NPS scoping hearings – Susquehanna-Roseland
February 13th, 2010
.
From the Stop the Lines! site – check it out!
The National Park Service is holding scoping hearings next week, these are important. Comment period is from January 21, 2010 to March 5, 2010.
ALL MEETINGS ARE 6-8:30 P.M.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Fernwood Hotel (Victorian Room)
Route 209 North
Bushkill, PA.Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Camp Jefferson
81 Weldon Road
Lake Hopatcong, NJThursday, February 18, 2010
Sheraton Parsippany Hotel
199 Smith Road
Parsippany,NJ
These are scoping meetings, to determine the scope of the National Park Service review of this project, and they’re soliciting comments. Comment period is from January 21, 2010 to March 5, 2010. They have issued an internal scoping document, and that’s worth a look see to figure out how they’re looking at it:
Comment period is from January 21, 2010 to March 5, 2010.
NPS, which has jurisdiction over the section of route that traverses, or PLANS to traverse, the Delaware Water Gap, is requiring a look at all three routes that were originally “proposed” for the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line:
This makes sense because NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, requires consideration of alternatives, but I’m not sure that just because the project proposers said these were the alternatives considered that “alternatives” should be limited to these three options. And what about system alternatives?
How will this NPS review come down? This is NOT my area, I don’t know much about it so let’s learn together here!
Comment period is from January 21, 2010 to March 5, 2010.
Getting railroaded?
February 2nd, 2010
We all know what a pain in the patoot siting transmission is (particularly when it’s not needed). And now for something completely different — an interesting and seemingly probable theory:
ARE Y’ALL PAYIN’ ATTENTION??!!!?!?!?!
This is one of those pieces that I want to preserve to take out and reread in the not too distant future:
Buffett’s Semaphore Signal: Should Burlington Northern Shareholders Think Again Before Saying ‘Yes’ To Berkshire Hathaway?
Author: Daniel Sinclair
Reasons commentators ascribe to Buffett’s offer to acquire one of North America’s largestrail networks, Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) are now familiar. Growing global trade, continued reliance on (especially low sulphur) coal, a resurgent and growing US economy (without needing to pick product ‘winners’ and ‘losers’), a low risk way to gain exposure to any rising process for commodities, a hedge against inflation given rail’s pricing power, a competitive advantage in rail’s oligopoly and high barriers to entry, more productive rail with more efficient and technologically advanced operations and a rise double-decker railway carriages, a way to play higher oil prices and cap and trade or carbon tax laws given that rail is 3 to 4 times more fuel efficient than trucks.
Those reasons are all good, and they have been part of the core investment thesis for rail. But, it is submitted, there may be something extra that offers compelling upside to rail that has Buffett excited. Think about all the land that rail owns. BNSF, for example, operates one of the largest railroad networks in North America with about 32,000 route miles of track plus an additional 23,000 miles for other rail related infrastructure and property. Much of this land is of relatively little value beyond the use of rail. No one is going to build condos or hotels or new subdivisions along side railways.
Now think again. You think Boone Pickens has an ambitious plan for wind farms? Wait until you see what Buffett could do right across the US with his investment in BNSF. This land might become prime property for alternative energy generation including from wind and solar farms either side of rail tracks. With much of rail land in the middle of nowhere, there are few worries about the ‘not-in-my-back-yard’ crowd and more difficult regulatory approvals. Small wind mills and solar panels might be placed on the trains themselves to generate energy.
Susquehanna-Roseland reopened!
January 27th, 2010
The Susquehanna-Roseland hearing has been reopened. And off we got to FERC. It’s been quite a hectic week, with a “flurry” of filings, and here’s the update. First, remember the NJ BPUat a special 1/15 meeting said they were NOT going to decide on PSE&G’s Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line and said they’d be asking for more information from PJM. Well, they asked PJM to answer a few questions (though not specific enough, not the right questions):
Here’s what PJM had to say:
Suffice it to say, the letter is … ahem… INSUFFICIENT!
And then the responses started coming in, first the Municipal Intervenors, then :
Municipal Intervenors response to PJM Letter
And the BPU issued an Order reopening the docket and first scheduled a hearing for February 2, 2010, and then THANKFULLY changed it to February 4, 2010:
The concept is that PJM is coming in as a witness regarding the assertions of their January 21, 2010 bullshit letter, and what does that mean? Is Steve Herling THE witness, or are there others? Is whatever witness/es coming with a truckload of exhibits that they’ll dump on us the day of the hearing? Is he going to be prepared in any way to back up his conclusory and unsupported statements? So I fired off a couple missives, first Discovery to get the requests in quick and let them be on the record of ignoring or refusing to answer, and then a letter to the BPU with my view of the fine mess we’re in:
As a sidebar, the escrow that PSE&G had to put out for the Municipal Intervenors is gone, this has been an intense case, and so they’re reasonably asking for more:
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, remember that great 7th Circuit decision tossing out the cost allocation for this project? Everything’s been up in the air since then, because if they can’t settle how they’re going to allocate the costs, this sucker won’t be built:
It was remanded to FERC and after some wrangling, just like in the BPU case, where the utilities were saying, “It’s all there in the record, you don’t need anything more to make a separate decision” and Illinois said quite succinctly, “AHEM, WE DON”T THINK SO!” and FERC issued an Order stating that the record was not sufficient, needed more information and directed PJM to provide some information and also provided some questions for parties to mull over in their comments:
Here’s the fun part – what they asked PJM to provide (hee hee hee hee hee hee), starting on p. 5 of the above Order:
10. PJM should provide the following information:
A. The total costs that have been approved through PJM’s Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP) process for facilities that operate at or above 500 kV (and necessary lower voltage facilities), and whose costs are assigned pursuant to Opinion No. 494. For these projects, calculate the total costs that have been assigned to each PJM zone, and estimate the total costs that would be assigned to each zone using PJM’s DFAX methodology.
B. PJM manuals require that, in planning projects, it seek to optimize projects in order to reduce the cost of addressing individual reliability criteria. Describe how the optimization process is performed. Also, explain how PJM determines the relative priorities of resolving numerous reliability issues with one project. For 500 kV and above facilities, explain whether PJM could accurately determine the beneficiaries of a project that resolves numerous reliability issues using its DFAX methodology.
C. PJM’s most recent RTEP report (2008), at P 5 states that:
Baseline thermal and voltage analysis encompasses an exhaustive analysis of all Bulk Electric System (BES) facilities for compliance with NERC Category A (TPL-001), Category B (TPL-002) and Category C (TPL-003) events. In addition, consistent with NERC standards TPL-004, a number of extreme events including those judged to be critical from an operational perspective as well as those defined in Table I of TPL-004 were evaluated for risk and consequence to the system. Describe the types of anticipated reliability requirements addressed by the PJM RTEP (i.e., voltage, thermal, stability). Explain whether and how the DFAX analysis applies to the NERC reliability analyses listed above and any other reliability requirements. Explain whether the RTEP upgrades designed to address these reliability requirements also will address other reliability concerns. In particular, explain whether the geographic location or voltage level of an RTEP upgrade makes that upgrade more likely to address broader reliability concerns.
Provide any relevant studies.D. In this proceeding, PJM recommended the adoption of a postage-stamp rate design for new 500 kV and above facilities.
1. Describe the benefits generated by such facilities that are not captured in the DFAX methodology used by PJM to allocate costs for lower voltage facilities. Indicate whether such lines provide reliability or economic benefits to the areas producing electricity.
2. Provide engineering or other studies showing any differences in regional benefits between 500 kV and lower voltage facilities (e.g., 345 kV
and 230 kV).E. Provide any existing engineering or other studies that indicate whether the modeling assumptions used in the RTEP analysis, such as the direction of flow,
remain consistent or vary over time.
The Municipal Intervenors sent in a Motion to FERC, PSEG objected, and then Stop the Lines sent in a Motion for Limited Intervention:
Municipal Intervenors – Motion to Intervene
PSEG Response to Munis FERC Intervention
Stop The Lines! Motion for Limited Intervention
PSEG’s response to our Motion to Intervene… yeah… (yawn)… what-ev-er…
And just now, hot off the press, the Municipal Intervenors have filed a Motion to Depose PJM’s Steven Herling! Oh, yes, this is much needed, so we can get an idea where they’re going and what they plan to present (I doubt they’d produce the pre-filed testimony I requested!):
As you can see, it’s been an intense few days, and isn’t letting off anytime soon. More to follow as it develops.
That line’s going to fall in my living room…
January 24th, 2010
MID-Atlantic Power Pathway and all of PJM’s “backbone” projects in the news:
She’s worried about a larger line rising in the shadow of her house. If the poles somehow get knocked over, “Where’s that line going to fall? That line’s going to fall in my living room.
That’s Farah Morelli’s question. She’s a regular person who woke up one day with a monstrously large transmission line planned literally in her back yard. That’s usually the most effective way to get someone to learn about transmission. It’s a steep learning curve, and what I’ve found in my work with people in the path of proposed transmission is that once they start looking, they find a disturbing fact: Utilities propose transmission lines not because they’re “needed” but that they’re wanted, wanted to increase their ability to transmit and SELL cheap power in areas where it’s higher cost, and make a bundle in the process. It’s not that people don’t have electricity (and high price is the best instigator of conservation), but it’s that people want more and want it cheaper and the utilities which make $$$ from that equation want to make it happen.
HERE’S THE REALITY — The PJM 2010 Load Forecast Report and the Monitoring Analytics “PJM 3Q State of the Market” report show that this market decline isn’t anything new and that it’s not going away anytime soon. The PJM market peaked in 2006:
Today’s News Journal article is a start at pulling it all together, taking a look at the bigger picture, and that bigger picture is what these transmission lines are all about. Three lines were proposed together, the Potomac Allegheny Transmission Highline (PATH), the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP) and the Susquehanna-Roseland line. These aren’t just transmission lines, they’re BIG HONKIN’ ELECTRICAL AUTOBAHNS, quad (or now maybe tri?) bundled 500kV lines. Like WOW. HUGE!
Here’s today’s article:
Lower energy projections put brakes on power lines
Susquehanna-Roseland delay in the news
January 16th, 2010
Here are the articles on the NJ BPU delay of decision on Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line, but before that, here’s the letter the BPU sent to PJM requesting more information based on yesterday’s decision to put on the brakes:
Color me jaded, but what is needed is what Stop the Lines requested in our STL – Reply Brief, based on the sensitivity analysis ordered for PATH:
• PSE&G must waive any claim to FERC “backstop” authority in the pendancy of this sensitivity analysis and Board deliberation.
• The sensitivity analysis must include, but is not limited to those scenarios Ordered in the PATH docket:
1. Susquehanna-Roseland load flow analyses updated to reflect the following changes in generation: (i) all existing generation as of January 7, 2010, which is not scheduled to be retired before 2014; (ii) all proposed generation that cleared the May 2009 PRM Auction; and (iii) all proposed generation with a signed ISA as of January 7, 2009 (“Scenario 1 generation”);
2. Susquehanna-Roseland load flow analyses updated for the changes in Scenario 1 generation, and updated to reflect PJM’s 2010 load forecast (“Scenario 2”);
3. Susquehanna-Roseland load flow analyses updated for the changes in Scenario 1 generation, and updated to reflect the demand response and energy efficiency resources that cleared the May 2009 RPM Auction;
4. Susquehanna-Roseland load flow analyses updated for the changes in Scenario 1 generation, and PJM’s 2010 load forecast (i.e., Scenario 2) and updated to reflect the demand response and energy efficiency resources that cleared the May 2009 RPM Auction;
5. Susquehanna-Roseland load flow analyses updated for the changes in Scenario 1 generation, PJM’s 2010 load forecast, and to reflect the demand response and energy efficiency resources that cleared the May 2009 RPM Auction (i.e. Scenario 4), and updated to reflect the forecasted additional demand response and energy resource reasonably available for 2014, 2015 and 2016 (i.e. using MW from PATH of 367, 420, and469 respectively); and
6. Susquehanna-Roseland load flow analyses updated for the changes in Scenario 1 generation, PJM’s 2010 load forecast, the demand response and energy efficiency resources that cleared the May 2009 RPM Auction, the forecasted additional demand response and energy resource reasonably available for 2014, 2015 and 2016; and updated to reflect additional demand response and energy efficiency projected (i.e. using MW from path of 1,825, 2,140 and 2,403 respectively).
These results shall be distributed to the parties as soon as possible and shall be subject to limited discovery and cross examination, after which the Board shall consider them together with the balance of the record in this matter.
See why it’s frustrating — they just missed the boat completely with the vague request to PJM…
So, on with the press coverage about yesterday’s decision to delay:
New Jersey regulators delay decision on PSEG transmission line
By Mark Peters
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
Public Service Enterprise Group shares were at $32.32, down 50 cents, or 1.5%, in recent trading.
-By Mark Peters, Dow Jones Newswires; 212-416-2457 mark.peters@dowjones.com
================================================================
Decision delayed on power project
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Lawrence Ragonese
STAR-LEDGER STAFF
Lawrence Ragonese may be reached at (973) 539-7910 or lragonese@starledger.com
===============================================================
State officials delay decision on PSE&G powerline for a month
By COLLEEN O’DEA • STAFF WRITER • January 16, 2010
Karen Johnson, a PSE&G spokeswoman, said the utility was discouraged by the delay.
Colleen O’Dea: 973-428-6655; codea@gannett.com.
===============================================