Legalectric

Sussex County has held off on taking a formal stand on Delmarva Power’s Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway, or MAPP, but Delmarva is pushing,  so now’s the time to call them with a simple message:

No, don’t encourage and facilitate coal!

Say NO! to Delmarva Power’s Mid-Atlantic Power Path transmission proposal!

Delmarva Power is going around drumming up support for its Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway, or MAPP.  They approached Sussex County to support the line (what do we know about that?  Not much.  Perhaps a FOIA to see what they’ve been doing is in order?) and because there’s a zoning matter before the County, they held off..

Delaware Electric Coop would like to use the MAPP line to bring in electricity from a new Old Dominion coal plant in Virginia.  Oh… great idea… I’ve posted about this before:

Delaware Electric Coop annual meeting

Here’s Alan’s Green Delaware Alert and handout for DEC’s last annual meeting:

Green Delaware – Alert 666

Synapse Report – Fact Sheet – Hampton Road/Cypress Creek

Building a coal plant is a really bad idea, and building transmission for coal is a really bad idea plus… two wrongs do not make a right.

Call all the County Council, thank them for putting on the brakes, and let them know what you think about Delmarva Power’s transmission for coal:

Michael H. Vincent   (302) 629-2396

Samuel R. Wilson   (302) 856-2972

Joan R. Deaver   (302) 645-6657

George B. Cole   (302) 539-1611

Vance C. Phillips   (302) 542-1501

Here’s a report from the Cape Gazette:

Sussex County council delays support of transmission line

Pathway could pump $260 million in county’s economy

By Ron MacArthur

More than a dozen elected bodies and agencies are throwing support behind the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway, but Sussex County Council will not join that list – at least not right away.

The 150- to 170-mile high-voltage transmission project, scheduled to be completed in June 2014 at a cost of $1.2 billion, would include 35 miles of lines from Vienna, on Route 50 in Maryland, to the Indian River power plant near Millsboro.

Delmarva Power and Pepco Holdings Inc. were seeking council’s support of the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP) project during the county’s Tuesday, Oct. 27 meeting. But council is handcuffed because a zoning application is pending before county officials. A converter station will need to be built near Millsboro.

“Would we be pre-judging this zoning application with support of this?” Council President Vance Phillips asked county attorney Everett Moore.

Moore responded with an emphatic yes.

Phillips told Delmarva Power representatives the council would discuss the matter with its attorney. “We will see if we can come up with some sort of endorsement broad enough not to get ourselves in trouble,” he said.

“This is one of the most important projects ever undertaken by Delmarva Power and Pepco,” said Jim Smith, Delmarva Power senior public affairs manager.

Demand exceeds generation

Jerry Elliott, a Delmarva Power retiree with 35 years’ experience, has come out of retirement to help with the project. In a presentation to council, he said the Delmarva Peninsula depends on imported power, with demand exceeding generation by 500 megawatts during peak periods. Officials say demand will increase by 20 percent during peak periods over the next 10 years.

Power is transmitted from north to south from a single connection point in New Castle County. As a result, he said, more brownouts and blackouts are projected in the future for residents in southern Delaware.

“Even with the economic downturn, without MAPP there is insufficient transmission and power generation capacity to meet demand by 2014,” Elliott said. “The peninsula is isolated from power sources on the western shore and cannot import enough power in the event of an emergency.” He said the single point of access to the grid also results in higher costs for electricity on the peninsula when lower-cost power is available in the region. “MAPP will lower the cost of power by relieving transmission-line congestion,” he said.

Because no new transmission lines have been built on the peninsula in the past 25 years and the area is susceptible to brownouts and blackouts, the area has been designated a Department of Energy National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor.

Matt Likovich, Delmarva Power community and communications coordinator, said the 51 million customers in the project area will be charged 30 cents a month, a charge that will be offset by a savings in congestion charges.

“The cost of electricity during periods of congestion is much higher than at other times. The MAPP project will help relieve transmission-line congestion on the Delmarva Peninsula, resulting in cost savings to customers,” Likovich said.

He said anticipated savings are about 60 cents per month in charges related to congestion.

Line will go under the bay

Elliott said 500-kilovolt and 640-kilovolt lines will tie into power plants starting in southern Maryland at Possum Point to Calvert Cliffs with 11 miles taken under the Chesapeake Bay through Dorchester County to a plant in Vienna and then to the Indian River plant.

Almost all of the project will take place on existing rights of way, except in Dorchester County. “Dorchester County does not support this yet,” Elliott said. That is why the exact mileage of the project is not yet known. The final figure depends on what officials in that county decide.

While most of the new lines will be built in place of existing lines, the Dorchester County portion will add new lines to the landscape, which county officials say would harm tourism and agriculture. Dorchester County Council would like the MAPP lines to be placed underground or underwater, both of which would add to the cost of the project.

Replacing existing lines with new lines would pump an estimated $260 million into the Sussex County economy during construction, Elliott said. The 27-mile Sussex County line would be built on existing Delmarva Power rights of way and would start in Delmar and pass through Dagsboro en route to the Indian River plant.

Two new poles, made of steel, and foundations will be placed in the same location as the existing poles.

The new poles will range in height from 155 to 165 feet and be about 16 feet apart. The line will terminate at a new AC/DC converter station near the power plant. Construction is expected to begin in 2012 in Sussex County.

Elliott said MAPP would create a bigger pipeline for delivering new, clean energy solutions for an increase in wind, solar and even nuclear energy opportunities.

“MAPP is the most effective way to secure reliable, diverse and low-cost energy for all residents on the peninsula,” Elliott said.

The original project contained another 100 miles of lines north from the Indian River plant to the Salem, N.J., nuclear power plant. Elliott said because of economic reasons that portion of the project was removed. “It was found there was no need to spend the additional money,” he said.

HA!  The Commission staff from both the state of Virginia and the state of West Virginia have both brought Motions to Dismiss the PATH transmission application.  Hilarious!  About time!  PATH is the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline.

Virginia Commission Staff Motion to Dismiss

West Virginia Commisison Staff Motion to Dismiss

Seems there’s a theme goin’ on…

Last night, Rep. Steve Drazkowski and Rep. Tim Kelly (who wasn’t there!) hosted a meeting about CapX 2o2o.

But Rep. Randy Demmer, 29A was.

As one person said, he had a “deer in the headlights” look as he sat in the front of the room.  Did he have any idea what he’d be in for?  I’d talked with him a bit when he came in, and he said he hadn’t heard from many constituents about CapX… oh… OK, well, we can do something about that!  And it’s good he showed up to find out what was going on and hear the word on the streets and in the fields.

Short version of the meeting:

• Bill Glahn gets roasted for MOES “Minnesota_Resource_Assessment” report, which is utter crap, the report, that is… the roasting was well-deserved.

• PUC, Commerce, and DOT show up en mass and toady for process and project.

• Rep. Drazkowski utters words of placation, but did not promote Nov. 4 joint committee hearing on repeal of Minn. Stat. 117.19.  HE’S ON ONE OF THE COMMITTEES, EARTH TO MARS!!!

• Affected landowners don’t buy it,  they get that fundamentally CapX 2020 is not needed and are pissed-off at the crap (see above).

• CapX said they were not going through or around Rochester.

There were two things I let slide, can’t take on everything:

1.Their statements about Big Stone were odd, theywell knows that Big Stone could not interconnect without CapX, and I have the electrical studies which prove it, which after trying 5 times to make it work with a line to nowhere (Granite Falls) then assumed CapX in try #6…   But I also wonder whether CapX Brookings (hence all of CapX) can go forward without Big Stone.

2. They kept saying “this is all about local load” and denying the LaX to Mad line, and kept talking about Rochester as the driver, yet they did not note, of course, the new gas plant at West Side sub or the four 161kV lines that are planned.

Overland’s Scorecard (concept stolen from Deb!):

CapX:     0
PUC:     -5
DOT:       1
Commerce:   -4
The People: +1

Longer version, bigger photo:

The people did a good job of expressing their displeasure and disbelief.

Bill Glahn brought up the Minnesota Resource Assessment Survey!  Bad move…  He  got one of my awards for that Minnesota Resource Assessment Survey, and here’s Maccabee – Presentation to LEC 10/23/09 , another voice saying it’s outrageous.  Last night  Alan Muller got him good about it, told him” it was  an unsatisfactory report, basically just a regurgitation of the business plans of MN… no independent thinking and not in the interests of the citizens of Minnesota …”  Alan does have a way with words.  When asked for a response Glahn looked abashed and admitted that he knows many people are unhappy with it.  AS WELL HE SHOULD!  I mean really… to use as an example that phony “chart” of Steve Rakow’s on p. 6:

… with no ID of meaning of X or Y axis, it’s deceitful, but they pulled that in CapX when faced with decreased demand, entering this chart, then citing its entry in the CapX 2020 Certificate of need record as if it means something.  Oh, pleeeeeeeeze…  We’re way below the 2004 actuals, and this forecast, for the Blue Lake expansion, it’s CapX 2020 era forecasts, we’re about 1,500MW down and growing, down 15% so far, down 2.5% in 1&2Q 2009, SEC 3Q filing and investor call due any second now will take it down further:

After last night’s meeting, Bill Glahn is certainly under fire, but I also got the feeling due to the cadre of state employees stumping for CapX, that it’s their perception that it’s in trouble.  It could be something as simple as they have no financing to do it, that demand is so far down that it makes no sense even to PUC and applicants to build it, or …  The DOT was distancing itself, there’s been a lot of pressure on DOT.  The DOT has its “Policy of Accomodation” (at issue in Chisago Transmission Project III, or IV, the last round, where Xcel stuck poles, BIG poles, right in the middle of the new plan for US Hwy. 8, in one example, right next to and over a business), and here it is:

DOT Policy on Utility Accomodation

…and I don’t think they’re going to change that anytime soon.  At the Legislative Energy Commission meeting in September, there was mention of an October 13 meeting with the DOT, but Dave Sykora, DOT, mentioned that was cancelled, and instead they met last week.  There were no specifics disclosed, but the feeling I got from what was said was that it didn’t go the way legislators wanted it to, DOT didn’t cave.  Legislators are looking, from Rep. Drazkowski’s statements last night, and from Rep. Westrom’s comments at the LEC meeting, for a way to do the project with minimal landowner pain.  I don’t think that’s doable, and it’s sure not desirable.   CapX 2020 is a project that shouldn’t be built, and if it is, it will cause considerable pain, for landowners, applicants and legislators!

Also noteworthy last night was the general failure to accept “need” and a high level of understanding, and for the most part, people are getting the broader picture.  (there was an odd comment by Burl Haar that if there were questions about the appeal of the CapX decision, that they post most things on the docket, and to check with him!).  So is the PUC’s argument that this belongs at the District Court, and not the Appellate Court (despite what Cupit says) on display in the docket for the world to see?  I doubt it, but I’ll check.

Last night, Drazkowski kept referring to efforts to alter the eminent domain law, but he was evasive and didn’t disclose important info, like the upcoming November 4 hearing before Energy & Civil Justice (he’s on Civil Justice!) (Upcoming hearing on repeal of eminent domain exemptions), and he didn’t advise on how to advocate for change, dropped the ball, wouldn’t even pick it up.

Here’s the info on the hearing:

WEDNESDAY, November 4, 2009
10:00 AM
Joint Meeting of the Energy Finance & Policy Division and Civil Justice Committee
Room: 5 State Office Building
Chairs: Rep. Bill Hilty, Rep. Joe Mullery
Agenda: Informational hearing on HF1182 (Bly) Public service corporation exemptions repealed.

Anyone wishing to testify should contact Andy Pomroy at andy.pomroy [at] house.mn
Last night’s meeting in Mazeppa on CapX 2020  follows on the heels of one last Monday night in Chisago, about an 855MW gas plant proposed by LS Power, the Sunrise River Energy Station.  Click here for  Report on Monday Chisago meeting.  They’ve  proposed at least three gas plants before at that site, and they didn’t go far, this is the biggest, and most public, and will need mega transmission, BUT LS Power’s Blake Wheatley admitted at the Chisago meeting that they don’t have a plan, don’t have a PPA, don’t have anything but a tax exemption (est. $9-10 million) from legislators who should have known better than to sell out their constituents for nothing, and then after being caught, for a very small “Host Fee.”  At that meeting, Mike Bull said Xcel won’t need any power for a long time, 2016-2017 (and if he’ll admit that at long last, we know it’s really a lot further out).  As with last night’s meeting, at the Chisago meeting there was, despite heavy lobbying and presence of unions like IBEW and Building & Trades, a clear understanding that the LS Power plant is not needed, and that peak demand is down.  Granted LS Power made the mistake of walking into an energy educated community, but even Bob Cupit was surpirsed by the turnout, said he’d never seen such a large crowd, ~500, standing room only in a hockey rink sized room (Also, FYI, Bob stated to the audience that “If citizens feel the system still failed to consider issues, the decision of the PUC can be appealed to the state Court of Appeals.“)

There is a theme.  Minnesota doesn’t need more transmission, and we won’t, in the words of Xcel’s Mikey Bull, need an generation anytime soon.  Am I paraphrasing correctly, Mike? (Duck & cover — the You Tube of that is forthcoming!!!)  The MOES Minnesota_Resource_Assessment is a crock.

Here are the LEC members — it’d be good to contact all of them, and let them know what you think about “need” for generation and transmission, decreasing demand, and CapX 2020 in particular:

http://www.commissions.leg.state.mn.us/lec/members.htm
Here’s Senate member info:
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/members/index.php?ls=#header
Here’s House member info:
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/hmem.asp

And about CapX and eminent domain, contact:

rep.steve.drazkowski [at] house.mn

rep.tim.kelly [at] house.mn

rep. randy.demmer [at] house.mn

Once more with feeling — Get thee to the House Energy and Judiciary Committee meeting:

WEDNESDAY, November 4, 2009
10:00 AM
Joint Meeting of the Energy Finance & Policy Division and Civil Justice Committee
Room: 5 State Office Building
Chairs: Rep. Bill Hilty, Rep. Joe Mullery
Agenda: Informational hearing on HF1182 (Bly) Public service corporation exemptions repealed.

XCEL DOESN’T NEED OR WANT MORE ELECTRICITY, XCEL DOESN’T WANT A POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH LS POWER, SUNRISE ENERGY, OR WHOEVER…

That was the most important thing to come out of last night’s meeting.  Mikey Bull was clear, stating in a most Norwegian way that “despite what Carol thinks, our load is growing,” and that they “won’t have a need… until 2016 or 2017.”   I hope that people LISTENED CAREFULLY and were thinking critically.

Shellene Johnson, CRVC, walked Bob Cupit through the siting review and permitting options:

REGULAR REVIEW

ALTERNATIVE REVIEW

LOCAL REVIEW

Bob was thrilled, I’m sure, he thought I’d put her up to it, but hey, I’m innocent — this is info that needs to be public, so that people understand all the options.  Shellene had questions, particularly where this was an issue that had come up way back when we worked on the County Essential Services ordinance, and wanted to beef up the county’s ordinance to give them some options if a project went through local review.  Local review is NOT a new issue for Chisago County, and if you recall, the SE Metro line went through the local review process.

Alan Muller was his usual delightful self, leading Blake Wheatley through a list of questions that demonstrated the “vaporware” nature of this project — he couldn’t or wouldn’t give us any information at all about the project.  He knew NOTINK!

What would be the output of this plant? Answer:
780 MW summer rating.  Over 800 winter rating.  [Gas turbines
make more power when the air is colder and more dense.]

How many generating units would there
be?
Answer: Don’t
know/haven’t decided.

Who would be the manufacturer of the combustion
turbines?       Answer:
Don’t know/haven’t decided.

Who would be the manufacturer of the steam
turbines?    Answer: Don’t
know/haven’t decided.

How many smokestacks would the plant have?
Answer: Don’t know/haven’t
decided.

How gallons or barrels of oil would be stored on the
site:
Answer: Don’t know/haven’t decided.

How much oil would be burned in a
year?
Answer: Don’t
know/haven’t decided.

In your air permit application, how many pounds per year of regulated air
pollutants would you be asking permission to put up your
smokestacks?          Answer:  Don’t know/haven’t
decided.

And so on …..

…he knew nothing at all about this, and that’s because there’s nothing to know.  There’s no project plan, no Power Purchase Agreement, no state permit applications, nada…  This isn’t a project, it’s a farce… Tom Micheletti could take lessons from Blake Wheatley.  Here’s the site plan, from the Oct 15 2009 Revised Draft Development Agreement:

WOW, that says a lot…

Take the time to read these:

Oct 15 2009 Revised Draft Development Agreement

Draft Host Fee Agreement

I promised to post a few things so people can learn about prior proposals to get an idea what this one means, so let’s do that.  Bear with me, this is interesting stuff!

MISO Queue #G-135

This MISO Interconnection study says that for 660MW of generation at the Chisago sub, lots of  transmission would need to be added.  Here’s what one of the two similar options looks like (it’s better in print than here, looks hard to read):

Next is an answer to “what exactly are they proposing” with a couple of prior applications for gas plants as examples of what to expect, what to look for:

Faribault Energy Park – Application

Blue Lake – Application

These two applications are important to see what gas plants are all about.  For example, the Faribault Energy Park is a 250MW plant, and here are some fun facts from the application:

A 250MW plant is 68 dB(A) 400 feet from the plant… what will a plant three+ times that be?

Here’s what that plant looks like – REMEMBER 750MW IS THREE TIMES THE SIZE OF A 250MW PLANT AND 855MW IS NEARLY FOUR TIMES AS LARGE:

Here’s a closer side view:

Here’s an emissions chart, and remember, the LS Power proposal is 3+ times this, so expect over three times the emissions:

And here’s a fun fact, from the 2004 Blue Lake application, showing their projected “need” back in 2004 that’s WAY overestimated:

From Xcel’s 2008 10-k, p. 10:

Capacity and Demand

Uninterrupted system peak demand for the NSP System’s electric utility for each of the last three years and the forecast for 2009, assuming normal weather, is listed below.

System Peak Demand (in MW)
2006         2007         2008         2009 Forecast
9,859        9,427         8,697             9,662

The peak demand for the NSP System typically occurs in the summer. The 2008 system peak demand for the NSP System occurred on July 29, 2008.

And now we know that instead of inexplicably going up in 2009, it’s going down.  DOWN, further down.  But note that in their 2008 10-k, Xcel admits that system peak was 8.697, lower than 2004.  That pushes out any need until when?  And the longer this drop continues, the further out and less probably any increased need is!  And remember, Blue Lake was added to address the 11,000MW need claimed in the application.  To get beyond that, how long will it take?  With conservation, probably forever, we’ll never need more!

So, folks, as you can see, this isn’t rocket science, and they have no plan, no Power Purchase Agreement, it isn’t needed, it isn’t wanted.  LS Power, go away.

.

Apparently Jonathan Travers, “Engineer of Knowledge” is another utility toady or self-declared energy wonk, and thinks I’ve got my head implanted regarding my comments about the MAPP line and about PSE&G’s dissing Midwest transmission.  EH?  I’d say my Google Analyics stats say otherwise.  And then there’s the little energy birdie who admitted the other day that Legalectric is one of his first stops in the morning!

Who is Jonathan Travers?  Haven’t a clue, his reputation does not exceed him!  Google’s got very little to say.  Hmmmmmmm…  There is a “Travers” on the Dorchester County Council, Ricky Travers.  This “Jonathan Travers,” he’s got a blog, Jonathan Travers Chronicles, with only a handful of postings that are focused on blasting opposition to the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP) transmission line, i.e., Dorchester County’s Dorchester Citizens for Safe Energy and Eastern Shore Land Conservancy, who are having some success in fighting the MAPP line, and though Travers’ blog’s banner states “Debate Through Logical Argumentation Only. Not For Flamers!” the level of discourse he’s posting is not even up to “Horse’s Ass Awards” and such:

As I see it, Ms. Nagel’s letter to The Daily Times identifying herself as the “President of Citizens for Safe Energy,” would be better off proclaiming herself as the President of the Dorchester’s chapter of the Mickey Mouse Club based on what I noted as her lack of understanding of electrical engineering per her comments.

Here are his comments about my MAPP post, “MAPP Transmission Line Under the Microscope” a couple weeks ago:

Submitted on 2009/10/04 at 9:18am

To the attention of Legalectric Blog.

You make the statement, “this transmission line is not needed.” Per logical argumentation, you make (sic) no backup facts to support this opening statement. As any English writing course teaches, this is just poor writing skills (sic). As it has been (sic) well documented by “The Public Service Commission” report (sic) released last December (sic) warned that the state could experience rolling blackouts as early as 2011 to helped (sic… really!) people understand the reason for MAPP’s conception. So with just your opening statement, you have negated your argument and quite poorly I might add (how “sic” can it be?).

Overland comments: “backup facts” about transmission line not needed can be found by searching this site for “decreased demand” and “PJM annual report” and PJM Load Capability.  Ummmm, Hello, I’m a writing major, and your comment about “poor writing skills” isn’t about writing, it’s about evidence that you want.  Don’t worry, it’s there, just look!  “Rolling blackouts” is hysteria, blown away by DEC’s annual Energy Plan, showing sharply decreased congestion on the Delmarva peninsula:

You then go on to post the article from the Star Democrat written by Dustin Holt who may have a journalistic degree but by his statements he has no knowledge of electrical engineering. I have spoken with Mr. Holt in the past and within a short amount of conversation, it was quite apparent that he did not even have the basic understanding of what he was writing about. Mr. Holt starts off by referencing statements from Libby Nagel who has self proclaimed herself (sic) president of the Dorchester Citizens for Safe Energy. It is my evaluation that with her lack of electrical engineering knowledge, Ms. Nagel would be better off proclaiming herself President of the Dorchester’s chapter of the Mickey Mouse Club (SIC!). So once again you have quoted a source that does not have adequate credential (sic) to even be speaking on the subject negating your argument again.

Overland comments: I posted the article as a good example of on-the-ground activism, where people work to increase awareness of their issue, and Dorchester Citizens for Safe Energy did a great job!  They got press coverage, their elected officials showed up, and pro-MAPP people are flailing wildly — that’s a measure of success!  Libby IS, not was, the President, and IS self-DESCRIBED President, she was elected President by the organization, it’s “described’ not “proclaimed.”  Your “evaluation” is really immaterial.  Ms. Nagel has all the “credential” necessary to speak as an affected community member and President of the primary opposition organization.  The article I posted says she’s the “Chairman,” and not “President.”  Really!

Let me try to explain it this way. If you run just one transmission route like Ms. Nagel is stating would be (sic) like having one extension cord with a hundred electrical appliances, tools, etc. plugged into it. It will not be long before you have overloaded the circuit causing a short circuit or even causing a fire. It is the diversification that the multiple routes provide so that the electrical load required by the Delmarva Peninsula (sic) is what makes the electrical grid secure and stable.

Overland comments:  This is such convoluted and tortured writing that it’s hard to tell where to put the “sic” parentheticals in.  WHEW!  Anyway, back to “substance.”  WTF?  I see only one reference to Ms. Nagel in the article, “Dorchester Citizens for Safe Energy Chairman Libby Nagel said the power line would require about a 200-foot right-of-way.” Nowhere in this article is Nagel advocating for “just one transmission route,” and I don’t think Nagle advocates for ANY transmission route, she’s stating that a new transmission line is not needed!

I would suggest that your readers can get the correct and accurate arguments with regards to MAPP at my site http://www.jonathantraverschronicles.blogspot.com/

Overland comment:  I would suggest that my readers check out the site and comment away!!!  Have at it. My readers will be able to easily dissect that site.

Good day,
Jonathan Travers

Oh, he’s not THAT Jon Travers???

OK, now on to his next comment, on the “PSEG’s Izzo disses Midwest Transmission” post :

Submitted on 2009/10/04 at 2:54pm

To the attention of Legalectric Blog.

In your earlier posting you made the statement, “PJM, the private utility transmission promotion entity, has admitted that the Indian River to Salem part of the line is not justified, and have taken it off their wish list.”

Counter Point:
To start off with PJM simply stands for Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland and the state of Delaware has now (sic?) been included since its conception. PJM is an oversight committee (EH?) made up of knowledgeable people in the industry but they do not tell power utilities to build anything (EH?). It is the utilities (sic) to come up with their own plan to address the problem of the soon (sic) lack of electrical power for their regions. Again your statement you are passing on are (sic) incorrect(sic)  negating you (sic) argument.

Overland comment: PJM is more than a committee, it’s a formal business organization.  PJM IS the utilities, and per PSE&G testimony in the Susquehanna-Roseland case, PJM is telling them to build the line.  Now obviously PJM has no authority, but if they press the matter with FERC, FERC could direct the utilities to build it.  It’s much more than an “oversight” committee, it’s an organization that is comprised of utilities, and they not only address electric reliability issues, but they control and manipulate the electric market.  “Lack of electrical power?”  Somebody hasn’t been reading the SEC filings, reserve margins, and annual reports, EARTH TO MARS, there’s a substantial decrease in electrical use and need, we aren’t going to have a power shortage.  Project Mountaineer is not a plan of the individual utilities’ making. JCSP is not a plan of individual utilities, CapX is not a plan of individual utilities…

“A little knowledge is a very dangerous thing,” and the writer of this blog has demonstrated their sever (sic) lack of knowledge in this subject by the statements presented.”

Overland comment: Oh, uh-huh…

Now with this posting they are stating their case as if there is only one transmission line that needs to be considered. For those educated in electrical engineering, it is plain that the writer of this blog does not even have the basic understanding of Ohms Law. What MAPP is offering are multiple access points for electrical transmission routes.

Overland comment: Ummmmm, “they?”  And who is advocating for transmission?  This is the same thing that “Travers” says about Nagel, who said nothing of the sort.  This mantra does not fly.  Multiple access points?  For what generation?  Let’s get clear about that…

For anyone else whom (sic) should (sic) like to inform themselves more proficiently on this subject, I suggest you go to http://www.jonathantraverschronicles.blogspot.com/ where this has all been address (sic) before.

Thank you,
Jonathan Travers

************************************

Overland comment: Whoever wrote this is clearly not a native speaker/writer nor in any position to critique writing.  Content, well, anyone can criticize content, but I’d guess that “Travers” is a retired engineer or a newly imported engineer who has not had experience with the capitalist system and the shift of focus of PJM, MISO, etc., to economic dispatch, a market system, where economic considerations are primary, and where the game in transmission is how to build out as much as possible while shifting cost-allocation elsewhere, for someone else to pay, anyone.  Then PJM gets shot down by the 7th Circuit and all their transmission cost apportionment plans are in limbo.