Legalectric

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 »

.

Remember the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway?

A while back, PEPCO or PHI, announced that they would not be moving forward with this project.

PEPCO wants to suspend MAPP proceedings

Lower energy production puts brakes on powerlines – News Journal January 24, 2010

Now they’re going for DOE federally guaranteed loans… funny how that works.  A project that is delayed and delayed because it is NOT needed, that they are NOT willing to finance on their own, that they can’t or won’t get market financing for it, that they can’t or won’t finance themselves, and so now they want federal financing? Sounds like the DOE needs some lessons from Fannie Mae about financing outrageous and unsupportable projects!

Thinking about this, and what that pro forma must look like, I called the DOE rep about getting a copy of the loan application.  Seems it’s not online and it’s not public and I’m going to have to do a FOIA request to get it, and that it will be redacted.   OK, whatever… will keep you all posted about that!

Here are the official notices of the financing arrangement and the scoping meetings:

Federal Register – Notice of Intent

MAPP Newspaper 02-04-2011

LINK TO DOE’s PAGE FOR Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway

And Pepco’s MAPP site has the announcement on their “Events” page:

PEPCO’s Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway’s site’s EVENTS PAGE

The public hearings are as follows:

Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Presentation of Project Description & Oral Comments: 7:00 pm
Place: Holiday Inn Express – Prince Frederick
355 Merrimac Court
Prince Frederick, MD 20678

Date: Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Presentation of Project Description & Oral Comments: 7:00 pm
Place: Cambridge-South Dorchester High School
2475 Maple Dam Road
Cambridge, MD 21613

Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011
Presentation of Project Description & Oral Comments: 7:00 pm
Place: Indian River Senior Center
214 Irons Ave
Millsboro, DE 19966

Be there or be square!

Wow!  Amazing!!!!   The 9th Circuit Court has tossed out the DOE’s designation of the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors, and the DOE will now have to fully consult with states and do some serious environmental review:

TWS v DOE – 9th Circuit Opinion

Above is my view of La Veta, Colorado.  As I drove in, I saw two deer sauntering, yes, SAUNTERING across a farm field at the edge of town.  And in town, they were just walking around like they owned the place, fat and happy.  This one above was a buck escorting two of his does, maybe one and last year’s progeny, and they were walking down the streets, through yards, hanging out oh-so-casual.

There are some days, well, most days, I confess, when I really love my job… yesterday was another!

Yesterday was a forum held by TLC, Transmission Line Coalition, last night in La Veta and tonight in Alamosa:

TLC Forum Poster

Here’s some of what I had to say:

San Luis Valley Dog & Pony

Xcel, of course, was there, and I’m sure they’ll be there tonight!

Here’s the ALJ Recommendation, this will sound very familiar to those in Minnesota:

San Luis Valley ALJ Recommendation

As we say in transmission, “IT’S ALL CONNECTED.”

Xcel’s GI-2008-32 Feasibility Study Report

HPX Stakeholder 11-14-07 (9.3% line loss, export)

(Pretend there’s a link here to USDA’s RUS EIS page – it’s DOWN DOWN DOWN)  NEVERMIND, it’s now UP UP UP!  From RUS (note this San Luis project is about 4 months behind Dairyland/Capx:

Tri-State Generation and Transmission

Association, Inc.

San Luis Valley-Calumet-Comanche Transmission Project – Huerfona, Alamosa and Pueblo Counties, CO – The agency has decided to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on this proposal; the original level-of-review was an Environmental Assessment.

• Federal Register Notice to hold Scoping Meeting and the intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment (August 3, 2009 – 47 KB)
• Calumet-Comanche Electric System Improvement Project – Macro Corridor Study (May  2009 – 24 MB MB)
• San Luis Valley-Calumet-Comanche Transmission Project – Alternatives Evaluation (June 2009 – 510 KB)
• San Luis Valley Electric System Improvement Project – Alternatives Evaluation and Macro Corridor Study (June 2008 – 14.2 MB)
• Public Scoping Report (November 16, 2009 – 28.6 MB)
  • Index of Public Comments

What I want to know is WHY they are using lower capacity ACSR conductor for these projects — and the claimed “need” is SO low, why aren’t they just reconductoring the whole system — ACSR, euwwww, that is SO 1960s:

SW MN 345kV Ex35, App. 7 – Conductor Spec

And demand forecasts?  Need a good laugh?  Here’s the sales forecast for Public Service of Colorado, our good friends at Xcel:

I’ve just learned that this area is mushroom country — methinks that this “forecaster” has been dabbling in some of the more exotic varieties to come up with this chart!

Click map for larger version:

PATH, the Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline, is in trouble… AGAIN…

The good news is that the West Virginia Public Service Commission staff is challenging need for the PATH line, which was already postponed by PJM.  And then there’s these pesky states questioning the need, like Maryland, which challenged the corporate organizational form, noting that it wasn’t a utility so “get outta here!”

Now it’s time for the West Virginia PSC staff to raise its eyebrows and deliver a solid Motion to Dismiss:

WVa PSC Staff’s Motion to Dismiss PATH Application

For the entire docket, go here:

West Virginia PSC Docket for PATH Transmission Line

And here’s the way it looks in the press:

$2B PATH project faces dismissal by W. Va. regulators

Posted: 6:39 pm Thu, December 16, 2010
By Associated Press

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — An application to build a $2 billion power line from West Virginia to Maryland should be dismissed because less expensive alternatives should be considered first, say staff reviewing the project for the West Virginia Public Service Commission.

Developers of the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, or PATH, say the 765-kilovolt line is needed to meet projected power demand along the East Coast by 2015.

But PSC staff said it was “ludicrous” to continue with the project while changes to the region’s existing power grid are being contemplated. Staff specifically mentioned Virginia-based Dominion’s recent notice to rebuild its 500-kilovolt line from Mt. Storm in West Virginia to the Doubs substation in Maryland. That upgrade and other improvements are estimated to cost $500 million to $600 million.

Another planned project is the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway in Maryland. The line is to provide power to the Delmarva Peninsula.

Dominion says the Mt. Storm-Doubs line, which was built in 1966, must be rebuilt to maintain service. Developers gave the line’s current condition as a justification for the PATH project and the separate Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line.

“The rebuild will be a more stable line with 65 percent increased capacity,” PSC staff said it its Dec. 10 filing. The additional capacity “will push the need for the PATH line further out on the horizon,” perhaps to 2020, staff wrote.

PATH is a joint venture of Allegheny Energy Co. and American Electric Power Co. The proposed 275-mile line would run from AEP’s John Amos plant in West Virginia, across three counties in Northern Virginia, to a substation near Kemptown in Frederick County.

At least 250 groups, representing landowners, The Sierra Club, local county commissions and boards of education are opposed to PATH’s construction. Many of them have submitted letters supporting the latest staff filing.

The filing marks the second time PSC staff has recommended the application be dismissed. In October 2009, staff sought to dismiss the application because Maryland’s utility commission had dismissed an application in that state, saying it had been improperly filed.

Instead, the utilities agreed to extend the deadline for when the PSC must make a decision from May 16, 2011, to July 28, 2011.

PATH spokeswoman Jeri Matheny said Thursday the Dominion line “ties in very well” with the PATH project. Also, once PATH is built the Dominion line can be taken out of service for a rebuild, he said.

Matheny did not have an immediate comment on the staff’s recommendation to dismiss the application, saying a formal response would be filed with the PSC next week.

Earlier this month PJM Interconnection approved the Mt. Storm-Doubs line, but also reaffirmed its support of the PATH project. PJM manages the electrical grid in a 13-state region.

If the three-member PSC doesn’t dismiss the PATH application, staff is asking that it require developers to submit new testimony regarding the economic and environmental aspects of the project. Staff is also asking that AEP and Allegheny Energy again agree to extend the decision deadline.

The commission has not taken any action on the staff’s recommendation, PSC spokeswoman Susan Small said Thursday.