Ut-oh, trouble in paradise already? It seems that PJM's new state PSCs group is already falling apart and nothing is ever going to get built at this rate.
Maryland, Delaware and the District of Columbia submitted this letter to PJM recently, disagreeing with OPSI's earlier position that "public policy" transmission projects should be paid for entirely by the states with renewable portfolio standards that cause them to be built.
The eastern PJM states believe that everyone should pay for regional projects that are made necessary to meet their state laws because these other states may receive some "benefit" from the project. They even quote from FERC's Order No. 1000:
"[T]he regional cost allocation method for such a transmission facility may take into account the transmission needs driven by a Public Policy Requirement, who is responsible for complying with that Public Policy Requirement, and who benefits from the transmission facility. If a regional transmission plan determines that a transmission facility serves several
functions, as many commenters point out it may, the regional cost allocation method must take the benefits of these functions of the transmission facility into account in allocating costs roughly commensurate with benefits."
This is how FERC intends to charge you for some illusory "benefits" in order to spread the cost of new transmission projects over a wider base of rate payers in order to get more new transmission built without you noticing and discussing it over dinner.
So, what does FERC consider "benefits?" FERC tipped its hand with their Order on Remand, where they refused to find a more equitable cost allocation methodology for the PJM region, preferring instead to put forth some make-believe "system-wide benefits" of PJM membership. These "benefits" are not commensurate with allocated costs. Western PJM states end up paying for the bulk of new transmission that benefits eastern PJM states. It will be no different when states like Maryland, Delaware and DC decide to sponsor long-distance transmission lines to ostensibly transport "wind" (although western coal-fired generation will still be cheaper and dispatched into these lines first) from the Midwest.
So, get ready to pay to meet other state's renewable energy laws in your monthly electric bill, in addition to hosting new transmission lines passing through your community that don't actually supply you with electricity. The beauty of renewables is completely tarnished when these new sources of power come with the expense and burden of new long-distance transmission lines. Developing in-state renewables not only obviates the unreliable centralized generation model, but provides economic benefit for the individual states. Why would Maryland want other states to profit from their renewable energy policies when they have much better local resources at hand waiting to be developed?
P.S. Your English teacher asked me to slap you with a ruler. The word "incentive" is a noun. It does not have a verb form. Stop trying to invent one. You only sound unintelligent and illiterate. The word "incentive" has many synonyms that can very easily be correctly transformed into verbs. I suggest you use one of them and stop making up words like "incent." Pick one: inducement, motivation, motive, reason, stimulus, stimulant, spur, drive, propel, inspiration, encouragement, impulse, incitement, goad, provocation, attraction, lure, bait.
Maryland, Delaware and the District of Columbia submitted this letter to PJM recently, disagreeing with OPSI's earlier position that "public policy" transmission projects should be paid for entirely by the states with renewable portfolio standards that cause them to be built.
The eastern PJM states believe that everyone should pay for regional projects that are made necessary to meet their state laws because these other states may receive some "benefit" from the project. They even quote from FERC's Order No. 1000:
"[T]he regional cost allocation method for such a transmission facility may take into account the transmission needs driven by a Public Policy Requirement, who is responsible for complying with that Public Policy Requirement, and who benefits from the transmission facility. If a regional transmission plan determines that a transmission facility serves several
functions, as many commenters point out it may, the regional cost allocation method must take the benefits of these functions of the transmission facility into account in allocating costs roughly commensurate with benefits."
This is how FERC intends to charge you for some illusory "benefits" in order to spread the cost of new transmission projects over a wider base of rate payers in order to get more new transmission built without you noticing and discussing it over dinner.
So, what does FERC consider "benefits?" FERC tipped its hand with their Order on Remand, where they refused to find a more equitable cost allocation methodology for the PJM region, preferring instead to put forth some make-believe "system-wide benefits" of PJM membership. These "benefits" are not commensurate with allocated costs. Western PJM states end up paying for the bulk of new transmission that benefits eastern PJM states. It will be no different when states like Maryland, Delaware and DC decide to sponsor long-distance transmission lines to ostensibly transport "wind" (although western coal-fired generation will still be cheaper and dispatched into these lines first) from the Midwest.
So, get ready to pay to meet other state's renewable energy laws in your monthly electric bill, in addition to hosting new transmission lines passing through your community that don't actually supply you with electricity. The beauty of renewables is completely tarnished when these new sources of power come with the expense and burden of new long-distance transmission lines. Developing in-state renewables not only obviates the unreliable centralized generation model, but provides economic benefit for the individual states. Why would Maryland want other states to profit from their renewable energy policies when they have much better local resources at hand waiting to be developed?
P.S. Your English teacher asked me to slap you with a ruler. The word "incentive" is a noun. It does not have a verb form. Stop trying to invent one. You only sound unintelligent and illiterate. The word "incentive" has many synonyms that can very easily be correctly transformed into verbs. I suggest you use one of them and stop making up words like "incent." Pick one: inducement, motivation, motive, reason, stimulus, stimulant, spur, drive, propel, inspiration, encouragement, impulse, incitement, goad, provocation, attraction, lure, bait.
RSS Feed