DELAY — Susquehanna-Roseland live from the BPU
January 15th, 2010
Fur was flying last night, late when I got a chance to check in, whew…
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…
It’s official – Susquehanna-Roseland is delayed
January 8th, 2010
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:
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:
… but here it is in B&W:
BPU delays decision on power line
A light in the Susquehanna-Roseland tunnel??
January 8th, 2010
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.
Here’s the sensitivity analysis that the PATH-VA withdrawal was based on:
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:
Graphs from p. 24. With decreases like that, do tell, where do they come up with those projections?
Here’s the chart, p. 72:
Once more with feeling: IT’S NOT NEEDED!
SUSQUEHANNA-ROSELAND IS NOT NEEDED!
WE DON’T NEED NO STINKIN’ TRANSMISSION!
How far down does electrical demand have to go…
November 23rd, 2009
… before they back off on these stupid infrastructure projects?
We finished up the Susquehanna-Roseland hearing today, Stop the Lines has weighed in. Time to say goodbye to beautiful downtown Newark.
For me, the best parts today were:
1) Finally… FINALLY… getting some credible testimony about the capacity of that line. Let’s see, they’re planning to double circuit it with 500kV, getting rid of the 230kV, but when… and they’ve designed the substations for 500kV expansion. So DUH! Here’s the poop:
140C for a 1590 ACSR Falcon @ 500kV – PJM summer normal rating conditions = 1838 amps
4 conductors = 7,352 amps
3 conductors – 5,514 amps or 4,595 MVA
2) Clear statement on the record about the Merchant Transmission’s Firm Transmission Withdrawal Rights:
Neptune 685MW
ECP 330 MW (VFT?)
HTP 670MW
TOTAL: 1,670 MW already heading across the river
And getting those numbers in was not easy, PSEG did NOT want this in the record. It’s confirmed in the PJM Tariff, STL-12, p. 3 of the exhibit, p. 2 of SRTT-114 (BPU Staff IR). But there’s something else disturbing going on here. We were supposed to question Essam Khadr about “Leakage,” which is “New Jerseyian” for the increased coal generation that will be imported if CO2 costs are assessed:
That will take some time to wrap my head around.
Here’s PJM’s 3Q bad news, well… good news to me! Because it continues to go down:
And if that’s not enough, here’s the Wall Street Journal:
Weak Power Demand Dims Outlook
Susquehanna-Roseland hearing
November 20th, 2009
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)
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.comFour attorneys cross-examined the experts, with few breaks.
“I would appreciate it if you would just ask a question,” he said.
The opposition attorneys said they were getting the job done.
“We got on the record what we wanted on the record,” Tamasik said.