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.

Perhaps Ohio consumers should have been airing their own TV commercials in Ohio about "shopping" and AEP's capacity charges, because consumers are the big losers in today's PUCO decision.

"The Commission’s decision establishes a cost-based capacity price of $188.88 per MW-day but requires AEP to charge competitive electric suppliers at a lower market-based capacity price, known as the Reliability Pricing Model (RPM) price. AEP is permitted to defer the difference between the adjusted RPM price and the cost-based price."

Who do you think pays the amount AEP "defers?"  Consumers do.

What PUCO has done here is allow AEP to charge a higher capacity rate ($188.88), but allow FirstEnergy to pay the lower rate that they asked for ($20.01 per MW-day for 2012/2013, $33.71 for 2013/2014 and $153.89 for 2014/2015).  The difference between the two prices may be "deferred" by AEP.  This simply means that they book the amount of their loss in a special "deferred" account that PUCO will allow them to recover from consumers in their other rate case.

"The balanced outcome achieved in this case is based upon an extensive record that includes testimony from more than 20 parties,” PUCO Chairman Todd A. Snitchler stated."

Balanced?  The only thing being balanced here are the interests of two huge corporations.  Ohio consumers lose again.  How long does Snitchler think it's going to take consumers to figure this out and start another "prairie fire?" 

"According to First Energy, they didn't go after these savings because there wasn't any profit to be made," says Dan Sawmiller of Sierra Club in this article regarding a recent filing in FirstEnergy's Ohio rate case.

Here's what FirstEnergy's management thinks about saving their customers money:  

"According to the brief, when asked about his knowledge of these efforts, First Energy Vice President of Rates and Regulatory Affairs William Ridmann replied, 'Don't know, don't care.'"

Let's all drink a toast to Mr. Ridmann!

Drama, drama, drama.

According to this news story in the Charleston Gazette, FE spinner Todd Meyers claims, "In Ellenboro, a 500-kilovolt transmission line -- it crunched three towers. That's part of the interstate transmission grid, and it's out." Repair crews were at the scene Sunday, he said.

What does that have to do with service in the Eastern Panhandle?  Not much.  Interestingly enough, FirstEnergy was required to submit a "transmission facility condition assessment" to the West Virginia Public Service Commission in May, as part of one of the conditions of their permit to construct the unnecessary TrAIL line through West Virginia.  In this report, "the Companies have determined that there is no present need for condition-based reconductoring or rebuild efforts for any of the EHV Facilities.

Except that the Companies' transmission lines fall over in high winds. And then the Companies' PR spinners over-dramatize it to reporters who don't know the difference between the transmission and distribution system.  Thankfully there are certain reporters who are a little harder to fool.

As stipulated in its federal Formula Rate that allows PATH to recover the cost of their project from over 60 million ratepayers in 13 states and the District of Columbia, PATH is obligated by certain rules crafted to provide rate transparency.  These obligations are stipulated in PATH's PJM OATT Tariff Protocols, Attachment H-19B.

One of PATH's obligations is to hold an "Open Meeting" among interested parties after the filing of each yearly Actual Transmission Revenue Requirement and Projected Transmission Revenue Requirement.

On June 1, PATH filed their ATRR for 2011.  This filing compares the actual expenditures to PATH's estimate collected during 2011, and produces the actual rate consumers pay.  As required by the Protocols, PATH posted an announcement of the meeting.  As directed in the notice, several interested parties (as defined in the Protocols) submitted their RSVP for the meeting.

Compare the tone of PATH's Notice of Open Meeting to that of another company who is following the exact same rule in its own Formula Rate Protocols.  While PATH's meeting is held only over the telephone, Dominion's meeting is held both at their facility and over the telephone, for those who don't want to travel to Richmond.  Dominion asks for 4 days notice of participant's attendance, while PATH demands you RSVP 5 days in advance, or you will not be permitted to "attend" and will not be provided the call-in information that Dominion freely provides in its Notice.  Paranoid much, PATH?

As if the Frau Farbissina tone of PATH's Notice isn't bad enough already, PATH sent the following email notice to certain interested parties, who had sent in their RSVPs weeks earlier, on June 24:

"The open meeting conference call that Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, LLC ("PATH") will hold on July 18, 2012, to explain and clarify its Annual Update is to provide Interested Parties an opportunity to seek information and clarification concerning the Annual Update. Under Section I.H of the Protocols, an  "Interested Party" means  "An entity that is or may become a customer taking transmission service under [the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Open Access Transmission Tariff], a state public utility commission or state consumer advocate agency in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey or the District of Columbia, or any entity having standing under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act."
It is not clear that you meet the definition of Interested Party under the Protocols. Please provide a response to this email by June 19, 2012 stating the basis for your status as an "Interested Party" under the Protocols."

PATH has yet to respond to any of the parties who tried (in vain, judging from PATH's impossible deadline) to provide the required information.  PATH is erecting additional hurdles for certain interested parties by requiring them to plead their case to PATH.  PATH has appointed itself adjudicator of consumers' rights to participate in the setting of rates that they are required to pay.

PATH's behavior is especially egregious in light of FERC's findings in PATH's request to change the definition of "interested party" in its Protocols last year.  As certain parties contended in that case, PATH's proposal to change the definition was a not-so-cleverly disguised attempt to exclude certain parties who have participated in the review of PATH's Formula Rate and filed Challenges in the past.  Because PATH has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar and has no logical defense, they simply seek to exclude parties who may take notice and challenge ongoing fraud.

Interested party Alison Haverty has apparently grown tired of PATH's heavy-handed attempts to disenfranchise consumers and filed a Complaint against PATH at FERC (Docket No. EL12-79).  PATH has 8 days to answer Alison's complaint.

UPDATE:  FERC has issued a Notice of Complaint setting a very short intervention, comment, protest and answer deadline.  All filings are due by 5:00 p.m. July 5.  If you want to participate, you'd best get crackin'.  It looks like FERC wants to get this over with well before the July 18 meeting.

We've all been laughing at the AEP vs. FirstEnergy TV commercial beat down going on in the state of Ohio.  The companies are doing such a bad job presenting a coherent message, the public is left wondering what it's all about.  While the commercials focus on a current AEP rate case, the FirstEnergy rate case also going on right now before PUCO is much, much more interesting and has more potential to rip off consumers than anything AEP could dream up.

You see, FirstEnergy's current rate ripoff scheme is just a small part of their long-term, grand design to manipulate markets, laws, and administrative processes in a number of venues in order to produce incredible financial windfalls for the company.  FirstEnergy put quite a lot of thought into machinations that would beat their competitors at the EPA coal plant closure game and manipulate the situation into a financial benefit for the company.  FE's stockholders may see it as great business sense, but for Ohio's electric consumers, it's a huge financial loss.  Whether FE will get away with pushing the legal envelope, or whether evidence of possible misdeeds will begin to float to the surface like untethered bodies, remains to be seen.

It started several years ago with FirstEnergy's acquisition of Allegheny Energy and its plethora of scrubbed coal generation.  Tony the Trickster admitted as much on some annoying idiot's TV talk show.  He claimed that the EPA's new rule will benefit FirstEnergy, while other companies, like AEP, were wasting their time whining and trying to lobby the rules away.  Here's how FE's plan worked:

1.    Acquire bigger footprint and additional scrubbed coal generation capacity.

2.    Close un-scrubbed coal plants several years earlier than necessary, on very short notice, and create localized capacity shortages (especially in FirstEnergy's home base of Ohio). 

3.    Generation shortage will drive capacity prices in ATSI up more than double those in the rest of the RTO.  FirstEnergy will be the beneficiary of increased capacity prices.

4.    Closures will result in reliability issues.
    a.    Possibility for very profitable "Reliability Must Run" contracts to keep plants slated for closure open until reliability solutions can be implemented. 
    b.    Propose $1B in new transmission "reliability" solutions to be owned and constructed by FirstEnergy that source to other existing FirstEnergy-owned generation in order to lock in future market domination.  The transmission will predominantly become the financial responsibility of consumers in the ATSI zone, and will consist of many small upgrades to FirstEnergy-owned transmission so as to avoid any competition for projects under FERC's Order 1000.

5.    File Ohio rate case to lock in all that juicy profit and rush it through approvals!

6.    Engage powerful competitor in silly tit-for-tat PR battle over their own rate case, in order to focus attention elsewhere.

Here's what's turned up in FE's Ohio rate case:

Read the brief of the Ohio Consumer's Counsel.  This agency, tasked with representing the interests of Ohio's residential ratepayers, was chopped and crippled by Ohio's Governor last year.  The ever-struggling OCC claims that FE, with the assistance of PUCO, rushed their case through the process and disenfranchised the public.  FE sought waiver of many important rules and kept evidence to a minimum.  FE engineered an upfront settlement with certain parties, who all received kickbacks for their cooperation.  No parties representing residential ratepayers were included in the settlement, leaving the ratepayers without representation and bearing the cost of the kickbacks the cooperating parties received.  FE's switch to a three-year auction leaves ratepayers at risk of higher prices.  Sure, your rates may be "stable," but that will be stably HIGH.  FirstEnergy's generation affiliates will substantially benefit from the three-year auction.  A distribution rider produces excessive cost to consumers and locks FirstEnergy into a guaranteed revenue stream without rate transparency.  FirstEnergy escapes Ohio's "significantly excessive earnings" test.  FirstEnergy's claimed "benefits" for consumers are nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Read the brief of AEP Retail Energy Partners.  Be sure not to miss their handy-dandy table of all the settlement parties who financially benefited from their support of FE's plan, how much they got, and who gets to pay for it (mostly Ohio's residential ratepayers).  See also AEP's arguments about how FE is, in fact, the one stifling competition in Ohio by locking customers into purchasing FE's generation.  So much for a level playing field, FE, you little fibber!  And this -- it's such a great line, I've got to quote it:

"In effect, what is presented to the Commission and the ratepayers of the FE EDUs is much like a bad sequel.  Even if one liked the original movie, there is no assurance that the sequel will be equally enjoyable.  Unlike a movie, however, the FE EDU customers must stay to watch, once they have paid."

But probably the most stunning evidence submitted in the case comes from The Sierra Club's brief.  The brief details how FE severely underbid energy efficiency into PJM's RPM auction.  FE's failure to bid even the minimum amounts of EE required by state law into the auction artificially drove up ATSI's capacity price in PJM's 2015/16 auction.  FE's gaming of EE capacity cost ATSI consumers $600M in unnecessary capacity costs and prevented them from realizing an additional $39M in revenue!

But, what will all this mean for Ohio consumers if FE's plan is approved?  You're going to be paying more... lots more!

FirstEnergy has a bunch of hungry mouths to feed, such as:

CEO "Tony the Trickster" Alexander, who pulled in $18.3M in total compensation in 2011, according to FirstEnergy's SEC Proxy filing.

CFO Mark Clark, who pulled in $6.6M in 2011.

General Counsel Leila Vespoli, who pulled in $5.5M in 2011.

Charles Jones, President of FE Utilities, who pulled in $4.7M in 2011.

And then there's FirstEnergy's dead weight, retired executives, who still have their hand in the till:

Gary Leidich, who walked away with $4.4M in 2011.

Paul "Mr. Burns" Evanson, who walked away with the big prize - $14.4M in 2011.

So, while you're struggling to pay your increased electric bill in the future, remember how hard your friends at FirstEnergy are also "struggling."

If you've heard that the EPA is causing your electric bill to "skyrocket," you're getting incorrect "information" spoon-fed to you by propagandists with an agenda.  You need to work a little harder to get the unvarnished truth.  The truth is that your Ohio electric bill is going to "skyrocket" because of the financial scheming of FirstEnergy.

Remember, while all those TV commercials are kinda funny, the real story can only be found elsewhere.

PJM's Independent Market Monitor stuck their finger into the Primary Power pie at FERC, "[b]ecause this case has important implications for the Commission’s initiative in transmission competition policy, the Market Monitor urges the Commission to resolve the issues raised here in a manner that preserves and strengthens that policy."

Looks like the Market Monitor also smells a couple of incumbent rats exercising unfair advantage over their competition in the PJM cartel.  The IMM doesn't come right out and say that PJM is complicit, but what other conclusion could there be?  The IMM loves themselves some competition to make their little markets work, and PJM's decision to grant ownership of an independent transmission company's projects to incumbents smacks of uncompetitive, unfair advantage won through schmoozing and arm-twisting of PJM's management.  That's really nothing new.  The favoritism of incumbents has been going on at PJM for years, and will continue until a responsible entity puts a stop to it.  Bravo, IMM, for at least taking a stab at it.

IMM says, "PJM has not adequately justified its decision"
and thinks the following ambiguities in PJM's rules need to be corrected:

1.    "Sponsorship"
2.    New vs. Revised Projects
3.    Upgrades/rights of way/incumbent property rights

They also take issue with the fact that "PJM compares Primary Power’s costs to build the original projects against incumbent transmission owners’ cost to build the revised projects. There does not appear to have been a process that would have permitted direct competition between Primary Power and the Incumbents."

The IMM recognizes that PJM's "cost competition" arguments are bogus and cause undue expense for consumers and that some control needs to be put on cost estimates.  Perhaps the IMM should have weighed in on FERC's Transmission Incentives NOI as well, where this issue has been a part of discussions.

"The fact that the referenced costs are only estimates which cannot be enforced gives rise to significant questions about the significance of whether one project’s estimated costs are less than the estimated costs of another project. The Commission should consider whether transmission owners, whether incumbent or potential entrant, should provide firm, enforceable cost estimates. This would make a reasonable comparison of costs possible and would also define the assignment of risks between investors and customers."

PJM thinks they are omnipotent and invincible (because the incumbents tell them so while hefting their golf tackle around at ratepayer expense).  Someone needs to let Kerry Stroup know that PJM exists to serve CONSUMERS, and not the profit margins of their corporate members.

"They don't realize that PJM doesn't report to anybody ... although we are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission," Stroup said."

Maybe FERC should spend less time in private "visits" with energy company CEOs, and start doing some regulating.

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!