30, 2011, offset by a projected $22,903,870 over- recovery for the 2012 rate period at current rates and a $2,500,000 reduction to rates during 2012 to share synergy savings resulting from the merger of Allegheny Energy, Inc. and FirstEnergy Corp. earlier this year."

Here's a translation:

Total amount of increase:  $31,909,406 -- 2.7%

They hadn't recovered enough to pay their costs of providing electricity to you when evaluated on June 30, 2011 (despite all those previous increases in the past couple of years).  This is due to the high cost of fuel (coal) used to produce all their electricity.  The cost of coal, and burning coal to produce electricity, is only expected to go up even higher in the future.

If they don't raise our rates on January 1, 2012, but continue with current rates, they will end up overcharging us nearly $23M for the year.  However, this surplus will be used to offset that under recovered balance from prior years of $57M, still leaving us with a balance due to the power company of around $34M.

That $34M is slightly reduced by the $2.5M "synergy savings" (where do they get these stupid phrases?) that were our consolation prize for the WV-PSC approving the merger of Allegheny Energy and First Energy last year.  As you can see, $2.5M sounds like a lot, but it's really just chump change to the power company in the grand scheme of things.

In addition to those "synergy savings," FirstEnergy was also required to launch an Energy Efficiency program in West Virginia.  According to their filing for a proposed program, that will cost us an additional $11M in rate increases over the next 5 years.  This case is running in parallel to the ENEC rate case and is expected to be combined with it to create just one increase to our bills, therefore, we need to add the cost of the EE plan to the $32M ENEC rate increase to come up with an even bigger jump in rates.

The Energy Efficiency program that FirstEnergy is proposing will provide the following benefits for low-income residential customers:

CFL lightbulbs, water saving devices like faucet aerators and shower heads, and new energy efficient refrigerators.

The program will also provide rebate incentives for commercial/industrial customers to install energy efficient lighting in their facilities.

The program will be paid for by all residential and commercial customers.  Industrial customers (who use the lion's share of the electricity and pay the highest bills) are exempt from paying for the program, but they are still eligible to receive benefits under the program.  However, if a lot of industrial customers take advantage of it, they may be charged for a portion of it in the future.

There are many things wrong with FirstEnergy's Energy Efficiency plan.  First, they set the bar too low.  This plan is much weaker than existing plans FirstEnergy runs in neighboring states.  In addition, FirstEnergy will recover all the costs of this program, including administrative and marketing costs, from residential and commercial ratepayers, many of whom are not eligible for any benefits under the plan.  However, FirstEnergy will offer benefits to industrial customers, who will not pay for the plan.  FirstEnergy will also collect their "lost revenue" caused by the program saving customers money on their electric bills.  This "lost revenue" is overestimated by around 250% in the plan by way of some really creative math.  The low-income residential program is available for both homeowners and tenants in rental property.  The refrigerator replacement program is ripe for abuse by shifty landlords trading used appliances for new ones, then selling the new ones, and replacing them with cheaper used ones, repeat, repeat, repeat, over and over again.  It also looks like FirstEnergy will be paying a contractor to haul away the old refrigerators that are replaced.  As StopPATH's Steve Smith can tell you, there's big money in recycling old metal appliances, like refrigerators.  Steve made over a thousand bucks for our organization by recycling old appliances.

Fortunately, there are two grassroots citizens groups who will be working at the PSC to protect your interests in these two, parallel rate increase cases.  Energy Efficient West Virginia and The Coalition for Reliable Power have teamed up to take on FirstEnergy.  However, we're going to need your involvement to succeed!  Visit The Coalition for Reliable Power and join the organization to receive news updates, action alerts and notification of our public forums that explain ratemaking, energy efficiency programs and how citizens can become involved to protect their interests.  It's free (unlike anything FirstEnergy wants to "give" you).  Also visit Energy Efficient West Virginia to read more about the issues and join their list to get updates and notices of upcoming events.

There's also one more step you can take to make sure that the rate increase that's put into effect will be the lowest one possible, and that's to effect change at the WV-PSC!  The Coalition for Reliable Power is supporting the appointment of Robert Rodecker to the Commission to fill the expired seat of Jon McKinney, but they need YOUR help to get this accomplished!  The Coalition asks that you contact Governor Tomblin by phone at 1-888-438-2731 and tell them, "I support the appointment of Robert Rodecker to the Public Service Commission."  Alternatively, you can use the Governor's email submission form available here.  It will only take you one minute!  Do it right now!

Being an informed and active consumer is our only defense against continued rate hikes by out-of-state energy conglomerates!

My disappointment with the WV PSC continues to build.  Today, WV PSC Commissioner Jon McKinney, whose term expired on June 30, 2011, will testify before a House Energy and Commerce Committee meeting that enforcement of new EPA clean air rules will cause a reliability crisis and huge rate increases in West Virginia.

As noted earlier over on the Coalition for Reliable Power, McKinney has been accused by Clean Air Watch of sponsoring a NARUC Resolution against the EPA rules that was ghost written by AEP.

The TRAIN Act that McKinney is supporting today has been labeled "lobbyist mischief" and part of an AEP spin campaign to delay implementation of the rules by Reuters.

In his testimony, McKinney relies on a "study" commissioned by the coal front group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity:

"The American Coalition of Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) recently asked NERA Economic Consulting to model the economic impacts of the proposed CATR and MACT Rule together. Overall the analysis shows that in 2016 electricity rates will increase by 11.5% in the US generally, and by another 12.9% in WV. Moreover, net job losses are projected to be 1.44 million for the total US and 38,500 for WV."

ACCCE is a well-known industry front group that was caught sending fake letters to Congress in 2009 asking them to vote against climate change legislation.

Commissioner McKinney is also confused about what caused the extended power outage in southern West Virginia during a blizzard in 2009.

"The WV Commission is tasked with ensuring that the WV consumers receive reliable power. We have learned recently that reliability is king and that concerns about reliable service are one of the greatest concerns to customers.    During a recent severe blizzard in southern WV over the Christmas holidays, during peak demand, power was interrupted for many residents for an extended period. Obviously, in very cold weather this is a dangerous situation and we and the electric companies were swamped with complaints from ratepayers, county commissions, legislators, and emergency response providers. My concern is that the new EPA rules will denigrate reliability leading to more major interruptions during peak electrical usage."

The blizzard was caused by lack of maintenance on local distribution lines by American Electric Power.  It was not caused by lack of coal-fired electricity generation.

Despite the fact that McKinney is using his position to try to influence legislation on behalf of Ohio-based AEP, PJM recently said there would be little to no reliability problems with the regional grid due to upcoming retirements.  Is he ensuring that the needs of the citizens of West Virginia are being met, or is he ensuring that the corporate earnings needs of an out-of-state corporation are being met?  Are West Virginians really being served by Commissioner McKinney?

Commissioner McKinney's position about a reliability crisis is in direct contrast to other expected testimony from FERC Commissioners.  Check out all the filed testimony for today's hearing here.

Let Governor Tomblin know that you support the appointment of a new PSC Commissioner, who will work for the citizens of West Virginia, to fill the expired seat of Commissioner McKinney and not spend his time lobbying for AEP on Capitol Hill.

According to this article in Platts, Congressman Bingaman has sent a letter to the Dept. of Energy stating that Congress specifically separated authority by giving NIETC designation to DOE and backstop permitting authority to FERC.  Wellinghoff (and industry lobbyist Kelliher) are WRONG when they posit that having all authority with one agency was the intent of Congress.

Bingaman strongly cautions FERC against their recent scheme to have DOE designate their authority to FERC for siting NIETC corridors.  FERC's plan even takes it one step further and intends to let transmission owners designate NIETCs.  The end result will be the industry essentially "regulating" itself and calling all the shots about siting and paying for new transmission lines.  FERC is just a little too close to the industry it supposedly regulates.  This costs consumers higher electric rates resulting from the financial goodies FERC keeps handing to its favored industry pets.

Bingaman says:

"The Commission papers appear to be based upon, or at least inspired by, a third paper prepared by former FERC Chairman Joseph Kelliher.  In his paper, Mr. Kelliher asserts that section 216 “was not well conceived or well drafted,” that it “unnecessarily bifurcated the federal role between” the Department and the Commission, and that this “bifurcation of the federal role between two agencies was a mistake.”  Congress’s legislative mistake, he suggests, can be fixed by administrative “re-implementation” of the law."

FERC's mission is to ensure just and reasonable utility rates in the public interest.  Since when is taking direction from industry lobbyists like Kelliher in the public interest?

Although Bingaman is a big fan of federal transmission siting authority and a bunch of other things that aren't good for the public, he at least has the decency to tell FERC and DOE that doing this would be a BIG mistake.

"Rewriting section 216 under the guise of reinterpreting it, as the Commission proposes, is extremely ill-advised.  It would do serious harm to our efforts to strengthen the federal siting role through legislation."

So, now we have a Congressman who worked on Sec. 216, numerous states, the National Association of Regulatory Commissioners, Piedmont Environmental Council and the public telling Wellinghoff to scrap this stupid idea and save face.  However, the industry is whining in his other ear about how they "need" new transmission to make a bundle of money at the expense of the public.  Give up, FERC, you've been had.

As so often happens in the political world, your "friends" are also your enemies.  This paragraph of Bingaman's letter should give everyone the willies:

"As one of the principal authors of section 216, I am writing to express my serious concerns with the Commission’s proposal.  I do so as one who has long supported giving the Commission greater authority to site electric transmission facilities.  I agree that section 216 is flawed and has proved ineffective.  I wish Congress had gone further than it did when it enacted section 216, and I have authored legislation, which has yet to be enacted, to strengthen section 216 and correct many of its shortcomings."

I've just spent way too much time I didn't have to waste trying to find any current legislation, but I continually came up empty handed.  There's plenty of old, failed attempts by Bingaman on record, but nothing recent.  If anyone can find this referenced legislation "which has yet to be enacted," send it over.

I was very disappointed to hear today that the "promise" Dominion made to StopPATH to treat landowners fairly and with respect while rebuilding the Mt. Storm - Doubs 500kV line has already been tossed aside.  That didn't take long, did it?

When we asked Dominion to treat landowners fairly, and they promised to do so, we didn't just mean in Jefferson County.  We included ALL landowners affected by Dominion's project, no matter where in West Virginia, Virginia or Maryland they live.  I thought that was understood, Wade, Stephanie and Chuck.

Now Dominion needs to make things right with the affected landowners and get with the program.  Did they think our group didn't reach that far?  Surprise!!!!!  We have people all along Dominion's rebuild route in our group.

Here's a tip for Dominion.  Hopefully they'll ignore their baser instincts and take it to heart.  PATH never did and look what happened to them....

DO NOT LIE TO LANDOWNERS.  YOU ARE NOT SMARTER THAN WE ARE AND WE DON'T BELIEVE YOUR CHICANERY.  THE ONLY WAY DOMINION IS GOING TO GET THROUGH THIS PROJECT WITH THEIR HIDE INTACT IS TO BE HONEST, FAIR AND RESPECTFUL WITH LANDOWNERS.  WE CAN DEAL WITH THE TRUTH AND WILL WORK WITH YOU TO FIND A SOLUTION ACCEPTABLE TO BOTH PARTIES.  LIES AND STRONG-ARM TACTICS ONLY CREATE ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS.

Bill also posted this thoughts about a New York Times article that was published yesterday.  This article is the first time that information about FERC's power grab from the states has been made available to the general public.  As Bill and the article point out, "...the new strategy was spearheaded by NextEra Energy, North America's largest wind and solar power developer. NextEra Executive Vice President Joseph Kelliher, a former FERC chairman, is leading the campaign for the new strategy."

When policy change which results from FERC conspiracy with industry lobbyists is hidden from other "stakeholders" and only revealed publicly two days before the deadline to submit comments, one wonders what they're trying to hide.

According to comments filed by NARUC (National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners), they weren't notified of the proposal until just before a meeting in mid-August.

"Given that our members remain the primary transmission siting authorities, we are disappointed that we were not privy to the details or even informal conversations about this proposal prior to the above-referenced meeting, especially since the proposal has been under discussion since June and was vetted with industry stakeholders long before it was even revealed to us."

Apparently FERC and the industry have been discussing the best way to ram this through since June, but it was only recently that FERC began a series of conference calls with other "stakeholders" such as states and environmental groups.  And, of course, they NEVER consulted the most important "stakeholder" of all -- you!  As an electric consumer, property owner and citizen, YOU will be the ones who pay for new transmission, sacrifice your property and well-being to new transmission line rights-of-way, and must live with the consequences of FERC and industry's heavy-handed determination of where renewable energy will develop.  This will ensure that development of renewables will only occur at utility scale and be concentrated in a handful of Midwestern States.  Instead of each individual state getting a piece of the economic/jobs boom expected to result from renewable resources and developing their own local renewables to meet their own in-state goals, they will be forced to buy high-priced renewables from other states.  Still other states will be forced to live with new transmission lines crossing their state which are intended to deliver renewables to their neighboring states, without receiving ANY benefit from the transmission line project.  This should concern another group of "stakeholders" who were not consulted:  your local and state elected officials.  Give them a call and make sure they know!

The root of this problem is a couple of greedy energy corporations and a few Midwestern states who are trying to corner the renewable energy markets of the entire U.S. before other, perhaps more viable, resources have a chance to fully develop.  Earlier this year, FERC granted incentives to a company to develop an offshore backbone intended to support development of wind farms along the Atlantic coast.  These offshore wind farms are ideally sited to provide renewables to the huge load centers along the coast, with a minimum of new transmission capacity required.  Earlier reports said that no new land based transmission will be required.  This would make offshore wind a cheaper resource for the East Coast.

Take a look at these maps from a recent PJM planning document.  They show two different scenarios regarding integration of different amounts of offshore wind into the transmission system.  The first slide shows improvements they think will be needed if they base planning on 20GW of offshore wind.  Those fat, orange lines on the coast are new 500kV transmission lines.  For some inexplicable reason, it looks like they intend to bring back the MAPP project to transport wind power from the coast to the Washington, DC area.  MAPP's original purpose was to transport power produced in Virginia and Maryland to New Jersey.  PJM is desperately trying to find a "need" for MAPP.  Since MAPP was not designed to distribute offshore wind power, it's probably not the most efficient or cost-effective way to do so.  PJM is just throwing Pepco a bone here.  If we're going to invest $5B in an offshore backbone, PJM needs to scrap all old projects and go back to the drawing board and create the most efficient and cost effective method of injecting this new generation into the existing grid.  Look at the map.  Does that even make sense?  Maryland and Delaware don't need any of that transmission.  The second slide shows what happens when the amount of integrated offshore wind drops to 4GW.  All the new transmission lines are in the western PJM region, with no new transmission lines needed on the coast.  This is because all the wind will be coming from the west, instead of the east.  This is what FERC and their industry pets want to see happen.  Most of those 765kV lines aren't even in PJM territory (indicated by the gray shaded areas).  So, who do you suppose will be able to lobby and influence PJM to embrace their particular version of where PJM renewables will come from?  Remember, it's not about planning or regulation or what's good for the grid, it's about who has the most influential lobbyists.

Now that FERC's scheme with the industry has been publicly exposed, the battle lines are being drawn.  On the DOE's website dedicated to this proposal, which was just recently constructed, you can read comments from industry (for the proposal) and from state regulators (against the proposal).  In addition, there are some comments from a couple of environmental groups who are inexplicably in favor of the proposal.  In their quest for renewable power at any cost, they are being duped into going along with a plan that hurts consumers and citizens and subverts states' rights.

Since you weren't given a chance to express your views, the states and organizations like NARUC are fighting for your interests.

"Siting is inherently a local issue that impacts local environments, local landowners, local businesses and local communities. The best decisions come after complete due process where every interested neighbor, farmer and businessperson has an opportunity to be heard. People who know the landscape must be able to participate in the transmission siting processes to minimize negative environmental and economic impacts. Federal siting authority makes local participation less accessible, more expensive, and therefore less likely. State siting processes that enable local engagement may take time (although often less time than the combined pre-filing and filing processes at FERC), but they do not conflict with regional or national interests. On the contrary, local processes are essential to accomplish those interests, and the federal government should not create a short cut around local engagement."

NARUC wants to know what the "problem" is:

"...we would appreciate a specific articulation of the problem the delegation intends to solve and how the delegation will solve the problem identified."

This "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" theme is prevalent in all the comments from state regulators as well.  The same question was repeatedly asked of Chairman Wellinghoff during one of those "stakeholder" calls this week.  He never answered it.  I guess nothing's broke afterall.

This is setting up to be an epic battle involving states, Congress and the courts, and it's root cause is industry lobbying influence on an agency that is supposed to regulate them.  FERC is on the road to disaster and is going to end up strangling "the precious" that it's sticking its neck out to protect -- new transmission.  NARUC sums it up well:

"To the extent that this proposal is motivated by a desire to reduce barriers to transmission, it fails. It relies on a tortured reading of the statute that would cause uncertainty, litigation, damage to State and federal relations, and delays in transmission development."

Bill's got some great posts up on TPL.  One of them analyzes an article headlined "Shocker: Power demand from US homes is falling."

The article says:

"American homes are more cluttered than ever with devices, and they all need power: Cellphones and iPads that have to be charged, DVRs that run all hours, TVs that light up in high definition.

But something shocking is happening to demand for electricity in the Age of the Gadget: It's leveling off.

Over the next decade, experts expect residential power use to fall, reversing an upward trend that has been almost uninterrupted since Thomas Edison invented the modern light bulb.

In part it's because Edison's light bulb is being replaced by more efficient types of lighting, and electric devices of all kinds are getting much more efficient. But there are other factors.

New homes are being built to use less juice, and government subsidies for home energy savings programs are helping older homes use less power. In the short term, the tough economy and a weak housing market are prompting people to cut their usage."

And:

"From 1980 to 2000, residential power demand grew by about 2.5 percent a year. From 2000 to 2010, the growth rate slowed to 2 percent. Over the next 10 years, demand is expected to decline by about 0.5 percent a year, according to the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit group funded by the utility industry.

Overall demand, including from factories and businesses, is still expected to grow, but at only a 0.7 percent annual rate through 2035, the government says. That's well below the average of 2.5 percent a year the past four decades.

Utility executives have been aware that the rate of demand growth is slowing, but a more dramatic shift than they expected may be under way. Executives were particularly surprised by a dip during the first three months of this year, the most recent national quarterly numbers available. Adjusted for the effects of weather, residential power demand fell 1.3 percent nationwide, an unusually sharp drop."

Remember those annoying PATH ads?  How about the one that showed people using electric powered devices (and hit on all your personal "comfort" personal gadgets -- your cell phone, your laptop, your TV) and told us:

"More people, more appliances, more gadgets, more equipment, what do they all need to keep going?  MORE ELECTRICITY!"

The commercial showed all those people's gadgets going dark due to power failure, and then plugged their PATH transmission line.

The news article says they knew this was not true when they designed and played those ads over and over, ad nauseam.

Here's why demand has been dropping:

"Residential power use has fallen even as the number of electronic devices has exploded because the devices themselves have gotten more efficient. In the 1970s, for example, refrigerators used 2,000 kilowatt-hours per year. Today, they use 500.

IPads are everywhere and everyone seems to have a smartphone, but engineers have designed them to sip power because battery life is a major selling point. Also, these devices, as well as ever more powerful laptops, are cutting into the use of less efficient desktop computers.

The first flat screen TVs used twice as much power as their widebodied ancestors, but they have been getting dramatically more efficient in recent years, according to Tom Reddoch, executive director of energy efficiency at EPRI. "The flat panel community heard they were energy hogs and they did something about it," he says.

Appliances are expected to get even more efficient over the next two decades. An EPRI analysis predicts refrigeration will get 29 percent more efficient, space heating will get 24 percent more efficient and TVs and computers will get 22 percent more efficient. Energy needed for lighting will decline by half."

Remember those PATH ads featuring 1970s technology?  Those ads skimmed over how the new versions of cell phones, video games, tvs, etc. use just a tiny fraction of the power that those clunky, old dinosaurs used.

So, was PATH's advertising knowingly false?  Wouldn't that move it into the class of propaganda?  What do you think?

Great, objective write-up on Coal Tattoo today about the two faces of AEP CEO Michael Morris.  Reporter Ken Ward, Jr. has been following the saga both here and on the Coalition for Reliable Power blog as Mikey's spin campaign unravels.

My favorite part is where he compares Morris to a cartoon character with a devil on his right shoulder and an angel on his left.  Perfect!

The blowhard public relations firms, with their well-worn "playbooks" of how to win transmission line siting battles, just keep on tooting their own horns.  Today I came across this waste o' money trip to Calgary in the fall:  "Effective Public Outreach for Transmission Projects: A Course in Fundamentals" will be a colossal waste of resources, but that's okay, the power company PR hacks will have a good time in Calgary in early October and the ratepayers will end up footing the bill for it.

So, these guys think they wrote the "playbook" on effective public outreach for transmission projects, do they?  That's funny... when I went to the website of the PR firm where both of the "instructors" are partners, I came away with the same tired plan PATH tried to use on all of us.  Open houses.  Idiotic advertising.  Front groups.  Shady land agents.  Payoffs.  Increased project cost because of the payoffs...  I saw nothing new or unique, and certainly nothing that I hadn't seen before.  Here's the head moron's "mantra":  “I elect transmission lines, power plants and pipelines to public office.”  Yes, this guy is a real tool.  Click to watch their little movie about their "successful" project.  See anything new that might be effective?  Nah, me neither... I just saw a bunch of stuff that PATH tried, which failed.

According to the brochure, here's who should attend this fiction-fest:  1)  Utility employees with regulatory, public communications, and local affairs responsibilities; 2) Siting, right of way, and land management professionals;  3)  Transmission project managers; 4)  Regulators and regulatory staff;  5) Utility construction contractors and consultants; and 6)  Environmental and community group representatives.  Wait a minute... they think environmental and community group representatives should spend $1250 on admission, plus travel and expenses to go to Calgary?  Shows how out-of-touch these schmucks are, they think we have money to waste on their tired, old crap when we've been getting a better education for free during the past three years.

So, I hope the utility company guys have a nice vacation in Canada because they're going to be learning a bunch of "technique" that doesn't work anymore.  The opposition has all your stupid tricks; odious buffoonery and underhanded schemes in a little "playbook" of their own, along with tried-and-true methods of neutralization guaranteed to make your project fail and your corporate reputation tank while you run away screaming with your tail between your legs.  And still the opposition presses on... because we have more chapters in our book  :-)

Remember all the bleating about a "train wreck" AEP CEO Michael Morris was doing a couple of months ago about implementation of the EPA's Clean Air rules?  He told the press that the EPA rules would cause a disaster with mass unemployment, sky-high electric rates and huge blackouts.  Guess what?  He was full of hot air, again.  I'm sure you're not surprised about that, are you?

He also told a financial analyst on an earnings call that coal plant retirements would cause a new need for the PATH project.  Well, that didn't happen either.

PJM has released their analysis on Mikey's supposed reliability crisis.  Coal Capacity at Risk for Retirement in PJM:  Potential Impacts of the Finalized EPA Cross State Air Pollution Rule and Proposed National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.

And here's the money quote:  Resource Adequacy Does Not Currently Appear at Risk in Spite of Projected Retirements.

"Even with almost 7,000 MW less coal capacity clearing for the 2014/2015 Delivery Year, PJM estimates the RTO will carry a reserve margin of 19.6 percent for the Delivery Year, including the demand and capacity commitments of FRR entities. Even with the potential retirement of coal capacity already announced by FRR entities, there are also announced commitments to replace a portion of that capacity with new gas-fired capacity such that the RTO would still carry a reserve margin at or above of the target 15.3 percent installed reserve margin. Add into the mix the potential for new entry from Demand Resources, as has been the trend in recent years, and resource adequacy does not appear to be threatened."

Chooo-Chooooo!  All Aboard, Mikey!

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!