Legalectric

Fur was flying last night, late when I got a chance to check in, whew…

PJM – last minute filing

PSEG – Response to PJM filing

Environmental Intervenors Response to PJM

Municipal Intervenors Response to PJM

I’ll be typing notes as we go… we’ll see.

The room is filling up, almost standing room only…

I’ll correct all the typos later…

January 15, 2010

Pledge of allegiance

All five present

Next meeting 1/20 @ 10 a.m.

Special meeting regarding Petition of PSEG re Susquehanna-Roseland line

Ken Sheehan – background – description of project

Jurisdiction

Cost – portion for NJ ratepayers not clear, open issue at FERC

PSE&G claims must be in service by 2012

Extremely complicated

Key questions – need for the project, specifically to resolve reliability problems

Oct 15 2009 – PJM reaffirmed need for PATH, MAPP and S-R

Board became aware of changes in need for PATH line – VA-PATH has asked for withdrawal. Reduction in scope and severity of NERC violqations, PJM will work through planning process

This has raised issue of similar issues with this line

Fiordaliso gave official notice to these issues.  PSE&G did not object to entry

Firodaliso also gave official notice re:  MAPP suspension.  MAPP – PJM said it needed to reanalyze need for MAPP because it assumed PATH

There has been a flurry of comments regarding official notice these last few days.  Most notably was two paragraph letter from PJM witness – delays will not in any way change the need for Susquehanna-Roseland.

Intervenors have noted that this conclusory statement needs substantiation.

Fiordaliso has formally recommended that the Board take notice of PATH and MAPP.

Firodaliso – (these guys are talking way too fast)

One word that soood out was flurry. I was the prsiding commissioner. During the proceedings we have held multiple public eharings, held a full evidentiary hearing. We have provided opportunities to prepare Pos Hearing briefs, filed only on 1/6/2010. It was inthese briefs that the PATH and MAPP issues were first raised. Because of the importance of this issue, I felt it was appropriate to bring this to the full Baord. My immediate question, shared by the other commissioners, is whether this information has the ability to significantly change the underlying factual situation of these lines. If PJM is no longer certain that MAPP and PAH are no longer needed at this time. I believe our board would be remiss not to consider whether PJM would feel the same about S-R and how that would affect NJ. The changes to PATH aned MAPP are extraordinary, this is not minor updates and changes (Comm. Fox nods vigorously). One of the core analyhsis of this is need, are the lines  needed for the protection of transmission. PJM is able to provide expert analysis. The board would be remiss in not taking this into consideration. PJM has sent a letter that nothing ash changed. (quoting from PJM letter, above is link) “For clarity and in order to avoid any confusion, PJM as the independent transmission authority, that the factors driving PATH and MAPP do not in any way change need for S-R in NJ as detailed in my testimony as set forth in this docket.” We appreciate that input, nevertheless we need more than a this suumary statement. We need to have PJM to explain how they reached that conclusion, and in a way that will allow all parties to comment.

Amend recommendation — recommend to Board that we issue secretary’s letter to PJM asking for their input, notably we should seek and receive detailed confirmation that despite changes in map and path lines no changes have occurred in its analysis tof SF that would materially alter PJM analysis. provide this as soon as possible to allow for our review and provide opportunities for all parties in this case to see the results. This will allow the board to make an informed decision.

I do not want anyone to have the opinion that the board will issue a decision today. One of the obstacles is that the Board may need additional facts, and this is where we currently find ourselves.

Everyone associated with this project has been working as hard as humanly possible to bring this to an efficient and proper conclusion. The size of the record and the significance of this case make it essential that the Commission have a full record and the depth of understanding to understand the positions advanced by all of the parties. This always takes time, with a record as voluminous and contested as this. I hope we can get a commitment from all the commissioners, we can get a commitment to have a decision within 30 days. This time-frame represents a fair balancing of the Board’s responsibilities and the Board’s desire to have this as fair as possible.

Butler:

In my 11 years as commissioner, I’ve learned a few things. Transmission cases are never easy. I also know that I have rarely seen a record this large and with this many parties, and I’ve never seen it decided just 7-8 days of receipt of final briefs. The size of the record, the need to reach a decision, we will give commitment to render that decision. I will be spending part of my holiday reviewing this case! We need to balance needs of community and its residents, take the time, that’s correct approach.

PSEGE called me and informed me Ex PARTE , others commissioners were contacted as well. (all were nodding at this statement). I believe our course of action is the correct one. Asking PJM for formal communication as to how they reached their decision,  I am confident it will be a better decision because of the steps we’ve taken today.

Asselta:

I am also in agreement with the presiding Commissioner. I have to tell you that I have not been contacted by any parties. I know a few things that I’m in support of, improving reliability, making sure we have complete reliability, and besides that, economic opportunities, infrastructure improvement so state can grow, I am looking forward to the 30 day deadline, so that the state of NJ will come to conclusion on this decision. I too am looking forward to the reports, make sure this is the right project at the right time and that the ratepayers are not on the hook for every bit of the cost to produce this line. I am in support of Commissioenr Fiordaliso’s request.

Randall:

I agree, I am not prepared to cast vote on this today based on volume of information. I do believe that I will be prepared within the next 30 days.

Fox:

I want to thank follow commissioners and staff for work and thanks to Commissioner Fioredaliso. I’m in strong agreement with Commissioners, record is huge, the transcript is almost 1200 pages, in past ,  the government has to strive to get it right, for the state and people we represent. Good government requires we take notice of these developments and consider changes in transmission system, failure would be failure to do our jobs correctly. We are not ready to make decision at this time, we just closed record a week ago, and there are significant issues to get into, whether need has evolved, this is not a simple matter, it is not obvious. Resonable minds can and have differed, I’m aware PSEG has a construction schedule, but I am confident that this will not impact their schedule. I’m aware that there’s a FERC deadline, but I believe this action is necessary and propery. We can make this decision within a month. We can maek a final determination in the meantime.

Fiordaliso:

I make a motion, take judicial of information as outlined, and a secretary’[s letter be sent to PJM seeking additional information

Butler:

I second that.

Randall:

I also want to note that we are refirming Commissioner’s 30 day deadline.

Passed unanimously.

++++++++++++++++++++

Here’s the letter they sent, missing the boat…

BPU Secretary letter to PJM

It’s official, well, semi-official, there’s still no word from the Board of Public Utilities itself!

Here’s PSEG’s objection and their missive asking that the time to respond to Commissioner Fiordaliso’s request for comment be cut short:

PSEG Request to Shorten Time to Contest Official Notice

Dig the last paragraph:

Accordingly, PSE&G respectfully requests that the Board shorten the time to comment from January 16 to January 12 and further requests that the Commission act on the evidence before it and approve the Petition on January 15 without further delay.

Oh, right, yes, ma’am, we’ll get right to it!  They must be dreaming…

And as if that weren’t funny enough, here’s the PSEG argument against oral argument:

PSEG Response to Motion for Oral Argument

… but here it is in B&W:

BPU delays decision on power line

By SETH AUGENSTEIN

saugenstein@njherald.com

The state’s Board of Public Utilities is delaying its decision on the proposed Susquehanna-Roseland power line while it factors in the withdrawal of a similar power line proposal in Virginia.

The board was slated to decide on the New Jersey half of the power line on Jan. 15. However, the board pushed back the decision date, after opponents filed last-minute paperwork about Virginia’s proposed PATH.

The new evidence cites predicted decreases for regional energy needs delaying another regional power transmission project. Specifically, the Susquehanna-Roseland opponents are now citing recent setbacks for similar “reliability projects,” due to reports that power demands are down, and the need for power transmission lines is declining, the opponents say.

In late December, the PATH Allegheny Virginia Transmission Corp. moved to withdraw its 276-mile, $1.8 billion high-voltage transmission line proposal which would run through West Virginia and Virginia. The company says it will resubmit the plans in the fall. The reported reasons are the decreased demand during the recession and energy conservation.

The developments in Virginia could now factor into the Garden State decision. BPU Commissioner Joseph Fiordaliso wrote a letter Wednesday to all the involved parties announcing that the recent PATH request would be factored into the evidence for the Susquehanna-Roseland line. Fiordaliso set a deadline of Jan. 15 for the lawyers in the case to contest the new evidence, or otherwise comment on how it should factor into the pending decision.

Catherine Tamasik, the attorney for a seven-town coalition opposing the lines, said it could be a positive development for her clients — but it was too early to tell what the new evidence inclusion could mean.

“The BPU is certainly aware of the changing energy environment, and they’re going to take a look at it,” she said Friday.

Word just out that the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities will NOT be deciding Susquehanna-Roseland on January 15, or any time before that either.  Well… and that’s good because Pennsylvania put off the decision until February 12.

Be sure to check out the REPLY BRIEFS — HERE!

Yesterday, we got a missive from Commissioner Fiordaliso, the one who presided over the hearing, and he’s taking “Official Notice” of the Potomac Allegheny Transmission Highline – PATH withdrawal, and two documents, the original and the amended PATH-VA Motions to Withdraw.

Fiordaliso Letter – January 7, 2009

Here’s the sensitivity analysis that the PATH-VA withdrawal was based on:

PATH – Cover letters & sensitivity analysis

So the NJ BPU has put off the decision, like PA, and they’re noticing that PATH went down the drain because it wasn’t needed.  New Jersey’s governor will be inaugurated on January 19th… could the BPU deny it quick, like right away, before Chris Christie can do anything?  After the 19th, some of the Commissioners will be sent packing, so why not go out with flair… errr…  flare…

It’s clear this line is not needed, not needed anymore than the MAPP and PATH lines, which have been delayed, parts taken out, and withdrawn due to lack of need.  Here’s the PJM peak demand chart just released in the latest PJM Load Forecast:

PJM 2010 Load Forecast Report

Graphs from p. 24.  With decreases like that, do tell, where do they come up with those projections?

Here’s the chart, p. 72:

PJM Peak Demand 1998-2009-p72

Once more with feeling:  IT’S NOT NEEDED!

SUSQUEHANNA-ROSELAND IS NOT NEEDED!

WE DON’T NEED NO STINKIN’ TRANSMISSION!

Susquehanna-Roseland Reply Briefs were due yesterday — I’m representing Stop the Lines.

So it’s nap time today…

Here they are!

STL – Reply Brief

STL – Certification & Exhibits

Municipal Intervenors Reply Brief

Environmental Intervenors Reply Brief

Environmental Intervenors – Certification

Environmental Intervenors – Exhibits

Montville Board of Education Reply Brief

New Jersey Rate Counsel Reply Brief

PSEG Reply Brief

Hmmmmmmmmm… I don’t see anything from Exelon…

Happy reading!  Dig some of the exhibits, like the Motion to Withdraw from PATH-VA, the PJM 2010 Load Forecast (which shows demand has been down down down since the peak of 2006), and the sensitivity analysis that shot down PATH in Virginia!

It’s warm here in New Jersey, unseasonably.  We’re slogging through the hearing.

The good news is that we’ve gotten pretty much everything in the record that we need, including, well not quite, got the 2Q State of Market, and last night I found that the 3Q was released November 13:

(great, can’t upload here, grrrrrrrrrr)

PJM – 2009 3Q State of the Market Report

Page 9 will tell you all about decreased peak demand:

2005          133,761

2006          144,544

2007         139,428

2008         129,481

2009         126,805

Down 2,676 MW this year, down 9947 from 2007 to 2008.  Down every year since 2006!

Here’s a report of yesterday’s festivities:

State told power plan pros, cons

By SETH AUGENSTEIN
saugenstein@njherald.com

NEWARK — Power grid experts testified about the need for the 500-kilovolt Susquehanna-Roseland power line Thursday in front of a dozen attorneys at the offices of the state’s Board of Public Utilities.

The four experts — three from grid operator PJM Interconnection, one from power company PSE&G — stated their case in proposing the power line, which will double the height and power of the existing line from Susquehanna, Pa., to Roseland, in Essex County, cutting through the southern half of Sussex County along the way.

Testimony surrounding routing and construction of the project was put on the record at evidentiary hearings earlier this week by PSE&G experts and engineers. The PJM-dominated needs panel will complete its input today, and will be followed by the objector’s experts. The need issue is considered to be the main question determining the future of the controversial power plans before the BPU.

PSE&G, the state’s largest electric utility, said it needs to build the line and have it operating by 2012 to meet the electricity demands and reliability requirements expected for the region in the coming decades.

Opponents have rallied around several issues, including safety and health issues stemming from having a 500-kilovolt system on the same pole with a 230-kilovolt system, the potential environmental damage the construction project will do, the visual and property value impact of the towers and whether bringing in electricity generated in other states meets New Jersey’s own goals of increasing so-called “green” and renewable sources of power.

Thursday’s seven hours of question-and-answer testimony included hypertechnical engineering explanations, staccato series of acronyms involving state and federal regulatory agencies and figures spanning all details of the $750 million project.

The PJM experts conceded regional power demands have decreased the last three years, but maintain their forecasting models predict increasing power needs beginning in 2012, which could induce brownouts if the line is not built.

“We don’t use actual loads, we use forecasts of loads,” said Steven Herling, PJM’s vice president of planning.

“I can only characterize it as a significant increase,” added John Reynolds, a senior economic analyst at PJM.

Four attorneys cross-examined the experts, with few breaks.

Carol Overland, a lawyer specializing in power grids, represented the Fredon-based citizens group Stop the Lines. Overland peppered the four-man panel with questions for about three hours, with detailed points about the methodology of deciding upon the lines as a power solution.

Catherine Tamasik, the attorney representing a seven-town coalition opposing the lines, followed with questions about determining the need through the peak demand of electricity during hot summer days.

Julia LaMense, the lawyer representing four environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, called into question the pressing need of the lines, as her clients have done since the plan was proposed last year.

Henry Ogden, New Jersey’s assistant deputy public advocate, finished the cross-examination by asking about the strategic routing of the lines, which could coincide with the much-publicized closing of a Bergen County power plant.

Joseph Fiordaliso, Board of Public Utilities commissioner, presided alone over the hearing. He occasionally urged the board’s experts to answer the questions succinctly, and to avoid “dissertations.” He had similar advice for the attorneys.

“I would appreciate it if you would just ask a question,” he said.

Karen Johnson, spokeswoman for PSE&G, said the experts had done an efficient job of presenting what the power company considers an energy necessity.

The opposition attorneys said they were getting the job done.

“We got on the record what we wanted on the record,” Tamasik said.

The hearings are expected to continue today. The state has set aside hearing times through Tuesday, if necessary. The board expects to reach a final decision in January.