Legalectric

The Susquehanna-Roseland hearing has been reopened.  And off we got to FERC.  It’s been quite a hectic week, with a “flurry” of filings, and here’s the update.  First, remember the NJ BPUat a special 1/15 meeting said they were NOT going to decide on PSE&G’s Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line and said they’d be asking for more information from PJM.  Well, they asked PJM to answer a few questions (though not specific enough, not the right questions):

BPU Secretary letter to PJM

Here’s what PJM had to say:

PJM Letter in response to BPU Query

Suffice it to say, the letter is … ahem… INSUFFICIENT!

And then the responses started coming in, first the Municipal Intervenors, then :

Municipal Intervenors response to PJM Letter

Environmental Intervenors – January 25, 2010

Stop The Lines! January 25, 2010

And the BPU issued an Order reopening the docket and first scheduled a hearing for February 2, 2010, and then THANKFULLY changed it to February 4, 2010:

BPU Scheduling Order Jan 25, 2010

BPU Amended Scheduling Order Jan 26, 2010

The concept is that PJM is coming in as a witness regarding the assertions of their January 21, 2010 bullshit letter, and what does that mean?  Is Steve Herling THE witness, or are there others?  Is whatever witness/es coming with a truckload of exhibits that they’ll dump on us the day of the hearing?  Is he going to be prepared in any way to back up his conclusory and unsupported statements?  So I fired off a couple missives, first Discovery to get the requests in quick and let them be on the record of ignoring or refusing to answer, and then a letter to the BPU with my view of the fine mess we’re in:

STL Discovery re: PJM Letter 1/21/10

STL Letter to BPU 1/25/10

As a sidebar, the escrow that PSE&G had to put out for the Municipal Intervenors is gone, this has been an intense case, and so they’re reasonably asking for more:

Municipal Intervenors – Motion for Escrow

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, remember that great 7th Circuit decision tossing out the cost allocation for this project?  Everything’s been up in the air since then, because if they can’t settle how they’re going to allocate the costs, this sucker won’t be built:

Illinois Commerce Commission v. FERC – August 6, 2009

It was remanded to FERC and after some wrangling, just like in the BPU case, where the utilities were saying, “It’s all there in the record, you don’t need anything more to make a separate decision” and Illinois said quite succinctly, “AHEM, WE DON”T THINK SO!” and FERC issued an Order stating that the record was not sufficient, needed more information and directed PJM to provide some information and also provided some questions for parties to mull over in their comments:

FERC Order January 21, 2010

Here’s the fun part – what they asked PJM to provide (hee hee hee hee hee hee), starting on p. 5 of the above Order:

10. PJM should provide the following information:

A. The total costs that have been approved through PJM’s Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP) process for facilities that operate at or above 500 kV (and necessary lower voltage facilities), and whose costs are assigned pursuant to Opinion No. 494. For these projects, calculate the total costs that have been assigned to each PJM zone, and estimate the total costs that would be assigned to each zone using PJM’s DFAX methodology.

B. PJM manuals require that, in planning projects, it seek to optimize projects in order to reduce the cost of addressing individual reliability criteria. Describe how the optimization process is performed. Also, explain how PJM determines the relative priorities of resolving numerous reliability issues with one project. For 500 kV and above facilities, explain whether PJM could accurately determine the beneficiaries of a project that resolves numerous reliability issues using its DFAX methodology.

C. PJM’s most recent RTEP report (2008), at P 5 states that:
Baseline thermal and voltage analysis encompasses an exhaustive analysis of all Bulk Electric System (BES) facilities for compliance with NERC Category A (TPL-001), Category B (TPL-002) and Category C (TPL-003) events. In addition, consistent with NERC standards TPL-004, a number of extreme events including those judged to be critical from an operational perspective as well as those defined in Table I of TPL-004 were evaluated for risk and consequence to the system. Describe the types of anticipated reliability requirements addressed by the PJM RTEP (i.e., voltage, thermal, stability). Explain whether and how the DFAX analysis applies to the NERC reliability analyses listed above and any other reliability requirements. Explain whether the RTEP upgrades designed to address these reliability requirements also will address other reliability concerns. In particular, explain whether the geographic location or voltage level of an RTEP upgrade makes that upgrade more likely to address broader reliability concerns.
Provide any relevant studies.

D. In this proceeding, PJM recommended the adoption of a postage-stamp rate design for new 500 kV and above facilities.

1. Describe the benefits generated by such facilities that are not captured in the DFAX methodology used by PJM to allocate costs for lower voltage facilities. Indicate whether such lines provide reliability or economic benefits to the areas producing electricity.

2. Provide engineering or other studies showing any differences in regional benefits between 500 kV and lower voltage facilities (e.g., 345 kV
and 230 kV).

E. Provide any existing engineering or other studies that indicate whether the modeling assumptions used in the RTEP analysis, such as the direction of flow,
remain consistent or vary over time.

The Municipal Intervenors sent in a Motion to FERC, PSEG objected, and then Stop the Lines sent in a Motion for Limited Intervention:

Municipal Intervenors – Motion to Intervene

PSEG Response to Munis FERC Intervention

Stop The Lines! Motion for Limited Intervention

Municipal Intervenors – Renewal of Motion to Intervene

PSEG Response to STL Intervention Motion

PSEG’s response to our Motion to Intervene… yeah… (yawn)… what-ev-er…

And just now, hot off the press, the Municipal Intervenors have filed a Motion to Depose PJM’s Steven Herling!  Oh, yes, this is much needed, so we can get an idea where they’re going and what they plan to present (I doubt they’d produce the pre-filed testimony I requested!):

Municipal Intervenors Motion to Depose PJM’s Herling

As you can see, it’s been an intense few days, and isn’t letting off anytime soon.  More to follow as it develops.

MID-Atlantic Power Pathway and all of PJM’s “backbone” projects in the news:

She’s worried about a larger line rising in the shadow of her house. If the poles somehow get knocked over, “Where’s that line going to fall? That line’s going to fall in my living room.

That’s Farah Morelli’s question.  She’s a regular person who woke up one day with a monstrously large transmission line planned literally in her back yard.  That’s usually the most effective way to get someone to learn about transmission.  It’s a steep learning curve, and what I’ve found in my work with people in the path of proposed transmission is that once they start looking, they find a disturbing fact:  Utilities propose transmission lines not because they’re “needed” but that they’re wanted, wanted to increase their ability to transmit and SELL cheap power in areas where it’s higher cost, and make a bundle in the process.  It’s not that people don’t have electricity (and high price is the best instigator of conservation), but it’s that people want more and want it cheaper and the utilities which make $$$ from that equation want to make it happen.

HERE’S THE REALITY — The PJM 2010 Load Forecast Report and the Monitoring Analytics “PJM 3Q State of the Market” report show that this market decline isn’t anything new and that it’s not going away anytime soon.  The PJM market peaked in 2006:

Today’s News Journal article is a start at pulling it all together, taking a look at the bigger picture, and that bigger picture is what these transmission lines are all about.  Three lines were proposed together, the Potomac Allegheny Transmission Highline (PATH), the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP) and the Susquehanna-Roseland line.  These aren’t just transmission lines, they’re BIG HONKIN’ ELECTRICAL AUTOBAHNS, quad (or now maybe tri?) bundled 500kV lines.  Like WOW.  HUGE!

Here’s today’s article:

Lower energy projections put brakes on power lines

Economy, increased efficiency, carbon consciousness delay projects

By AARON NATHANS • The News Journal • January 24, 2010

It was Delaware’s electric doomsday scenario: Living room lights would go dark unless Delmarva Power could import electricity to a growing population.

Just a few years back, power companies lined up to design hulking new lines to bring power from the Midwest, where 56 percent of electricity is generated by coal-burning plants.

Those plans included building a high-voltage line from Virginia to New Jersey that would have unfurled across the heart of Delaware, helping assure reliable power to the state — and costing customers of Delmarva Power $1.2 billion.

But the world changed — seemingly overnight.

Now regional power grid operator PJM Interconnection is dialing back its projections of future energy use amid a sluggish economy, increases in energy efficiency and the new economics of energy in the age of carbon consciousness.

That has set off a domino reaction of delays in power companies’ plans to build those lines, as PJM reassesses when the lines will be needed, if they’re needed at all.

The reassessment is a chance to wean the country off fossil fuels and build the infrastructure around locally sited renewables without having to erect giant electrified structures in peoples’ backyards, said Carol Overland, an attorney representing opponents of a proposed large power line in New Jersey.

“It’s a very good shift. Culturally, that’s a shift we need to make,” Overland said. “It gives us an opportunity to do it differently.”

Although Delmarva has rights of way through most of its planned Delaware route, it is working to acquire the rights to build on long stretches of land on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, through farms like the one owned by Libby Nagel, of Vienna. Portions of the farm have been in her family for 100 years. She has been fighting the line, saying it will interrupt irrigation and get in the way of low-flying pesticide spray planes. She is concerned Delmarva will invoke eminent domain to force the line onto her property.

“This transmission line is about them bringing cheap coal-fired power in here,” Nagel said, arguing it’s more about profits than reliability. “They say we’re going to benefit. But it is a transmission line. That’s all it is.”

The line, known as the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway, was proposed in 2006 by Delmarva Power’s parent company, Pepco Holdings, Inc. It would run from Virginia to Maryland, across the Chesapeake Bay and end at the Indian River Power Plant in Millsboro.

The line originally was to continue on to the nuclear power plant in Salem, N.J., but that leg was pushed back last summer after PJM ran computer models and found that reliability issues in Delaware have eased due to a downturn in electricity usage.

Last month, those models showed a wider shift, which led PJM to tell two power companies that portions of its Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline would not be needed in 2014 as scheduled. The “PATH” project, sponsored by Allegheny Energy and American Electric Power, would link West Virginia to the Frederick, Md. area.

Read the rest of this entry »

Here are the articles on the NJ BPU delay of decision on Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line, but before that, here’s the letter the BPU sent to PJM requesting more information based on yesterday’s decision to put on the brakes:

BPU Secretary letter to PJM

Color me jaded, but what is needed is what Stop the Lines requested in our STL – Reply Brief, based on the sensitivity analysis ordered for PATH:

•    PSE&G must waive any claim to FERC “backstop” authority in the pendancy of this sensitivity analysis and Board deliberation.

•    The sensitivity analysis must include, but is not limited to those scenarios Ordered in the PATH docket:

1.    Susquehanna-Roseland load flow analyses updated to reflect the following changes in generation: (i) all existing generation as of January 7, 2010, which is not scheduled to be retired before 2014; (ii) all proposed generation that cleared the May 2009 PRM Auction; and (iii) all proposed generation with a signed ISA as of January 7, 2009 (“Scenario 1 generation”);

2.    Susquehanna-Roseland load flow analyses updated for the changes in Scenario 1 generation, and updated to reflect PJM’s 2010 load forecast (“Scenario 2”);

3.    Susquehanna-Roseland load flow analyses updated for the changes in Scenario 1 generation, and updated to reflect the demand response and energy efficiency resources that cleared the May 2009 RPM Auction;

4.    Susquehanna-Roseland load flow analyses updated for the changes in Scenario 1 generation, and PJM’s 2010 load forecast (i.e., Scenario 2) and updated to reflect the demand response and energy efficiency resources that cleared the May 2009 RPM Auction;

5.    Susquehanna-Roseland load flow analyses updated for the changes in Scenario 1 generation, PJM’s 2010 load forecast, and to reflect the demand response and energy efficiency resources that cleared the May 2009 RPM Auction (i.e. Scenario 4), and updated to reflect the forecasted additional demand response and energy resource reasonably available for 2014, 2015 and 2016 (i.e. using MW from PATH of 367, 420, and469 respectively); and

6.    Susquehanna-Roseland load flow analyses updated for the changes in Scenario 1 generation, PJM’s 2010 load forecast,  the demand response and energy efficiency resources that cleared the May 2009 RPM Auction, the forecasted additional demand response and energy resource reasonably available for 2014, 2015 and 2016; and updated to reflect additional demand response and energy efficiency projected (i.e. using MW from path of 1,825, 2,140 and 2,403 respectively).

These results shall be distributed to the parties as soon as possible and shall be subject to limited discovery and cross examination, after which the Board shall consider them together with the balance of the record in this matter.

See why it’s frustrating — they just missed the boat completely with the vague request to PJM…

So, on with the press coverage about yesterday’s decision to delay:

New Jersey regulators delay decision on PSEG transmission line

By Mark Peters
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

NEWARK, N.J. (Dow Jones)–New Jersey regulators voted Friday to delay for up to 30 days their decision on a high-voltage power line proposed by a unit of Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. (PEG).

New Jersey’s largest utility has been planning the transmission project for two years, saying it will relieve stress on existing lines, improve reliability and provide access to lower-cost power. But the timetable for what’s known as the Susquehanna-Roseland project has come into question, as other projects in the 13-state PJM Interconnection power market, which includes New Jersey, have been put on hold in recent weeks.

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities said that in light of the other delays, it will hold off on its decision and request a further review from PJM. The grid operator, in a short letter to regulators this week, said the New Jersey project is still needed and isn’t affected by the delays of other projects.

“We should seek and receive further detailed confirmation from PJM,” said Commissioner Joseph Fiordaliso, before the board voted unanimously for the delay.

The $750-million, 45-mile project planned by Public Service Electric & Gas, which is a unit of Public Service Enterprise Group, would run from northern New Jersey into Pennsylvania. PSE&G could earn up to a 12.9% return on its equity investment in the project, which is scheduled to be operational in the summer of 2012.

In a statement, a spokeswoman for PSE&G said the utility is disappointed with the delay and considering its options to ensure reliable service for its customers.

PSE&G is partnering on the transmission project with PPL Corp. (PPL), which would build the $510 million Pennsylvania portion of the line. PPL won the backing of state regulators there Thursday.

But slumping power demand driven by the recession and conservation and curtailment programs is causing utilities and regulators to reconsider the schedule for transmission projects. Although expected to rebound this year, power demand declined in 2008 and 2009, with last year’s drop being the largest in more than 70 years.

In recent weeks, Allegheny Energy Inc. (AYE) and American Electric Power Co. (AEP) said they plan to delay a $1.8 billion transmission line from West Virginia to Maryland because of a less-robust outlook for power demand. Pepco Holdings Inc. (POM) followed by asking Maryland regulators last week to suspend a review of a $1.2 billion transmission line through Maryland. The companies will await a study of regional transmission needs expected from PJM in late June.

Public Service Enterprise Group shares were at $32.32, down 50 cents, or 1.5%, in recent trading.

-By Mark Peters, Dow Jones Newswires; 212-416-2457 mark.peters@dowjones.com

================================================================

Decision delayed on power project

Saturday, January 16, 2010
Lawrence Ragonese
STAR-LEDGER STAFF

Opponents of a massive North Jersey power project hailed the state Board of Public Utilities’ decision yesterday to postpone a vote on the high-voltage matter for 30 days as the first step toward derailing it.

But BPU officials, at a special hearing in Newark, said they only delayed a vote to ensure they have all information needed to assess the merits of PSE&G’s proposed Susquehanna-Roseland line, especially after a similar power project stalled recently in the mid-Atlantic region.

“The significance of the case makes it absolutely essential that the commissioners be in a position to fully review the record and have the depth of understanding to weigh its benefits and liabilities,” said commission member Joseph Fiordaliso.

At issue is a 45-mile, $750 million high-voltage line that would cut through Morris, Essex, Sussex and Warren counties, which Public Service Electric & Gas contends is needed to maintain reliability of the regional electricity grid. A similar 101-mile connecting line in Pennsylvania got that state’s approval Thursday.

Project opponents say it would harm the environment, make people living near the line ill, and bring “dirty” coal-generated power through New Jersey solely to benefit out-of-state power needs and generate profits for the power company.

“This would be devastating to North Jersey and my town, which will be ripped to shreds by this project,” said Fredon Mayor Carl Lazzaro.

“They’ve never proven they need all of this electricity. It’s all about making money for their shareholders,” added East Hanover Mayor Joseph Pannullo.

The BPU was poised to decide the fate of the project yesterday but agreed to let the issue of the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) be put into the New Jersey record.

PATH Allegheny Virginia Transmission Corp. asked permission from a Virginia regulatory agency to withdraw a proposal to build a 276-mile, $1.8 billion high-voltage transmission line from West Virginia to Maryland, due to a weak economy and a growing energy conservation movement.

PSE&G, in a brief letter to the BPU on Thursday, said problems in Virginia and West Virginia had no impact on its power needs or the Susquehanna-Roseland project. But the board demanded a detailed analysis from PSE&G as soon as possible.

“We are disappointed in the board’s action to delay the decision on this important electric reliability project. We are considering our options to ensure that the region’s electric customers have the safe, highly reliable service they have come to expect,” said PSE&G spokeswoman Karen Johnson.

Lawrence Ragonese may be reached at (973) 539-7910 or lragonese@starledger.com

===============================================================

State officials delay decision on PSE&G powerline for a month

By COLLEEN O’DEA • STAFF WRITER • January 16, 2010

NEWARK — The state Board of Public Utilities on Friday delayed for a month a decision on Public Service Electric & Gas Co.’s proposal to upgrade its transmission line through Morris, Sussex and Warren counties.

During a special meeting, the board unanimously voted to ask PJM Interconnection, the regional power transmission organization, to explain its position that the $750 million project is necessary.

The board is making the request in light of the recent withdrawal of a line project in Virginia because new forecasts show it will not be needed soon, and the delay of another project in Maryland for a re-evaluation of power need forecasts in that region.

In a letter sent Friday, the board asked whether PJM plans to conduct a needs review for PSE&G’s 47-mile Susquehanna-Roseland upgrade similar to the reviews in the other states, and to explain whether those two delays have any effect on the need for the project here.

Joseph L. Fiordaliso, the commissioner serving as hearing officer for the project, said that PJM’s brief, two-paragraph statement sent Thursday to the BPU affirming the project’s need was not enough.

“We need more than this summary statement. We need PJM to state how it reached this conclusion,” Fiordaliso said.

The delay cheered the 17 interveners, including several Morris and Sussex municipalities, the Montville Board of Education, environmentalists and a citizens group, all of which oppose PSE&G’s plan to add 500-kilovolt lines to towers reaching as tall as 195 feet. They had been unhappy that Pennsylvania authorities on Thursday approved the part of the line in that state.

“We hope they are going to get a sensitive analysis done. We hope that will show the line is not necessary,” said Dave Slaperud of the Stop the Lines citizens group.

“There is a safer and better way to do this,” said East Hanover Mayor Joseph Pannullo, who opposes the upgrade because he believes electromagnetic fields from the lines cause health problems.

Karen Johnson, a PSE&G spokeswoman, said the utility was discouraged by the delay.

“We are considering our options to ensure that the region’s electric customers have the safe, highly reliable service they have come to expect,” Johnson said.

One of those options is to bypass the state review and seek approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which can evaluate and OK a project if local authorities have not acted within a year, as is now the case here.

Efforts by PSE&G to settle differences with officials along the line by paying amounts ranging from $200,000 to more than $400,000 to cover costs associated with construction were largely rejected — only three of 16 towns affected agreed to the settlements.

Colleen O’Dea: 973-428-6655; codea@gannett.com.

===============================================

Susquehanna-Roseland line approved with conditions in Pennsylvania; New Jersey vote is delayed

By Express-Times staff
January 15, 2010, 8:38PM

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities today postponed its vote on a Pennsylvania-New Jersey power line that would cross the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area and a portion of Hardwick Township.

Its delay came a day after the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission granted conditional approval to the Susquehanna-Roseland project linking the Berwick, Pa., area to Roseland, N.J.

Allentown-based PPL Electric Utilities proposes building the Pennsylvania portion of the 500-kilovolt line, with Public Service Enterprise Group picking up the project at the New Jersey border and continuing it along an existing 230-kilovolt line.

PSE&G says the 130-mile line is mandated by PJM Interconnection, the regional entity responsible for planning the transmission system, to meet projected regional demand. Its $900 million to $1 billion cost would be shared among the 51 million electric customers in the PJM region covering 13 states and the District of Columbia, according to the utility company.

Pennsylvania officials’ approval is not final until an order is entered by the utility commission. Among conditions imposed in Thursday’s votes are that construction may not begin until the National Park Service issues necessary permits to build in the Delaware Water Gap area. The park service has said it does not expect to issue the permits until May 2012. The commission’s approval would expire in three years unless construction has begun, under another condition of approval.

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities voted unanimously today to consider new evidence on the need for the project, particularly to determine if demand truly exists for the additional power. Board members said they expect to rule on approval within 30 days.

The delay follows a request by PATH Allegheny Virginia Transmission Corp. to a Virginia regulatory agency to withdraw its proposal to build a 276-mile, $1.8 billion high-voltage transmission line from West Virginia, through Virginia and to Maryland. The company cited a weak economy and growing energy conservation movement.

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.