AEP shell company Transource sure is wasting a whole bunch of my money chasing rainbows in Pennsylvania. A company without a federal guarantee to recover its investment in a poorly-planned transmission project would have surely given up by now. But not Transource. Transource received a guarantee from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that it may apply to recover its prudent costs for the Independence Energy Connection when the project is abandoned.
And it will be abandoned. Like a rickety supermarket cart with two locked wheels, one pointing horizontally, and the fourth missing, Transource keeps attempting to shove its project toward the check out counter.
The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission held a second pre-hearing conference for the parties this week after Transource asked to consolidate its east and west cases, shelter its new substations from local zoning regulations, and that the commission find eminent domain necessary for the IEC on 133 separate properties.
133!
That's pretty much the entire route, right? Transource thinks its going to build a transmission project on new right of way composed almost entirely of property taken by eminent domain? Unlikely. Very unlikely. Also unlikely is a future scenario where landowners cave in under the threat of eminent domain and voluntarily sign easement agreements. Affected landowners have been steadfast in protecting their properties from Transource's invasion, even in the face of earlier threats and court proceedings. They are unlikely to capitulate under future threats.
The PUC also added discussion of Pennsylvania's new Act 45, which prohibits the use of eminent domain on preserved land. Much of Transource's route impacts conserved farmland. Transource believes it is not affected by the Act due to an exclusion for public utilities. However, that exclusion is not entirely clear.
Jana Benscoter of the York Dispatch reported on Monday's pre-hearing conference.
And it will be abandoned. Like a rickety supermarket cart with two locked wheels, one pointing horizontally, and the fourth missing, Transource keeps attempting to shove its project toward the check out counter.
The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission held a second pre-hearing conference for the parties this week after Transource asked to consolidate its east and west cases, shelter its new substations from local zoning regulations, and that the commission find eminent domain necessary for the IEC on 133 separate properties.
133!
That's pretty much the entire route, right? Transource thinks its going to build a transmission project on new right of way composed almost entirely of property taken by eminent domain? Unlikely. Very unlikely. Also unlikely is a future scenario where landowners cave in under the threat of eminent domain and voluntarily sign easement agreements. Affected landowners have been steadfast in protecting their properties from Transource's invasion, even in the face of earlier threats and court proceedings. They are unlikely to capitulate under future threats.
The PUC also added discussion of Pennsylvania's new Act 45, which prohibits the use of eminent domain on preserved land. Much of Transource's route impacts conserved farmland. Transource believes it is not affected by the Act due to an exclusion for public utilities. However, that exclusion is not entirely clear.
Jana Benscoter of the York Dispatch reported on Monday's pre-hearing conference.
Barnes, one of the administrative law judges, said the commission has an interest to "reduce the impact" on landowners, and she’s “hard pressed” to approve the currently proposed project.
Not only did she mention that some of the existing transmission lines in Franklin and York counties are “underutilized” and “defunct,” but Barnes also emphasized that the cost of the $320 million market efficiency project is concerning.
We haven't even gotten to administrative hearing yet (now scheduled for Feb. 2019) and at least one of the PUC judges seems to have concerns. Not exactly promising for Transource...
York Dispatch also reported extensively on the comments of electric utility PPL, who owns an existing transmission line that parallels IEC's east segment in its entirety.
York Dispatch also reported extensively on the comments of electric utility PPL, who owns an existing transmission line that parallels IEC's east segment in its entirety.
During a second prehearing conference before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Monday, July 9, a PPL Electric representative said the company's existing infrastructure could accommodate the goal of moving more power from the northern U.S. to the south.
In response to a question, PPL counsel Amy Hirakis told administrative law judges Elizabeth Barnes and Andrew Calvelli "it's feasible to use existing PPL right-of-way and facilities for the market efficiency project identified by the PJM Interconnection."
Joe Nixon, PPL strategic communications manager, also confirmed "our existing transmission lines in the York County area has the capacity to carry additional circuits."
"PPL proposed an alternative market efficiency project to address the issue identified by PJM, but ours was not the selected solution," Nixon explained. "PJM awarded the project to Transource. We always look at the least impact to landowners in developing solutions."
And not to be outdone, FirstEnergy affiliates in Pennsylvania said they also proposed an alternative project "which largely used existing transmission rights of way" that was not selected.
Why, PJM, why? Why did you select the most expensive, most invasive, riskiest, project to relieve congestion? Someone didn't have their thinking cap on! You can blame it on an inaccurate "constructability" study, but really anyone who has even remotely been involved with transmission opposition could have told you a greenfield project across "undeveloped" land in southern Pennsylvania would be overwhelmingly opposed. The smarter decision would have been to select a re-build or non-transmission alternative that would receive little or no opposition. Did PJM select Transource because it was AEP's "turn" to win a project? Perhaps the IEC looked "more robust" or something, but it's never going to be built, so perhaps a lesser project that CAN get built is the better choice.
By the way, FirstEnergy is also a bit perturbed that one of Transource's 133 eminent domain petitions affects West Penn Power property in Greene Township. FirstEnergy says, "Transource lacks legal authority to condemn the used and useful property of another utility."
And that's where Transource's crippled grocery cart topples over and spills its load. Because if the PUC determines that re-builds or additions to the transmission lines of other utilities are the preferred alternative to a new project on new right of way, Transource is done. It cannot condemn the existing transmission lines and rights of way of others to build a version of the IEC. If the PUC makes that decision, then the project has to go back to PJM to be re-bid and re-evaluated as a rebuild. And there the idea will die a quiet death.
So, let's cut to the chase, shall we? What PJM giveth, PJM can taketh away. Considering that all PJM's "need" findings are created by magic math, it's probably only a matter of dropping in a few new variables to create a finding that the IEC isn't needed after all. Stopping now will end the runaway expenditures that ratepayers will be on the hook for later. Cut me a break, won't you?
Why, PJM, why? Why did you select the most expensive, most invasive, riskiest, project to relieve congestion? Someone didn't have their thinking cap on! You can blame it on an inaccurate "constructability" study, but really anyone who has even remotely been involved with transmission opposition could have told you a greenfield project across "undeveloped" land in southern Pennsylvania would be overwhelmingly opposed. The smarter decision would have been to select a re-build or non-transmission alternative that would receive little or no opposition. Did PJM select Transource because it was AEP's "turn" to win a project? Perhaps the IEC looked "more robust" or something, but it's never going to be built, so perhaps a lesser project that CAN get built is the better choice.
By the way, FirstEnergy is also a bit perturbed that one of Transource's 133 eminent domain petitions affects West Penn Power property in Greene Township. FirstEnergy says, "Transource lacks legal authority to condemn the used and useful property of another utility."
And that's where Transource's crippled grocery cart topples over and spills its load. Because if the PUC determines that re-builds or additions to the transmission lines of other utilities are the preferred alternative to a new project on new right of way, Transource is done. It cannot condemn the existing transmission lines and rights of way of others to build a version of the IEC. If the PUC makes that decision, then the project has to go back to PJM to be re-bid and re-evaluated as a rebuild. And there the idea will die a quiet death.
So, let's cut to the chase, shall we? What PJM giveth, PJM can taketh away. Considering that all PJM's "need" findings are created by magic math, it's probably only a matter of dropping in a few new variables to create a finding that the IEC isn't needed after all. Stopping now will end the runaway expenditures that ratepayers will be on the hook for later. Cut me a break, won't you?
RSS Feed