First, the bad news – the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has affirmed the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission approving the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission project:

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania – Affirms Pennsylvania’s S-R Order

And now, on to the pressure… The National Park Service is working to do it’s job as steward of our national park land, in this case, the federally declared Wild and Scenic Delaware River and the Delaware Water Gap.

Seems that some don’t think they should be allowed to do that job, and are pressuring them to “hurry up” so the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line can steamroll on through.  Well, BACK OFF!

Today the pressure on NPS was overt in two venues.  First, U.S. Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) amends a bill to push the NPS to complete its environmental review one year ahead of schedule.  Say what?!?!?!

Then in my inbox a sour grapes press release from FERC Commissioner Phillip Moeller whining because the newly adopted rule won’t do what he wants, it won’t address “problems” like NPS doing its proper review of transmission projects:

July 21, 2011 Press Release – Phillip Moeller Whines

Here’s the Susquehanna-Roseland specific part:

“While I offer substantial praise for today’s final rule, the Commission should have taken a different approach to several important issues.  We must recognize that all of the nation’s difficulties in building needed transmission will not be resolved by this rule.  Rather, this rule largely addresses planning for long-distance transmission lines, which is only a subset of the critical issues that are inhibiting needed investment.

This rule cannot address issues like the delays caused by other federal agencies in the siting of important projects, as this Commission lacks the legal authority to require other federal agencies to act.  For example, see the comments of PJM in this proceeding at p. 17, which state that:

[t]he PJM Board approved the Susquehanna-Roseland 500 kV line in 2007.  The Susquehanna-Roseland line was approved by the state regulatory commissions in Pennsylvania and New Jersey for 2012.  The line is currently delayed by the National Parks Service [sic] and is not expected to be in service until 2014 at the earliest.

Ohhhhhhhh, isn’t it too bad.  He’s just one Commissioner, and he’s got to put his dissent out there as an extensive and extended rulemaking proceeding closes… Why is he pushing, why does he care, and why does his care rise to the level that he sends out a dissenting press release?  Lighten up, the National Park Service has a job to do.  As the testimony in the Susquehanna-Roseland proceeding before the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities reflects, we are NOT going to freeze in the dark in an incubator without a job…

And here’s Pre. Charlie Dent’s whine:

Charlie Dent pushes expedited federal review of Susquehanna-Roseland power line proposal

Published: Thursday, July 21, 2011, 4:30 AM
By Tom Rowan Jr. | The Express-Times

U.S. Rep. Charlie Dent is pushing for the National Park Service to complete its review of the controversial Susquehanna-Roseland power line proposal sooner than planned.

And the New Jersey Sierra Club wants Dent, R-Lehigh Valley, to back off.

Dent amended a bill approved July 12 by the House Appropriations Committee to call on the park service to finish its environmental impact statement on the project by 2012 rather than 2013.

“The committee is concerned about delays,” reads Dent’s amendment to the Fiscal Year 2012 Interior and Environment Bill.

The Sierra Club this week issued a release claiming Dent added the amendment in an attempt to “handcuff the park service from doing their job in complete violation of the public trust” and “undercut the National Park Service and push an environmentally destructive and unnecessary project.”

First pitched in 2008, the Susquehanna-Roseland line has been described by the two power companies behind the plan — PPL Electric Utilities Corp. in Pennsylvania and Public Service Electric & Gas in New Jersey — as necessary to bolster the region’s power grid. The 130-mile power line is proposed to link the Berwick, Pa., area to Roseland, Essex County.

The 500-kilovolt line is being evaluated by the park service because the route, as approved by New Jersey and Pennsylvania utility regulators, crosses the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area and other federal lands.

“The timely completion of the impact statement is of great importance to the reliability of the regional grid and is critical to the supply of electricity to 58 million consumers in 13 states and Washington, D.C.,” the bill reads.

The National Park Service earlier this year pushed its goal to finish the impact statement back from fall 2012 to January 2013, after the utility companies asked the agency to include another alternative in their review.

“Instead of standing up for our open spaces, Dent is working for PSE&G and PPL,” Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, is quoted as saying in the statement.

Collin Long, spokesman for Dent, responded Tuesday in an e-mail, “The congressman’s amendment does not show favor toward any of the alternatives being considered and respects the integrity of the environmental impact statement.

“It simply requires the National Park Service to follow their own timeline for completion of the review process, which already includes a six-month extension of their original deadline to October 2012.”

The appropriations bill awaits consideration by the full House of Representatives. When considered on the House floor, it will be open for modification through the amendment process.

If it passes through the House, it would be referred to the Senate.

DUH! We all know what the point of the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission is, PSEG! Back during the Susquehanna Roseland hearing, I introduced a FERC filing reflecting the 660MW transfer across the river to New York, that was what, a year and a half ago now?

Ex. 12 – STL D 16c – FERC Compliance Filing

So how is this Firm Transmission Withdrawal Rights for 685MW and 330 MW is news?  The NJ BPU was NOT in the dark about this…

Now where’s that other 670MW… Exhibit 96…  it’s in here somewhere… here’s a post from November, 2009:

How far down does electrical demand have to go…

Here’s yesterday’s piece from the New Jersey Spotlight:

Federal Agency OK’s Power Transfer from New Jersey to New York

Interconnect likely to lead to higher electricity prices and greater congestion on the grid — along with possible summer blackouts

By Tom Johnson, June 30 in Energy & Environment

New Jersey has lost another battle with federal regulators, a setback likely to lead to higher electricity prices for consumers in the state.

Over the protests of the state Board of Public Utilities (BPU), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on Monday approved an interconnection request to allow 660 megawatts of power to be transferred from the Public Service Electric & Gas (PSE&G) Ridgefield substation to a Consolidated Edison West 49th Street substation in Manhattan.

Beyond increasing energy and capacity prices for ratepayers here, the state agency argued the interconnection would negatively affect reliability in northern New Jersey, which is already projected to face the possibility of brownouts beginning in summer 2012.

By drawing power from New Jersey, opponents of the project argue it will increase congestion, driving up the cost of power and capacity. Power suppliers receive capacity payments to have power plants in reserve to deliver electricity at times of peak demand.

The power line to the lucrative New York City market is being developed by Hudson Transmission Partners LLC.

New Jersey has found itself in an increasingly combative relationship with the federal agency. Because of high energy costs, the state approved a pilot program to have ratepayers subsidize the development of three natural gas-fired power plants. But as the state’s filing noted, that effort will be impeded by actions taken by the federal agency governing how power plants bid in capacity auctions.

The state had sought either to have the agency reject the interconnection agreement between Hudson, the New York Independent System Operator and Con Ed or to hold a proceeding to debate the issue.

In rejecting the state’s request, the federal agency ruled the sole issue in the matter involved the interconnection agreement, saying reliability and other concerns had been addressed in prior proceedings.

Greg Reinert, a spokesman for the BPU, said the agency is disappointed with the decision. “It imperils further our system, and its reliability.” He also said it seems inconsistent with recent rules adopted by FERC. In the past year, state regulatory officials have grown increasingly frustrated with actions taken by FERC and the PJM Interconnection, which operates the regional power grid serving more than 50 million people. They have intervened in a number of cases, including efforts by PSE&G to obtain special incentive rates for transmission projects they are developing, as well as a proposed natural gas pipeline that would run through Jersey City and into New York City.

Here’s the recent “eagle drops fawn on transmission line” incident:

Close, but not quite a moose:

And if snopes says it’s TRUE it must be!

(Yes, that’s Summer grrrrrrrrrrl.)

Remember how hot it was back a couple of weeks ago?  Xcel’s Tim Carlsgaard was again bragging about Xcel’s peak:

9,083 MW

There’s plenty of time this summer to ramp it up higher, but so far, 9,083.

Here’s Xcel’s peak demand for the last decade, taken from their 10-Ks filed with the SEC:

Carlsgaard’s number came from an informal calculation or two, interruptible service was part of it, and I think it was deducted, but you never can be sure with a PR shill!!!  Anyway, 9,083MW is nothing to write home about.  If you remember, Capx 2020 was based on a 2.4% increase ANNUALLY.  If we’d done that, starting from 2005, we’d be at:

10,620 MW

So we’re down about 1,600MW from their projections, and from what CapX was based on…

Their projections of a 2.4% increase annually add up quickly:

2005  –   9,212

2006 –   9,433

2007 –   9,659

2008 –   9,891

2009 – 10,128

2010 – 10,371

2011 – 10,620

In 2006 they jumped ahead of projections by a couple of years, but since then have dropped further and further behind, now with a peak trailing behind the peak of 2005…

So one way of looking at it is that they’ve pushed the “need” for additional power out for years.

Another way of looking at it is that they’re about three 500MW coal plants shy of what they projected.

Another way of looking at it is that they 1,600MW short is about Prairie Island’s and Monticello’s three nuclear reactors short.

Another way if looking at it is that it’s 1,00MW of cheap generation for wholesale and there’s plenty of room on 2,050-2,211 MVA (4,100-4,422 MVA double circuited) CapX 2020 transmission to ship that over to points east…  (see MCEA, ME3, Waltons Schedin IR3)

So Tim, do tell, where am I off here???   p.s.  Always check my math, I’m an attorney, not a vet, because my brain has grey sponge in the math department.

ILSR’s John Farrell is halfway there – he recognizes the federal part of the transmission equation, but the state part is missing, for example, Minnesota’s special eminent domain exemptions for “Public Service Corporations” (particularly where the transmission is for private profit, NOT public service), rate recovery for “Construction Work in Progress” and state regulators refusal to examine the interstate nature of transmission proposals.  And the third part of that unholy trinity — in the Midwest, bulk power transmission would not be being built but for the Settlement Agreement – ME3(Fresh Energy), Izaak Walton League (and Walton’s program Wind on the Wires), Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, and North American Water Office.  This glut of transmission is their legacy.  It takes all three to build transmission.

From Grist, today:

Feds running a high-voltage gravy train for power transmission

by John Farrell
28 Jun 2011 6:00 AM

Even as distributed generation shows economical and political advantages over centralized renewable energy, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is running a high voltage gravy train in support of expanded transmission. FERC’s lavish program is expanding large transmission infrastructure at the expense of ratepayers instead of looking at more economical alternatives.

Since 2007, FERC has had 45 requests for bonus incentives for transmission development — authorized under the 2005 Energy Policy Act — and has provided all or most of the requested incentives in more than 80 percent of the cases. With the bonuses, the average return on equity for utilities for their new transmission investments is nearly 13 percent. This high rate of return is a full 2.5 percentage points higher than the median utility return on equity [PDF], a value considered just and reasonable by state public service commissions in ordinary times. However, these rewards came during a time when unemployment doubled, the stock market tumbled, and most corporations were lucky to have any profit.

The ratepayer impact of these bonuses is significant. In a November 2010 criticism of FERC transmission awards, Commissioner John Norris noted that the 2 percent bonus FERC provided to the PATH high-voltage project on the Eastern seaboard would “cost [Maryland] ratepayers in PJM at least $18 million per year.” The bonus payments were also given in concert with other incentives that reduced risk, including rate recovery during construction and guarantee of payment if the facilities were abandoned for reasons outside utility control.

Read the rest of this entry »