Great story by The State Journal's Pam Kasey, who has managed to pry more information out of the PJM Kremlin.

Read the story!

UPDATE:  And now the AP has gotten a hold of the story.  Just got a phone call from a friend who heard on the radio that "PATH is no longer needed and will be canceled in the fall."

Buh-bye, PATH ;-)

See PJM's Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee Reliability Analysis Update for July 12, 2012.

PJM's PATH Project Analysis Update begins on page 9.  Page 12 says PATH is not needed for reliability reasons.

Under 15 year thermal test:
"No 500 kV potential thermal overloads identified."

Under MAAC Load Deliverability Voltage:
"CETL > CETO"

CETL stands for Capacity Emergency Transfer Limits and is the actual emergency import capability of the test area.

CETO stands for Capacity Emergency Transfer Objective and is the import capability required by an area to comply with a Transmission Risk of one event in 25 Years.

An area passes the deliverability test if its CETL is equal to or greater than its CETO.

So, how about it PJM, can we toss PATH onto the great scrap heap of failed transmission projects that have cost consumers millions without providing any benefit now?

Oh no, not yet!  PJM still has one more test to run, the N-1-1  power flow modeling test, which they say will be completed before the next TEAC meeting on August 9.

N-1-1 means they look at every combination of two separate – one after the other - transmission line outages throughout PJM to make sure PATH really isn't needed after all.  Not only are PJM's N-1-1 scenarios highly unlikely to ever occur, but they defy common sense.  If a grid-killing disaster happens (derecho, anyone?) that takes out two separate transmission lines, who's to say that said disaster won't also take out the PATH Project, or any other transmission line they propose as a backup?  As we've all found out over the past couple of weeks, a "robust" transmission system is only as good as the distribution system that brings the power to your home or business.  And as a group of Consumer Organizations pointed out to FERC last month, transmission incentives are pulling investment away from the distribution system.

The good news from today's TEAC meeting is that if the analysis continues to show that the PATH and MAPP lines are not needed, the TEAC will recommend to the PJM Board that the projects be dropped from the RTEP (and no longer held in abeyance).

Thank you, PJM Magic 8 ball!

Great article about the sad state of reliability in West Virginia's electric distribution system in this morning's Charleston Gazette!

Nobody's perfect, and typographical mistakes happen.  I will admit to probably making more than my fair share over the years.  Typos are no big deal and happen in ALL publications from time to time and aren't a reflection of the quality of any news source.  You need to look deeper into content and the ability of the reporters to report news the old-fashioned way, through research and investigation, which will result in a balanced, informative, fact-based story.  The traditional role of the media, to provide all relevant facts for the public's use in forming an opinion, has been one of the essential pillars of democracy in this country.

In this era of 24/7 "news," blogs, and regurgitated corporate press releases presented as "news," we are increasingly subjected to having a fully-formed opinion presented to us as "news."  This is what is known as "card stacking" and is a propaganda tactic that's been around for years.  For all these reasons, I greatly appreciate reporters and publications that take the time to do news the old-fashioned way, such as Ken Ward, Jr. at the Charleston Gazette.

"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy."
-- Alex Carey, Australian social scientist who pioneered the study of corporate propaganda

And thus ends the serious part of this post.  Now we will turn our attention to the humor our bizarre world presents to us every day (because it's much healthier to laugh than it is to carry a grudge)!

Great things are often created by mistake.  Take the Reese's Peanut Butter Cup for example.  Something great was created this morning when I read Ken's article in the Charleston Gazette!

A minor typo, since corrected, accidentally created the term:

Power Outrage!

Power outage:  Localized electric outages that last hours, minutes or even mere seconds (just long enough to require you to reset every stinkin' digital clock in the house!)

Power outrage:  Wide-spread power outages that leave people without power for days or WEEKS (which is a situation many West Virginians still find themselves in 12 days after the "derecho") that are caused by lack of maintenance in order to increase corporate profits.

The only thing needed to turn a power outage into a Power outrage! is you.

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.

Thousands of landowners in West Virginia, and other states, have been left wondering about the structural integrity of high-voltage electric transmission towers.  FirstEnergy's public relations dingbats thought it would be a good idea to publish pictures of a transmission tower failure that occurred in Ellenboro, WV during the June 29 derecho.  However, instead of eliciting sympathy, the pictures were met with fear and wonder.  If this 500kV transmission tower could fail in a violent thunderstorm, why not the one hanging over their own home, roads they travel, or parks they frequent?  How safe are transmission towers, anyhow?  Not very.

FirstEnergy is currently fighting the WV PSC against setting reliability standards that may have prevented at least some of the storm damage that left consumers in the dark for more than a week, and is going to cost the consumers millions to repair/replace.  FirstEnergy also fought against a WV PSC staff attorney's petition "requiring both TrAILCo and PATH and their corporate affiliates to file within thirty (30) days of receipt of this petition a plan in regards to the condition of their transmission facilities and a plan for the upgrading or replacing of their transmission facilities."  The WV PSC decided not to speed up the submission of the condition report and upgrade plan, even though the WV Legislature had "urge[d] the West Virginia Public Service Commission to insure the reliability of West Virginia’s transmission system by proceeding as quickly as possible with a review of the condition of the Pruntytown to Mt. Storm transmission line and encouraging Monongahela Power and its parent company, FirstEnergy to rebuild this line, if the Commission’s study concludes that such construction is needed."  Instead, the PSC allowed FirstEnergy to submit a report months later.  In their report, FirstEnergy said that everything was hunky dory with their transmission lines in the state and therefore no repairs or upgrades were needed, and the PSC has taken no action to verify FirstEnergy's contentions or to require the actual upgrade plan they originally ordered.  In their report, FirstEnergy did a whole bunch of whining about who would pay for the upgrade of their failing infrastructure.  Who will pay for the recent failure?  You will, of course, through future rate increases approved to allow the companies to recover their "spare no expense" response to the storm, and still make a hefty profit.

But, let's get back to that transmission tower failure in West Virginia and why the tower failure doesn't correlate with FirstEnergy's NOAA storm wind speed map, showing 20-40 mph gusts in the area of the failure.  Did a 20 mph wind knock over a transmission tower?  Probably not.

Take a look at FirstEnergy's failed tower:

Now take a look at a transmission tower failure that occurred in Minnesota last summer.

Wow, twins, right?  It looks like these two very different towers experienced the exact same failure during very different thunderstorms.

Engineers have known for years that old transmission towers, such as FirstEnergy's, aren't designed to withstand the "downburst" winds that can occur with thunderstorms.  Downburst wind has a different effect on transmission lines than the regular wind they were designed to withstand.  Downburst wind creates tower failures that look like the pictures above.

"An investigation of the collapse of transmission towers due to downbursts has shown that damage of the members in the second and third panels above the bottom was quite significant, but no damage was observed in the bottom panel of the tower."

When will FirstEnergy and other companies who own the average 40-year old high-voltage transmission lines that criss-cross our state and nation, be required to upgrade their infrastructure to avoid these costly and dangerous failures?  And when will these companies be required to design their towers to withstand downburst winds?  Or are costly repair/replacement and occasional human casualties simply one more "acceptable" risk that landowners are expected to bear in order to serve "the greater good?"

PATH made the above quoted admission today in their Answer to Comments in the matter of Alison Haverty vs. Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline LLC, FERC Docket No. EL12-79-000.

It's about time PATH realizes that it's in a "no-win situation," and the reason it finds itself in its current predicament is because they're wrong, plain and simple. 

"PATH is in a no-win situation. In the past, PATH has permitted individual end users to participate in
Annual Update open meetings and has provided data in response to information requests propounded
by those individuals. However, those individuals, including Complainant and Ms. Newman, abused
their access to the information provided by PATH within the context of the Annual Update review by
posting the data on the Stop Path blog. See generally www.stoppathwv.org PATH then agreed to
provide the information under a protective order but the individuals refused to sign the protective
order. PATH filed a motion with the Commission for adoption of a protective order, but the
Commission did not act on PATH’s request to adopt the proposed protective order and request for an
administrative law judge to be appointed as discovery master. See PATH Companies’ Motion to
Dismiss the Formal Challenge and Motions to Compel, Docket Nos. ER08-386-000 and ER09-1256-
000 (filed Oct. 20, 2011)."

Awww, c'mon Randy, don't be such a sour puss!

How many outright lies can you count in that footnote?  I see at least three.

1.    "...abused their access to information by posting data on StopPATHWV Blog."  Any of you seen any confidential "data" here?  Yeah, me neither.  Any of you seen PATH documents used as exhibits in publicly filed documents at the FERC that were linked here?  Guess what?  Once information is publicly filed with FERC, anybody with an internet connection can download it and use it for any purpose they desire!  No where in PATH's protocols is use of information generally restricted.  That's what protective agreements are for.  Nobody ever signed one.  *hiss*
2.      "PATH agreed to provide the information under a protective order..."  No, PATH didn't.  They attempted to coerce interested parties to sign retroactive protective agreements to cover up PATH counsel's discovery errors that provided certain highly sensitive information that was never requested, disclosure of which could probably put them in serious legal jeopardy if the owner(s) of the information only knew what PATH counsel disclosed to interested parties.  It is not incumbent upon interested parties to sign protective agreements to cover up PATH counsel's legal blunders. *growl*
3.    "...request for an administrative law judge to be appointed as discovery master."  What request?  That flat out never happened.  PATH only requested a protective order, not a discovery master.  If they had, things would have run a lot smoother last year, and from the look of things, this year as well. *screech*

Nice kitty, calm down, kitty!  And again, PATH invites FERC to come have another ex parte with us on the blog.  So, if PATH doesn't mind if we have this little private conversation with FERC's decisional staff here, let's get this parte started!

All that and they still couldn't come up with any cites to support their contention that consumers have no interest in rates, and therefore no legal recourse against unjust and unreasonable rates they must pay that are under the Commission's jurisdiction (because further misuse of North Star Steel doesn't count!).

One member of FirstEnergy's inept in house counsel team has missed his calling.  "Potomac Edison's" response to Sugarloaf Conservancy's complaint to the Maryland Public Service Commission regarding the company's failure to read electric meters over the past year would make a better Disney film than it does a logical and truthful answer to the matter at hand.

Applicable adage for FirstEnergy:

"Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."

None of what this guy says even resembles the truth and is nothing more than a series of overly elaborate excuses that will now have to be repeated over and over again in different jurisdictions.    It's nothing more than a series of boring planning gaffes that take corporate incompetence to a new level.  No wonder so many consumers are still waiting for FirstEnergy to get their power back after more than a week.

And I do so love the whiny, aggressive tone Mr. Paparazzi takes with Sugarloaf Conservancy for having the temerity to file a complaint.

Fail.

What happens when sharks smell the blood of a creature in distress in the water?  It's like ringing the dinner bell -- they come to feed.

My, my, my, how the tables have turned!  :-)

This afternoon was the deadline for motions to intervene in Alison Haverty vs. Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, LLC, FERC Docket No. EL12-79-000.

Motion to Intervene and File Comments of Keryn Newman

Motion to Intervene and File Comments of Patience Wait

Alison Haverty's Answer to PATH Motion to Dismiss the Complaint

The Notice of Complaint will be published in the Federal Register tomorrow, a day after the filing deadline.  Does that serve notice requirements?  I guess we'll find out.

Read PATH's Answer to Alison Haverty's complaint.  PATH has now "invited" us to this meeting, although they still insist we're not "interested parties."  They also want FERC to dismiss the complaint as moot.  But I would guess that Alison may feel differently.

PATH's little game of trying to intimidate consumers has backfired.  They have no defense. Last year, FERC tossed out all the precedent PATH (mis)used in earlier filings as support for their contention that consumers are not "interested parties."

Looks like the breakfast meeting on my patio will go on July 18 at 10:00 a.m. as planned.   Please submit your basis for eligibility to breathe my air and drink my coffee no later than the night before the meeting. ;-)

After being caught red-handed yesterday lying about the magnitude of damage to their high-voltage transmission system, FirstEnergy still hasn't learned their lesson.  In today's local paper, FirstEnergy has wasted ratepayers' money with a big 'ol ad featuring a photo of that crunched up transmission tower, the only one the storm actually managed to topple.  From their pictures, it looks like the failure of this one tower caused the failure of two others that self-destructed under the stress of the failure of the adjoining tower.  Despite all those rumors you may have seen flying around the social media sites that "more than 50 transmission towers" failed, none of that is true.  It's simply what FirstEnergy wanted you to think so you'd cut them some slack on repair times, and also several months down the road when they file with the WV PSC to recover the cost of repairing the storm damage from you as an unavoidable "act of God."

Take a look at FirstEnergy's "derecho" NOAA map showing storm wind speeds:

Couple this with FirstEnergy's claim that the 500kV transmission tower  that was taken down by "90 mph winds" during Friday night's storm was located in Ellenboro, along Rt. 50, between Parkersburg and Clarksburg.  FirstEnergy's own map shows that maximum gusts in that area of West Virginia were between 20 - 40 mph.  A 20 mph gust took down one of FirstEnergy's 500kV steel lattice transmission towers?  How deteriorated and poorly maintained are these structures anyhow?  It's too bad FE has already cut up and hauled away the evidence, most likely without bothering to determine the reason for the failure.  FirstEnergy is incredibly lucky that the tower which failed was located in someone's hay field, and not within the fall zone of someone's home.  Perhaps the PSC should investigate the reason for the tower failure in order to protect citizens with other FirstEnergy towers in their backyards, and certainly before approving more FirstEnergy transmission lines in the state.

FirstEnergy has neglected to tell you that they're currently embroiled in a PSC case regarding the setting of new reliability standards... and whining that it's too expensive to meet reliability standards that are expected in other states.  For some reason, FirstEnergy and AEP think West Virginia is some third world country that doesn't deserve a reliable electric distribution system that might cut into corporate profit margins.

The West Virginia Consumer Advocate filed premonitory comments in that case on June 25, just 4 days before the most recent electric reliability disaster in West Virginia.

"Recollection of the public outrage over the December 2009 outages, the repercussions from which have led the parties through the various proceedings addressing the reliability of electric service in West Virginia is all that should be necessary for ratification of the plan which best avoids a repeat of that disaster."

CAD and staff contend that these kind of widespread outages are predictable and preventable.  Will we ever know how much of the current damage was a product of poor maintenance flowing from company O&M cuts to increase profit, and how much was actually unavoidable?

CAD says it's not rocket science:
"Make no mistake:  the outages were calamitous for many of the thousands of electric utility customers affected by the snowstorm that was an entirely predictable event.  (It snows in West Virginia:  sometimes accumulations are significant; sometimes that snow is wet.  The ability to predict the type and severity of the storm that landed on West Virginia in December 2009 might involve meteorological science, but it sure ain’t rocket science.)"  

West Virginia also experiences summer storms, often severe.  Take your "derecho" and play it on Broadway, FirstEnergy!

The CAD's comments are short and sweet and I highly recommend you read them.  Staff's comments are a bit longer and a little more technical, but also worth reading if you've got a bit more time.

In 2011, the WV Legislature adopted a resolution requiring the PSC to investigate the condition of one of FirstEnergy's transmission lines in the area of the recently failed tower, and order rebuilding as necessary.  The PSC blew both the legislature and reliability issues off last year when their own staff filed a motion to require WV utilities to submit evaluations of their high-voltage transmission systems in the state.   Instead, the PSC only required FirstEnergy to file a report, as they had ordered in the TrAIL case in 2008.  How much fault does the WV PSC have in the transmission tower failure by not carrying out the recommendations of the legislature, and by not requiring our electric utilities to meet reliability standards?  Heads will roll, so FirstEnergy's fat cats are busy spinning their failure as a dramatic "act of God."

While your main concern right now may be getting your power back on and getting your life back on track, the aftermath of this massive FirstEnergy reliability failure will live on, both in your electric bill, and at the WV PSC.