Legalectric

PSEG wants out of its reactive power requirement for its Artificial Island Salem-Hope Creek generators, to get “maximum generation” and wants to build transmission to enable that plan.  Reactive power stabilizes the system, and there’s no reason to exempt PSEG from that requirement.  None!  And that is certainly no reason to build transmission.

Our other home is in Delaware, Port Penn, to be precise, and I’ve just learned that even though the MAPP transmission project is dead, dead, dead, they’ve kept its heart alive, and are proposing to run a transmission line from Salem/Hope Creek across the Delaware Bay to Delaware City. An “Artifical Island – Red Lion” (AI-RL) transmission line.  Great…

Here’s the map.  Note that they don’t show the existing “Artificial Island-Red Lion” transmission line on this map — is this to use the same route, different, and why isn’t it shown on any of the maps?

Why is this needed?

Redacted Artificial Island Problem Statement

It’s not a need, it’s a want.

The idea of the project was to allow the three nuclear power units to generate the most power possible, and to simplify transmission operations, said Ray Dotter, PJM spokesman.

WHAT??? Yes, that’s the PJMese for “ramp up the generation and not have any reactive power requirement” that stabilizes the electrical system, because, he, that takes away from the generation available to sell, can’t be doing that, can we, what’s more important, profit or stability?

Here’s the PJM “Problem Statement” from their site:

WOW… once more with feeling:

Generate maximum power without a minimum MVAr requirement

… and that’s their basis for more transmission? NO, I DON’T THINK SO!

PJM then runs

Ummmmm… oh… OK… well, then, PJM, it says to itself, it says, hey, let’s just produce some “stability test results” to make it look better, yeah, that’s the ticket:

Artificial Island Projects Stability Test Results Summary (Public Non CEII)

How stupid do they think we are?  Well, if you don’t know the secrets of reactive power, here’s “everything you wanted to know about reactive power.”  The basic premise:

Except in a very few special situations, electrical energy is generated, transmitted, distributed, and utilized as alternating current (AC). However, alternating current has several distinct disadvantages. One of these is the necessity of reactive power that needs to be supplied along with active power. Reactive power can be leading or lagging.While it is the active power that contributes to the energy consumed, or transmitted, reactive power does not contribute to the energy. Reactive power is an inherent part of the ‘‘total power.’’

Plus it turns out the AI-RL project proposals don’t meet PJM’s cost/benefit criteria:

The extent to which the relative benefits of the project meets a Benefit/Cost Ratio Threshold of at least 1.25:1 as calculated pursuant to Section 1.5.7(d) of this Schedule 6.

Even PJM had to admit that economic benefits were virtually nonexistent!

These simulations showed that there were market efficiency benefits of the proposals however they were only on the order of several million dollars per year and were far below the savings that would be required to satisfy the market efficiency criteria.

p. 3-4, 8.22.2014 July 2014 – PJM Board Approval of RTEP Whitepaper  PDF

HAH!  So despite this, PJM staff made a recommendation to the PJM Board, which said:

“To ensure a thorough and fair review, given the complexities of the issues, the Board has determined that it will take the matter under advisement and defer a selection at this time.”

OK, transmission wonks, have you ever heard of a proposal that PJM didn’t like?  Sounds like a significant “need” failure to me, that their desire just wasn’t enough.  So back to the drawing board — but who gets a pencil?

But PJM officials, environmentalists and power transmission companies are locked in an ongoing disagreement over the best way to do that. They are considering various options for a costly crossing of the river to a Delaware substation, but a Delaware official said the state’s ratepayers run the risk of shouldering the burden of a project that would mainly benefit people in other states.

Let’s see, PJM rejected it, and now they’re arguing about river crossings?  How do you get from “lack of need” to “options for a costly crossing of the river?”  From PJM’s report:

In April 2013, PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM) requested technical solutions for improving PJM operational performance in the Artificial Island area under a range of anticipated system conditions and to eliminate potential planning criteria violations. In response to the Artificial Island-Red Lion Window, PJM received conceptual design level proposals from five (5) developers for the design and construction of a 500kV transmission line between Public Service Electric and Gas Company’s (PSE&G’s) Salem and Hope Creek Substations, which are located at Artificial Island in Salem County, New Jersey (NJ), and Delmarva Power & Light’s Red Lion Substation in New Castle County, Delaware (DE). The project is generally referred to as the Artificial Island-Red Lion 500kV Transmission Line.

PJM initiated, and note that:

The assessment of these proposals with regard to their ability to address electrical system needs or reliability is not included in the scope of this study.

Here’s the PJM PAGE WITH ALL THE PROPOSALS

And constructability analysis, here’s one (note they have it backwards, RL-AI):

GIA Red Lion-Artificial Island Constructability Analysis AI-RL Xmsn

And another constructability analysis:

US Synergetic Constructability Analysis AI-RL Xmsn

And a third that bears closer examination, because if the point of this is generation without reactive power requirement, look at the option that addresses reactive power:

Burns & Roe – Constructability – Static Compensation VARs on AI-RL

Here are comments from interested parties:

New Jersey Sierra Club Letter – AI-RL Xmsn

New Jersey BPU and Rate Counsel Letter AI-RL Xmsn

Delaware “Public Advocate” Letter – AI-RL Xmsn

Northeast Transmission (LS Power) Letter AI-RL Xmsn

Atlantic Grid Letter AI-RL Xmsn

PEPCO & Exelon Letter AI-RL Xmsn

Dominion Letter AI-RL Xmsn

In the News Journal today:

Indecision remains on power line route

Aaron Nathans, The News Journal 5:20 p.m. EDT August 22, 2014

4 CONNECTTWEETLINKEDIN 1 COMMENTEMAILMORE

The nuclear power plants across the Delaware River in New Jersey need their electrical reliability and transmission capabilities strengthened, say officials at the regional grid management company, PJM Interconnection.

But PJM officials, environmentalists and power transmission companies are locked in an ongoing disagreement over the best way to do that. They are considering various options for a costly crossing of the river to a Delaware substation, but a Delaware official said the state’s ratepayers run the risk of shouldering the burden of a project that would mainly benefit people in other states.

The idea of the project was to allow the three nuclear power units to generate the most power possible, and to simplify transmission operations, said Ray Dotter, PJM spokesman.

Developers were invited to make proposals to fix the problem, resulting in 26 proposals in all. In June, PJM staff recommended to its board of directors a PSE&G proposal for an 18-mile, 500 kilovolt power line that crosses the Delaware River next to an existing power line. The crossing would lead to the Red Lion substation near Delaware City.

It was the first example of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s order requiring competition for transmission projects. That, Dotter said, means someone other than the local utility can propose and build a transmission project to solve a problem.

PSE&G officials in June said they expected final approval from the PJM board in July. PSE&G estimated the project would cost between $280-320 million. The costs of the project would be spread out among all PJM customers.

In choosing PSE&G, PJM staff rejected an alternative plan by LS Power to construct a 230 kv line through Delaware, crossing the river at a new substation directly across from the nuclear power plants.

But at the July meeting, the PJM board declined to endorse its staff’s recommendation. The board did not explicitly state a rationale. It sent a letter to the four finalist developers, stating: “To ensure a thorough and fair review, given the complexities of the issues, the Board has determined that it will take the matter under advisement and defer a selection at this time.”

The board invited the finalists to revise their proposals. The finalists, besides PSE&G and LS, are Transource and Dominion.

The Delaware Public Advocate has supported the 500 kv line, and was concerned the 230 kv line proposal would saddle Delaware ratepayers with the cost of construction, citing PJM transmission tariffs.

“We just thought that was enormously unfair for the Delaware ratepayers,” said Ruth Ann Price, deputy public advocate. The proposal made by PJM staff was expensive but ultimately cost effective in that it addressed the problem, Price said.

Maya van Rossum, who directs the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, said in a letter to PJM that the PSE&G option is “very damaging environmentally, and not just to one ecological resource, but to hundreds.” The crossing would require dredging, filling and pilings, which she said would harm water quality and hurt endangered species of fish.

“The development that this option would require will most certainly transform forested wetlands to a less productive condition,” she wrote.

Rep. John Kowalko, D-Newark, said he was concerned about the environmental impacts of PSE&G’s proposal, and urged public hearings. He said the advocate’s office had weighed in too soon.

Delaware Public Service Commission spokesman Matt Hartigan said: “We feel it’s premature to express an opinion regarding the ultimate result of PJM’s decision making process. Having said that, Staff does have concerns with the high cost of any new transmission project, the potential environmental impacts and the economic impact on Delaware ratepayers.”

Karen Johnson, PSE&G spokeswoman, said the company remains “hopeful that the PJM board will make a decision soon and approve our proposal.”

Contact Aaron Nathans at 324-2786 or anathans@delawareonline.com.

It’s warm here in New Jersey, unseasonably.  We’re slogging through the hearing.

The good news is that we’ve gotten pretty much everything in the record that we need, including, well not quite, got the 2Q State of Market, and last night I found that the 3Q was released November 13:

(great, can’t upload here, grrrrrrrrrr)

PJM – 2009 3Q State of the Market Report

Page 9 will tell you all about decreased peak demand:

2005          133,761

2006          144,544

2007         139,428

2008         129,481

2009         126,805

Down 2,676 MW this year, down 9947 from 2007 to 2008.  Down every year since 2006!

Here’s a report of yesterday’s festivities:

State told power plan pros, cons

By SETH AUGENSTEIN
saugenstein@njherald.com

NEWARK — Power grid experts testified about the need for the 500-kilovolt Susquehanna-Roseland power line Thursday in front of a dozen attorneys at the offices of the state’s Board of Public Utilities.

The four experts — three from grid operator PJM Interconnection, one from power company PSE&G — stated their case in proposing the power line, which will double the height and power of the existing line from Susquehanna, Pa., to Roseland, in Essex County, cutting through the southern half of Sussex County along the way.

Testimony surrounding routing and construction of the project was put on the record at evidentiary hearings earlier this week by PSE&G experts and engineers. The PJM-dominated needs panel will complete its input today, and will be followed by the objector’s experts. The need issue is considered to be the main question determining the future of the controversial power plans before the BPU.

PSE&G, the state’s largest electric utility, said it needs to build the line and have it operating by 2012 to meet the electricity demands and reliability requirements expected for the region in the coming decades.

Opponents have rallied around several issues, including safety and health issues stemming from having a 500-kilovolt system on the same pole with a 230-kilovolt system, the potential environmental damage the construction project will do, the visual and property value impact of the towers and whether bringing in electricity generated in other states meets New Jersey’s own goals of increasing so-called “green” and renewable sources of power.

Thursday’s seven hours of question-and-answer testimony included hypertechnical engineering explanations, staccato series of acronyms involving state and federal regulatory agencies and figures spanning all details of the $750 million project.

The PJM experts conceded regional power demands have decreased the last three years, but maintain their forecasting models predict increasing power needs beginning in 2012, which could induce brownouts if the line is not built.

“We don’t use actual loads, we use forecasts of loads,” said Steven Herling, PJM’s vice president of planning.

“I can only characterize it as a significant increase,” added John Reynolds, a senior economic analyst at PJM.

Four attorneys cross-examined the experts, with few breaks.

Carol Overland, a lawyer specializing in power grids, represented the Fredon-based citizens group Stop the Lines. Overland peppered the four-man panel with questions for about three hours, with detailed points about the methodology of deciding upon the lines as a power solution.

Catherine Tamasik, the attorney representing a seven-town coalition opposing the lines, followed with questions about determining the need through the peak demand of electricity during hot summer days.

Julia LaMense, the lawyer representing four environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, called into question the pressing need of the lines, as her clients have done since the plan was proposed last year.

Henry Ogden, New Jersey’s assistant deputy public advocate, finished the cross-examination by asking about the strategic routing of the lines, which could coincide with the much-publicized closing of a Bergen County power plant.

Joseph Fiordaliso, Board of Public Utilities commissioner, presided alone over the hearing. He occasionally urged the board’s experts to answer the questions succinctly, and to avoid “dissertations.” He had similar advice for the attorneys.

“I would appreciate it if you would just ask a question,” he said.

Karen Johnson, spokeswoman for PSE&G, said the experts had done an efficient job of presenting what the power company considers an energy necessity.

The opposition attorneys said they were getting the job done.

“We got on the record what we wanted on the record,” Tamasik said.

The hearings are expected to continue today. The state has set aside hearing times through Tuesday, if necessary. The board expects to reach a final decision in January.