Legalectric

On a bit of a transmission meander lately…

Based on the Fahey/AP articles on transmission lately, I mean really, how often is there anything about transmission in the STrib, I’ve felt something approaching.  Perhaps it was the MISO Board of Directors meeting next week in St. Paul (HEY, check this out, you can watch it online, WebEx Information WebEx Password: Sr789456, or even head over to the shindig in St. Paul Hotel!

Then, I was reading the transcript for the PEPCO 2Q Earnings Call (pretty stimulating stuff), where they were talking about the undergrounding in DC:

Seeking Alpha – PEPCO  2Q Earnings Transcript

And here’s a news report and video about it, dig the price, $1.90 – $3.25 a month — that’s reasonable in my cheapskate book:

PEPCO, DC Officials Discuss $1 Billion Underground Wires Plan

That’s exactly what we should be doing.  Complaints about “reliability” are distribution line issues, and look at how those utilities out there that are deregulated have cut maintenance to ZERO, think Aug. 13, 2003 (NERC Blackout Report HERE).  And as I finish that, I see yet another Fahey/AP article published today, this time about Obama stumping for transmission AGAIN:

As cost of weather related outages rises, White House says grid should be made tougher

So off to the White House, where the PR is about “Protecting the Electric Grid From Increasingly Severe Weather Due to Climate Change” and what’s the real theme?  Hey, it’s all about economics!

Economic Benefits of Increasing Grid Resilience to Weather Outages

This builds on his Memorandum earlier this summer:

Memorandum June 7 2013

Which of course builds on his Executive Order promoting transmission and naming projects for “fast tracking,” two of which I was working on at the time, Susquehanna-Roseland and CapX 2020 Hampton-La Crosse.  That was:

Executive Order 13604

and the Interagency Rapid Response Team for Transmission

For a list and map of the transmission line pilot projects please visit:
www.doe-etrans.us

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!

DOH!  This is NOT rocket science.  This came out last month, posted on the CapX 2020 site, and around the same time, there was a PR push about the tax payments, “benefits,” that local governments were receiving for the CapX 2020 transmission lines.  This report is all about the “benefits” and not about the costs, let’s be clear on that:

WIRES Brattle Report – Benefits of Transmission Jul 2013

Now I’ll take a look at this…

What it looks like is advance work for the 765kV overlay, for which there is no logical “need” claim.  They want to turn “planning” on its head, and put “benefits” at the top, the first item on the check list, in “planning.”  I’ll be using a lot of “quotes” here because I’m not buying it.

What they advise, what they’re trying to sell, is that transmission planning should:

1) Identify potential transmission projects that could supplement or replace baseline reliability projects and to develop a comprehensive list of their likely benefits.

2) Estimate the value of as many of the identified benefits as practical.

3) Determine whether the proposed transmission investments would be beneficial overall by comparing the magnitude of estimated economy-wide benefits with estimates of the total costs of the projects.

4) Address cost allocation.

They say that “planners must plan for the highest value first…”

Citing my favorite Posner decision, they quote, “To the extent that a utility benefits from the costs of new facilities, it may be said to have “caused” a part of those costs to be incurred, as without the expectation of its contributions the facilities might not have been built, or might have been delayed.

Illinois Commerce Commission v FERC (7th Cir.)

Benefits should be weighed at the outset when assessing need, in essence benefits supplanting need as reason for a transmission project.  Yeah, OK, what’s new???

(still reading)

Very odd, but it is Sunday, the day they update the website.  Special thanks to the little birdie who brought this to my attention.

The Public Utilities Commission website at www.edockets.state.mn.us shows this and only this:

Very strange…

This is a VERY interesting discussion, if you have some knitting or furniture refinishing to do, this is good background:

August 8, 2013 PUC deliberation on Xcel Rate Case

The link will be live for about 90 days.

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission has issued its Request for Comments on its procedural rules, Minn. R. Ch. 7829:

Notice – Request for Comments

This is the rulemaking where I wasn’t even given notice, nevermind that I’d submitted a rulemaking petition March 14, 2011:

Overland Petition for Rulemaking-7829

The meeting last Thursday was interesting, particularly Commissioner O’Brien’s comments on the Rule 11 like language, where there’s at long last language regarding truthfulness in pleadings and arguments before the Commission, ’bout time.  The bottom issue is important because if staff recommends something that’s not even been discussed in the proceeding, we, intervenors and the public, need the chance to discuss it, to put in our perspective, and more so, we need the ability to vet their proposal.  So check out this webcast, it’ll be posted for ~ 90 days.

PUC WEBCAST of Aug 1 2013 Agenda Meeting HERE

Here’s the meat of it:

Topics Open for Comment:

• Any issue arising from the draft of possible amendments filed in the Commission’s electronic filing system in this docket as an attachment to Staff Briefing Papers on July 25, 2013—with emphasis on the following possible revisions:

• What should the Commission consider when deciding whether to include language that discusses possible sanctions for violations of the proposed Commission rule governing representations of fact or law to the Commission (Part 7829.0250)?

• Assuming that the Commission were to decide that a sanctions provision is appropriate, the Commission seeks comment on the following proposed language:

Subp. 2. Sanctions. If, after notice and an opportunity for comment and reply, the commission determines that subpart 1 has been violated, the commission may impose a sanction on any party or participant who violated subpart 1 or is responsible for the violation. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. An order imposing a sanction must describe the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction.

• What should the Commission consider when deciding whether to amend rule part 7829.2600 to read “If commission staff recommend action not advocated by any party, at the request of any party and to the extent practicable, all parties must be granted an opportunity to comment.”?

To file Comments: E-file using the Commission’s electronic filing system (info on registration at this link too), or email to Christopher.Moseng@state.mn.us. Persons without e-mail access may send by U.S. mail to Christopher Moseng, Staff Attorney, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 121 7th Place East, Suite 350, St. Paul MN 55101-2147. Please include the Commission’s docket number in all communications – U-999/R-13-24.