Legalectric

And just now, hot off the press… er… inbox, is notice that PEPCO has asked that the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway, MAPP, be suspended:

PEPCO letter 1.8.09 to suspend MAPP, includes 1.8.09 letter from PJM’s Herling

They’re saying it’s because MAPP is reliant on PATH in the modeling, but they already withdrew the Indian River to Salem leg and delayed the rest due to LACK OF NEED, and now… well, we know it’s not needed.  So whatever, I just wish they’d be honest about it.

Again, remember that all three of these, PATH, MAPP, and Susquehanna-Roseland were promoted based on the 2007 RTEP, which was based on those inflated peak figures from 2006!

PJM’s 2007 RTEP

Here’s the sensitivity analysis from PATH that is applicable to other projects:

PATH – Cover letters & sensitivity analysis

Transmission falling like dominos in a hurricane… I love it when this happens!

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this line is not needed, not needed anymore than the MAPP and PATH lines, which have been delayed, parts taken out, and withdrawn due to lack of need.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!

That’s the PATH path…

They’re withdrawing their application, saying they want them timed together — if so, why withdraw, and not just ask for suspension? “It keeps the blood flowing” they say, but I’d say it keeps the blood boiling. Why not just admit it — it’s not needed, and there’s no way they can prove, and now they tacitly admit they can’t even CLAIM it’s needed.

PATH’s site

A decent article from the Leesburg Journal:

PATH Seeks To Withdraw, Suspend Richmond Hearings

By Margaret Morton
(Created: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 7:48 PM EST)

Representatives of PATH-VA filed several motions Monday with the Virginia State Corporation Commission aimed at scuttling-for now-its application to construct the Virginia portion of an almost 280-mile 765kV transmission line that is designed to bring power from West Virginia to Maryland. The venture is a joint partnership between Allegheny Energy and American Electric Power.

First, PATH filed a motion to withdraw its application to build the line in Virginia. Simultaneously, the company sought to suspend the evidentiary hearing that is slated to begin Jan. 19 in Richmond, pending a decision on the motion to withdraw the application.

PATH attorneys indicated the company intends to re-file an application to the SCC next year, based on the most up to date electrical load information available. Those forecasts are scheduled to be released in May.

At the same time, through Allegheny affiliate Potomac Edison Company, the company filed a new application with the Maryland Public Service Commission to build the line and the Kemptown substation in that state. The commission in September had denied the application on grounds PATH did not qualify as an electrical company under Maryland law.

In a statement issued Monday, PATH representative Mark Nitowski said the filings were intended to “align the procedural schedules in Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia to enable “regulators to consider the need for the project based on the same facts.”

Under the current schedule, the Virginia hearings would conclude before similar hearings are held in either Maryland or West Virginia, PATH attorneys said, claiming it would be better for regulators to consider the arguments at the same time.

The date of the Richmond hearings was set in July, and opponents of the line, who next month plan to challenge the company claims that the project is essential to address growing demand for power, expressed frustration over what they saw were simply delaying tactics by PATH to gain time in order to build a more convincing case for need of the 765kV line.

The filings were in line with what PATH attorney Richard Gary, of the Hunton & Williams law firm in Richmond, indicated the company would do during a public hearing last month in Lovettsville.

Attorney John Flannery, who represents the residents of the Rivers Edge subdivision near Lovettsville, had predicted that PATH would invoke procedural gambits to buy the time the company needed to prove need. Although PATH requested more time, both in November and again on Monday, to make its case, it has not explained why its original applications to all three states could not meet the required standard.

SCC Hearing Examiner Alexander Skirpan, who presided over a public hearing in Lovettsville last month, has not ruled on the PATH motion to withdraw. But, he did deny the company’s motion to suspend the January hearings.

The claim that the PATH line is needed to address power capacity shortfalls is at the crux of the struggle and the legal maneuvers come at a time when national electrical statistics show power usage is flat or declining, in part because of increased conservation methods by users and in part because of the economy.

Dominion Virginia Power recently announced it would scale back a line upgrade in southern Loudoun based on new demand forecasts. The company had planned to upgrade from 115kV to 230kV its line between Arcola and Middleburg. Now that upgrade will only extend to a new substation at New Road east of Rt. 15.

The line serves both NOVEC and Dominion customers, but, citing a growth of only 13 percent in its service area, but a 71 percent growth in the NOVEC area, Dominion said it would concentrate its efforts on the four-mile section from Arcola to New Road. The company cited different types of customers and energy conservation measures as factors in its decision.

And need is what Lovettsville-area residents say PATH can’t prove. SCC expert witnesses in the energy field also testified that the company had not met the proof of need test, with one arguing the company had relied on outdated modeling and flawed assumptions.

Alfred Ghiorzi, who has been a prominent figure in the fight against the line, said Tuesday, “I think they’re trying to game the situation again. They can’t prove need, that seems obvious.”

While PATH attorneys said they did not wish to delay the applications unnecessarily, Flannery noted Skirpan has already allowed PATH two extensions of time for rebuttal-from Dec. 22, to Dec. 31 and now to Jan. 4. Flannery said his concern is that a scheduled oral argument set for Dec. 30 would be a “set up” that would provide PATH the opportunity to compress the schedule to favor the company, extending its deadline to file proof of need while reducing the time citizen-intervenors have to examine the PATH testimony.

“PATH’s intention is not to exhaust its remedies, it is to exhaust us and our resources,” Flannery said to property owners.

Ghiorzi took a more philosophical view. “We’ll have to start all over again. It keeps the blood flowing,” he said of the project’s twists and turns.

Difficulties are growing for “backbone” transmission for coal in the east.  Not long ago, Virginia staff had asked the Commission to deny the PATH proposal.  Now, after the hearing ended, after reviewing testimony, staff has again recommended the petition be denied.  This is the project where Maryland tossed it out because the applicant was not a public service corporations.  If one end of the project is taken out, it’s a project going nowhere.

West Virginia declined to dismiss the application, and instead has taken action, or taken inaction:

W.Va. delays power line decision until February 2011.

Now it’s time for Virginia’s reality orientation.

Va. staff again recommends denial of PATH project

Originally published December 11, 2009

By Ed Waters Jr.
News-Post Staff

A project to put a high-voltage transmission line across three states is facing another obstacle in its path.

On Wednesday, the Virginia State Corporation Commission’s staff again recommended the denial of the proposed PATH system in the Old Dominion.

After reviewing testimony on the issue, the SCC staff is advising the commission, which oversees utilities in the state, to turn down the proposal from Allegheny Energy.

The Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline is a nearly 300-mile, $1.8 billion project beginning in West Virginia, crossing Virginia and ending in southern Frederick County at a proposed new substation. It is a joint project of Allegheny Energy and American Electric Power.

In November, the Virginia commission’s senior hearing examiner denied a similar motion by the staff members. Alexander F. Skirpan said continuing the project in Virginia gave the commission jurisdiction over the project.

The SCC staff has argued that without approval in Maryland of PATH, and a move by West Virginia authorities to postpone a decision on the project until 2011, the transmission line is going nowhere. Allegheny Energy said it will file a new application for PATH in Maryland within the next few weeks. The application in Maryland was initially turned down on legal issues.

“We only just received the Virginia commission staff’s testimony and will closely review the testimony over coming days. PATH Allegheny Virginia Transmission Corporation will respond to staff testimony with rebuttal testimony sometime near the end of December,” said Todd Meyers, manager of external communications for Allegheny Energy, on Thursday.

“The public regulatory review process in Virginia is extremely thorough and has a long way to go. The PATH evidentiary hearings before the Virginia State Corporation Commission are scheduled to begin in Richmond, Va., on Jan. 19, 2010, and are expected to last about two weeks,” Meyers said.
Read the rest of this entry »