By standing up for offshore transmission for wind, Delaware’s Gov. Jack Markell stands up to Midwest coal!

The Mid-Atlantic states have been standing up and opposing transmission from the Midwest.  They’ve gone on record in a number of venues, and in their opposition are citing Midwest transmission promoters’ disregard for eastern renewable efforts, that xmsn may well not be an economical way to get power to the east, and that THEY KNOW THAT MIDWEST TRANSMISSION PLANS INHERENTLY ARE ABOUT COAL. The plan they’re referring to is a massive transmission buildout known as JCSP, and it also applies to the big PJM buildout that includes the PA-NJ Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line that was the subject of a hearing last month.

Here’s JCSP (Joint Coordinated System Plan) note their site now talks about wind — but look where the transmission starts, DUH! The coal fields of the Dakotas:

Gotta give them, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, a lot of credit for recognizing and stating what Midwest states have been unwilling to admit.

That said, here’s what Mid-Atlantic states are doing — they’re banding together to propose offshore transmission.  If it’s underwater offshore transmission, that’s an idea that’s hard not to like.  But I’ll bet it throws PJM for a loop, what with all their “backbone” transmission schemes, a la Project Mountaineer, that are in the works:

The FERC birth of Project Mountaineer:

Exhibit STL D-6a (PSEG Discovery Response)

Exhibit STL D-6B (PSEG Discovery Response)

And you can see that those lines in play now, PJM’s “backbone” transmission projects like Susquehanna-Roseland (NE part of Project Mountaineer Line 1) and MAPP (NE part of Project Mountaineer Line 4) are part of the plan… the big transmission plan that does not work for the east coast.

Here’s the Memorandum of Understanding between Delaware, Maryland and Virginia:

DE, MD & VA Wind Infrastructure MOU

And recently, Gov. Jack Markell addressed these issues before American Wind Energy Association’s offshore windfest — but given the PJM big-transmission-projects-from-hell are referred to as “backbone” projects, I wish they’d find another term:

Delaware energy: ‘Backbone’ power line pushed for wind farms

By AARON NATHANS
The News Journal

BOSTON — If the Eastern Seaboard is to one day be dotted with thousands of wind turbines, they may as well work in harmony.

That’s the message 10 eastern governors are sending to the federal government as they advocate for a major underwater power line parallel to the East Coast.

U.S. offshore wind farm projects, all still on the drawing board, are being planned to include cables from the turbines to a substation on land to bring the power to the existing transmission grid.

The “backbone” power line the governors envision would connect the wind farms to each other, making it easier to spread wind power from areas where the wind is blowing robustly at that moment to states where electricity demand exceeds supply.

They see the backbone as preferable to a national investment in a transmission line that brings wind power from the Midwest to the East.

Gov. Jack Markell broached the subject this week in his address to the American Wind Energy Association’s offshore wind workshop, the industry event of the year on this side of the Atlantic. Markell signed onto letters the governors sent to members of Congress this summer, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last month.

Governors of Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Maine also signed the letters.

In an interview, Markell’s natural resources secretary, Collin O’Mara, said he wants to find out if there’s a way to spread out the costs of such a project. Building a backbone would help states satisfy their renewable electricity purchase requirements, and relieve the “spaghetti” structure of the current power grid, he said.

“Let’s have the conversation,” O’Mara said. “It’s extremely worthy of further study.”

Transmission is vitally important to getting offshore wind energy to population centers, said Denise Bode, the wind association’s president. And Gov. Donald Carcieri, R-R.I., called it “the elephant in the room.”

The power grid is “organized like a patchwork to meet local needs” rather than as a planned national system — almost an assemblage of local roads compared with an interstate, Carcieri said. The developers and government officials in attendance were very much aware of the role transmission will play in whether the offshore wind industry lives up to its potential.

The discussion comes as various offshore wind projects are maturing from concept to permitting, construction and design. At the moment, NRG-Bluewater Wind holds the only contract for offshore wind power, with Delmarva Power.

It’s starting the permitting process, getting ready to build weather towers off Delaware and New Jersey next summer, and preparing to bid for the right to develop an offshore wind project in New York City.

Jim Gordon, president of the Cape Wind venture that hopes to build in Nantucket Sound, told the convention he has all of the permits he needs from the state and federal government, but is working to overcome a tribal challenge that the waters in Nantucket Sound are protected.

The developer is working with the local utility — National Grid — to develop a contract to purchase power from the wind farm.

National Grid is also negotiating with Deepwater Wind for a contract to provide power to Rhode Island’s Block Island from a small, five-to-eight turbine facility in near-to-shore state waters. The company is also planning a larger wind farm in federal waters off the Rhode Island coast, which will take longer to build.

Deepwater, Bluewater and Fishermen’s Energy are planning wind farms off the New Jersey coast and the state government has provided incentives.

Deepwater CEO Bill Moore said, in principle, the backbone transmission line is “a terrific idea. It makes a lot of sense.”

But he said it’s a “daunting task” to complete an infrastructure project that crosses state boundaries, impacts different developers, and brings together different regional power grids.

“It obviously won’t happen in the absence of federal leadership,” he said.

Fishermen’s Energy President Daniel Cohen said it’s a good idea, but “it’s another moving part.”

“What comes first? Do you build the project or the backbone? People need to make decisions soon,” Cohen said, noting that the answer affects financing arrangements.

Gordon van Welie, president of ISO New England, the regional power grid manager, said there has been some investment in transmission upgrades, but a national plan is needed before new elements are selected.

“The rhinoceros in the room is the transmission cost allocation” — who benefits from a transmission line, and who pays for it, he said.

He noted that the New England governors adopted their own long-term vision of renewable energy, which included $6 billion in lines to transmit power from inland and offshore turbines to population centers.

The benefits of building lines transmitting wind power from the Midwest are less certain, he said.

“It will be difficult to get progress in this area until there are clear national goals,” he said.

Steven Bruckner, conservation chairman of the Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club, looked kindly upon the backbone idea. He said he didn’t have environmental concerns, although he wondered whether such a project would be economical.

“You’re talking hundreds, thousands of wind turbines off the coast, eventually displacing those coal burning power plants,” he said. “It’s the scale. It’s the beginning.”

Note that “cost allocation” is raised.  Since the 7th Circuit decision tossing out FERC approval of PJM’s transmission cost allocation dream/nightmare, all transmission projects 500kV and over based on that cost allocation scheme are in limbo.

Illinois Commerce Commission v. FERC – August 6, 2009

So as noted, who pays, and submarine transmission is EXPENSIVE, is THE big issue now.  It’s the big issue for land transmission, it’s the big issue for offshore transmission, and, given the uncertainty since the 7th Circuit decision, maybe some of the sturm and drang could be circumvented if it’s designed at 345kV or below, and uses the “benefactor pays” theory.  We shall see…

… before they back off on these stupid infrastructure projects?

We finished up the Susquehanna-Roseland hearing today, Stop the Lines has weighed in.  Time to say goodbye to beautiful downtown Newark.

Experts at power line hearing debate safety of EMFs

For me, the best parts today were:

1) Finally… FINALLY… getting some credible testimony about the capacity of that line.  Let’s see, they’re planning to double circuit it with 500kV, getting rid of the 230kV, but when… and they’ve designed the substations for 500kV expansion.  So DUH!  Here’s the poop:

140C for a 1590 ACSR Falcon @ 500kV – PJM summer normal rating conditions = 1838 amps

4 conductors = 7,352 amps

3 conductors – 5,514 amps or 4,595 MVA

2) Clear statement on the record about the Merchant Transmission’s Firm Transmission Withdrawal Rights:

Neptune 685MW

ECP 330 MW (VFT?)

HTP 670MW

TOTAL: 1,670 MW already heading across the river

And getting those numbers in was not easy, PSEG did NOT want this in the record.  It’s confirmed in the PJM Tariff, STL-12, p. 3 of the exhibit, p. 2 of SRTT-114 (BPU Staff IR).  But there’s something else disturbing going on here.  We were supposed to question Essam Khadr about “Leakage,” which is “New Jerseyian” for the increased coal generation that will be imported if CO2 costs are assessed:

BPU’s RGGI Leakage Order December 17, 2008

That will take some time to wrap my head around.

Here’s PJM’s 3Q bad news, well… good news to me!  Because it continues to go down:

PJM 3Q STATE OF THE MARKET REPORT

And if that’s not enough, here’s the Wall Street Journal:

Weak Power Demand Dims Outlook

By REBECCA SMITH

(See Correction below)

Electricity sales remained weak in the third quarter, prompting speculation that the sluggishness could persist even after the U.S. economy rebounds. Some utilities don’t expect power sales to recover to pre-recession levels until 2012 — if at all — because so many factories have closed.

Getting a read on future demand is crucial for utilities because they require long lead times to build power plants and make other upgrades. Declining sales put pressure on utilities to raise prices, cut costs or make other adjustments to bolster profits.
[Workers last month in Charlotte, N.C., home of Duke Energy. ] Associated Press

Workers last month in Charlotte, N.C., home of Duke Energy.

The sector began to feel the recession, which started in late 2007, later than many others. Sales held up well in the first half of 2008 but then declined and have continued falling this year, though some regions are reporting an uptick. The federal Energy Information Administration expects overall electricity sales to decline 3.3% this year and grow modestly next year, but many utilities anticipate far larger declines for the year.

Duke Energy Corp. said its energy sales to the textile industry based in the Carolinas fell 20% in the third quarter, versus a drop of 13.7% for sales to all industrial users. For the first nine months of 2009, electricity sales to the textile industry were down 23.5%, from the prior year, and overall industrial sales were down 15.8%.

American Electric Power Co. of Columbus, Ohio, which owns utilities in 11 states, saw industrial electricity sales plunge 17% for the third quarter versus the year-ago period. Chief Executive Mike Morris said his company is counting on industrial demand recovering about a third of the lost ground in 2010.

Beyond that, he is wary of making predictions. “I don’t know if we’ll ever get all of it back,” he said, acknowledging that factory closings in the auto sector will have a lasting effect.

Larry Makovich of consultancy Cambridge Energy Research Associates is among the few who believe electricity sales will experience a “strong rebound” next year. “It is dangerous to misinterpret a short-run phenomenon as a structural change,” he said.

Atlanta’s Southern Co., which owns utilities in four Southeastern states, has seen year-to-date industrial demand drop 15%, including a 9.6% drop in the past quarter. Chief Executive David Ratcliffe said he sees signs of recovery, but added that it feels “fragile.”

Bill Johnson, chief executive of Progress Energy, which has utilities in Florida and the Carolinas, said he thinks homes mostly have cut use voluntarily, unlike businesses. Total sales fell 10.9% in the first nine months of the year across all customer categories, led by industrial sales that dropped 11.4% in the Carolinas and 12.9% in Florida.

“I think there’s still a high level of concern and a great deal of unease” about the economy, Mr. Johnson said, adding that he doesn’t expect a sharp recovery.

Bob Shapard, chief executive of Oncor in Dallas, said he thinks the drop in energy use in 2008 “was so quick that it wasn’t structural but was probably cyclical.” Nevertheless, he said he doesn’t expect a full recovery in total sales volumes until 2012.

Portland General Electric in Oregon saw residential sales rise 4.6% for the quarter, but the gain was offset by a 5.3% drop in industrial sales.

Utility analyst Chris Ellinghaus at Shields & Company in New York said he isn’t hopeful the sector will recover next year but thinks “2011 will look more normal.”

Yup, close, but decidedly Newark, New Jersey.  It’s more Alan’s country, he was born just south of here in Elizabeth, maybe the old Elizabeth General Medical Center I drove by???

And a hearing state of mind too, ready to kick in tomorrow.  Hearing — Susquehanna-Roseland transmission at the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.  Stop the Lines! Stay tuned for reports from the trenches…

Our coalition of the “Municipal Intervenors,” Stop the Lines! and “Environmental Intervenors” has filed a Motion to Dismiss in PSEG’s Susquehanna-Roseland proceeding in New Jersey.

Here it is – enjoy!

Notice of Motion, Proposed Order

Motion – Supporting Brief

Motion – Exhibits 1-8

Motion – Exhibits 9-20

Nutshell version:

NO!

… ahem… really, it’s that simple!

The hearing is set to begin on the Monday after next, November 16th, and we’re having a phone conference next Monday.  They ought to just toss it out, and tell them to come back when they’ve really got something.  I kinda feel sorry for PSEG, because they’re having to carry the water here when it’s not even their project.  PJM’s the one that should be in the hot seat.

.

Apparently Jonathan Travers, “Engineer of Knowledge” is another utility toady or self-declared energy wonk, and thinks I’ve got my head implanted regarding my comments about the MAPP line and about PSE&G’s dissing Midwest transmission.  EH?  I’d say my Google Analyics stats say otherwise.  And then there’s the little energy birdie who admitted the other day that Legalectric is one of his first stops in the morning!

Who is Jonathan Travers?  Haven’t a clue, his reputation does not exceed him!  Google’s got very little to say.  Hmmmmmmm…  There is a “Travers” on the Dorchester County Council, Ricky Travers.  This “Jonathan Travers,” he’s got a blog, Jonathan Travers Chronicles, with only a handful of postings that are focused on blasting opposition to the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP) transmission line, i.e., Dorchester County’s Dorchester Citizens for Safe Energy and Eastern Shore Land Conservancy, who are having some success in fighting the MAPP line, and though Travers’ blog’s banner states “Debate Through Logical Argumentation Only. Not For Flamers!” the level of discourse he’s posting is not even up to “Horse’s Ass Awards” and such:

As I see it, Ms. Nagel’s letter to The Daily Times identifying herself as the “President of Citizens for Safe Energy,” would be better off proclaiming herself as the President of the Dorchester’s chapter of the Mickey Mouse Club based on what I noted as her lack of understanding of electrical engineering per her comments.

Here are his comments about my MAPP post, “MAPP Transmission Line Under the Microscope” a couple weeks ago:

Submitted on 2009/10/04 at 9:18am

To the attention of Legalectric Blog.

You make the statement, “this transmission line is not needed.” Per logical argumentation, you make (sic) no backup facts to support this opening statement. As any English writing course teaches, this is just poor writing skills (sic). As it has been (sic) well documented by “The Public Service Commission” report (sic) released last December (sic) warned that the state could experience rolling blackouts as early as 2011 to helped (sic… really!) people understand the reason for MAPP’s conception. So with just your opening statement, you have negated your argument and quite poorly I might add (how “sic” can it be?).

Overland comments: “backup facts” about transmission line not needed can be found by searching this site for “decreased demand” and “PJM annual report” and PJM Load Capability.  Ummmm, Hello, I’m a writing major, and your comment about “poor writing skills” isn’t about writing, it’s about evidence that you want.  Don’t worry, it’s there, just look!  “Rolling blackouts” is hysteria, blown away by DEC’s annual Energy Plan, showing sharply decreased congestion on the Delmarva peninsula:

You then go on to post the article from the Star Democrat written by Dustin Holt who may have a journalistic degree but by his statements he has no knowledge of electrical engineering. I have spoken with Mr. Holt in the past and within a short amount of conversation, it was quite apparent that he did not even have the basic understanding of what he was writing about. Mr. Holt starts off by referencing statements from Libby Nagel who has self proclaimed herself (sic) president of the Dorchester Citizens for Safe Energy. It is my evaluation that with her lack of electrical engineering knowledge, Ms. Nagel would be better off proclaiming herself President of the Dorchester’s chapter of the Mickey Mouse Club (SIC!). So once again you have quoted a source that does not have adequate credential (sic) to even be speaking on the subject negating your argument again.

Overland comments: I posted the article as a good example of on-the-ground activism, where people work to increase awareness of their issue, and Dorchester Citizens for Safe Energy did a great job!  They got press coverage, their elected officials showed up, and pro-MAPP people are flailing wildly — that’s a measure of success!  Libby IS, not was, the President, and IS self-DESCRIBED President, she was elected President by the organization, it’s “described’ not “proclaimed.”  Your “evaluation” is really immaterial.  Ms. Nagel has all the “credential” necessary to speak as an affected community member and President of the primary opposition organization.  The article I posted says she’s the “Chairman,” and not “President.”  Really!

Let me try to explain it this way. If you run just one transmission route like Ms. Nagel is stating would be (sic) like having one extension cord with a hundred electrical appliances, tools, etc. plugged into it. It will not be long before you have overloaded the circuit causing a short circuit or even causing a fire. It is the diversification that the multiple routes provide so that the electrical load required by the Delmarva Peninsula (sic) is what makes the electrical grid secure and stable.

Overland comments:  This is such convoluted and tortured writing that it’s hard to tell where to put the “sic” parentheticals in.  WHEW!  Anyway, back to “substance.”  WTF?  I see only one reference to Ms. Nagel in the article, “Dorchester Citizens for Safe Energy Chairman Libby Nagel said the power line would require about a 200-foot right-of-way.” Nowhere in this article is Nagel advocating for “just one transmission route,” and I don’t think Nagle advocates for ANY transmission route, she’s stating that a new transmission line is not needed!

I would suggest that your readers can get the correct and accurate arguments with regards to MAPP at my site http://www.jonathantraverschronicles.blogspot.com/

Overland comment:  I would suggest that my readers check out the site and comment away!!!  Have at it. My readers will be able to easily dissect that site.

Good day,
Jonathan Travers

Oh, he’s not THAT Jon Travers???

OK, now on to his next comment, on the “PSEG’s Izzo disses Midwest Transmission” post :

Submitted on 2009/10/04 at 2:54pm

To the attention of Legalectric Blog.

In your earlier posting you made the statement, “PJM, the private utility transmission promotion entity, has admitted that the Indian River to Salem part of the line is not justified, and have taken it off their wish list.”

Counter Point:
To start off with PJM simply stands for Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland and the state of Delaware has now (sic?) been included since its conception. PJM is an oversight committee (EH?) made up of knowledgeable people in the industry but they do not tell power utilities to build anything (EH?). It is the utilities (sic) to come up with their own plan to address the problem of the soon (sic) lack of electrical power for their regions. Again your statement you are passing on are (sic) incorrect(sic)  negating you (sic) argument.

Overland comment: PJM is more than a committee, it’s a formal business organization.  PJM IS the utilities, and per PSE&G testimony in the Susquehanna-Roseland case, PJM is telling them to build the line.  Now obviously PJM has no authority, but if they press the matter with FERC, FERC could direct the utilities to build it.  It’s much more than an “oversight” committee, it’s an organization that is comprised of utilities, and they not only address electric reliability issues, but they control and manipulate the electric market.  “Lack of electrical power?”  Somebody hasn’t been reading the SEC filings, reserve margins, and annual reports, EARTH TO MARS, there’s a substantial decrease in electrical use and need, we aren’t going to have a power shortage.  Project Mountaineer is not a plan of the individual utilities’ making. JCSP is not a plan of individual utilities, CapX is not a plan of individual utilities…

“A little knowledge is a very dangerous thing,” and the writer of this blog has demonstrated their sever (sic) lack of knowledge in this subject by the statements presented.”

Overland comment: Oh, uh-huh…

Now with this posting they are stating their case as if there is only one transmission line that needs to be considered. For those educated in electrical engineering, it is plain that the writer of this blog does not even have the basic understanding of Ohms Law. What MAPP is offering are multiple access points for electrical transmission routes.

Overland comment: Ummmmm, “they?”  And who is advocating for transmission?  This is the same thing that “Travers” says about Nagel, who said nothing of the sort.  This mantra does not fly.  Multiple access points?  For what generation?  Let’s get clear about that…

For anyone else whom (sic) should (sic) like to inform themselves more proficiently on this subject, I suggest you go to http://www.jonathantraverschronicles.blogspot.com/ where this has all been address (sic) before.

Thank you,
Jonathan Travers

************************************

Overland comment: Whoever wrote this is clearly not a native speaker/writer nor in any position to critique writing.  Content, well, anyone can criticize content, but I’d guess that “Travers” is a retired engineer or a newly imported engineer who has not had experience with the capitalist system and the shift of focus of PJM, MISO, etc., to economic dispatch, a market system, where economic considerations are primary, and where the game in transmission is how to build out as much as possible while shifting cost-allocation elsewhere, for someone else to pay, anyone.  Then PJM gets shot down by the 7th Circuit and all their transmission cost apportionment plans are in limbo.