Legalectric

Susquehanna-Roseland… surprise, surprise, they just announced that they’re going to hold off until the end of the meeting, do everything else on a long agenda first… sigh…

Here we go  ROUGH NOTES

(with a few parenthetical comments)

BPU Agenda Meeting 2/11/10

Ken Sheehan: PSEG application.  Starts in PA, crossing to NJ at DWG, through 16 municipalities, following 230kV RoW.  PSEG building in conjunction with PPL in PA.  NJSA stt, taking it before the board, prove it is reasonably necessary (blah blah)

Three outstanding issues.

• Request for Oral Arguments – staff recommends denial.  may be useful if parties have had opportunities to make arguments.  Wouldn’t appreciable add to process.

• Request for Depositions – for 2 PSEG attorney re editing of PJM’s Herling’s letter.   Herling admitted they had made changes, but didn’t remember, and Motion followed.  Recommend denial of request.  Review has been minor, per Herling’s statement, board does not need additional info.

• Request for Dismissal – Internvenors requested, also recommended it be denied.

Fiordaliso:  Are we to move on all of these now?

Ken Sheehan: Move after all the discussion.

Damase Hebert:  Background.  Proposed line is about 145 miles long, 45 miles of it is in NJ, crosses over Delaware Water Gap, Picatinny Arsenal.  2 switching stations, pursuant to a deal, agreed to move the Jefferson station to Hopatcong.  East Hanover, PSEG is willing to move to Roseland.  Entire project will cost between $900 million and $1.2 billion.  Interventions of Townships, Municipal Intervenors, Gerdau Ameristeel, Willow Lake Day Camp & Fredon Bd of Ed, Exelon,  Stop the Lines, Environmental Intervenors.  Participant status to National Park Service as requested.  Fiordaliso appointed to preside over hearings.   (Commission Fox gave someone a big grin at this point)  Public hearings and many written comments.  Fiordaliso conducted site visit, 3 locations.  Fiordaliso also presided over hearings, main topics covered included need, routing, engineering and construction, and electromagnetic fields.  400 exhibits and over 1,000 pages of transcripts (BFD!).  PSEG witnesses, 4 on need, 4 on routing, 3 on engineering and construction, and 2 on EMF.  Muni Intervenors sponsored 1 on need, 1 on EMF, and STL on ability of homes to obtain FHA mortgages.  Briefs, Muni Intervenors, Env Inervenors, Exelon, PSEG, Rate Counsel.  Reply Briefs too.  During December, delays in other PJM ordered PJM lines, PATH, and MAPP.  Board requested Sec.  send letter to PJM requesting more information,Herling response 1/21, reopened for a day of hearings.

Jerry May (?) to address need.

Jerry May: Relies on PJM analyses, that there will be violations of NERC by 2012.  (background on NERC).  PJM analyses through RTEP process also determined that S-R 500kV was the most appropriate remedy for the projected recommendations.  Intervenors have questioned the bases for assumptions and recommendations, available capacity and load.  PJM has estimated over 15 year planning horizon, 13 different bulk transmission lines are asspected to be overloaded in assumed single contingency events.  In addition, 10 are assumed to be overloaded for two lines on a single structure.  Further explanation of what violations mean. (he’s presuming it’s cumulative, but those subsequent iterations replaced the ones that no longer demonstrated need!)  Overloading of lines due to single contingency events is NERC Category B, while double contingency events are Category C.  A NERC category A evaluates with NO contingencies, and PJM found no violations of category A criteria.  PJM tests for load deliverability and generator deliverability.  Load deliverability addresses defined load levels and ability of xmsn to deliver adequat power.  Generator evaluates ability of generation to be delivered to PJM system at peak load conditions.  Normal Peak Day condition assumes tha based on historical data there’s a 50% chance of being warmer or cooler.  Emergency assumes only a 10% chance that the weather will be any hotter on that day.  NERC category B requires that the system be evaluated with one system out of service, purpose is to ensure that system continues to be reliabile with instantaneous outage.  For Cagoegory B, assumes emergency peak load for area being tested, and normal for rest of system.  For Category C, requires the system be stable and within system limits, under a variety of multiple system events, i.e., lost of one system element, adjustments, and loss of second element.  Double circuit tower line contingency that are the source of the cateogyr C violations projected by PJM in this proceeding.  For thistype, no system readjustments are permitted as both are removed from system at same time, using normal load, that these are rare and not necessarily tied to weather conditions.  Category B violations, PJM projected that violations would occur on two bulk power lines by 2012, and another 3 over next three years.  Over the entire forecast period, PJM estimates 13 lines would have violations of NERC Category B criteria.  12 fail load deliverability, and 1 fails generator deliverability.  Category C, ___ violations, over entire forecast violations, 10 lines would violagte category C criteia.  All of them ae due to failing the PJM generator deliverability test.  The NERC violations reflect PJM’s 2009 retool analysis.  Earlier studies dating back to 2007 resulted in different mix, but the conclusions from each was that NERC criteria would be violated by 2012 if NERC did not take steps.

In the past month, PATH and MAPP were either withdrawn or held in abeyance due to updated analyses that the project was not necessary in the time frame.  The Board directed that an additional hearing be held to determine what impact the delay in these lines would have for need for S-R. During the hearing, Herling reconfirmed PJM’s view that the project would continue to b enecessary to avoid violating NERC criteria as early as 2012.  …  that taking into account RPM auction, would not materially alter the conclusion. (WITHOUT ANY CITES OR SUBSTANTIATION!)

While PJM considered xmsn based alternatives, it found that none were as robust or would provide the long term solution.  PJM’s position with respect to alternatives, such as adding generation, DSM, heightened efficiency, was that it had no power to order added generation or DSM.  PJM’s contention was that transmission was the only measure that it had authority over to correct the violations.

Intervenors argued that the analyses are flawed, designed with a preordained conclusion, were challenging load forecasts, DSM, energy efficiency, and challenges more generally in the conservative nature of the PJM analyses.  As an alternative to outright rejection, some suggest PSEG should hold this petition in abeyance until next RTEP report is in.  Herling would not commit as to when the next RTEP would be completed, suggesting that the typical time frame is in the fall.  Intervenors point out that the latest Retool does not reflect RPM, where significant amounts of demand response capacity cleared, and which would be included as available capacity in the 2012 year, and would also be included in the next RTEP analysis.

Staff’s review of the record leads us to conclude that PJM’s process does not result in a preordained conclusion and produces results that are reasonable.  Intervenors complained that the most recent load forecast is too high, given the load drop.  There is a great deal of uncertainty about economic recovery, and staff does not believe that PJM’s load forecast is unreasonable.  PJM’s load forecast which reflected events since the last quarter of 2008, predicted drop of 1.4%, and actual drop in 2009 was 1.9% (not addressing that peak was in 2006 and it’s been falling).  While the forecast underestimated the severity of drop, it did reflect actual recent trend.  Economic growth projections used by PJM are geared to metropolitan areas located within PJM territory, and cannot be directly compared with national projections. (and PJM historic actuals and PJM trends?)  Staff agrees that the results of the May 2009 RPM auction should be included, but witness Herling explains why even incorporating these results would not alter conclusions.  Intervenors have noted that the May RPM auction resulted in significant demand response in those areas impacted, however witness Herling pointed out that demand response could not resolve Category C violations.  Demand response is not on call during normal periods and is not sufficient time frame to offset Category C violations.  Herling points out that while there was a significant demand response, there was a marked decrease in generation availability in relevant load zones, and net increase was relatively small. (note they never deal in impacts of energy efficiency, which reduces peak overall?)  In contrast, the increases in demand response capacity where PATH amd MAPP were planned were substantial, … those were violations that MAPP and PATH were designed to address.

Intervenors have argued that PJM has failed to consider additional demand response coming, pointing to the New Jersey Energy Master Plan, however the board’s main resonsibility is to assure safe and adequate supply of electricity.  Staff does not believe that PJM excluded the Energy Master Plan from models and consideration. (EH?)  Just as PJM models do not include demand response, it also does not include generation that may or may not occur  (yes it does, as he testified in the initial hearing, with different weights put on generation with an ISA and not).

Staff concludes that PSEG has met its burden that S-R is needed to avoid violations of NERC standards as early as 2010.  The number, nature and severity of the violations all bear this out (Say what?  Decreasing number, decreasing severity, and change in nature in blatant attempt to find some sort of violation).   Realistic variations in the various key inputs would, in staff’s opinion (training, experience, they’re NOT engineers!), still point to violations as early as 2012.  The fact that the violations grow throughout the forecast period points to the need for a robust response (they start at miniscule amounts above 100%, so small that FERC asked about optimization).

Next issue is routing.

Damase Hebert: PSEG presented expert testimony that Route B was most appropriate route.  Luis Berger retained to evaluate routes.  Berger reviewed 3 alternative routes, selected Route B, which follows existing line.  Impacts least area of forested land, impacts least amount of forested wetland, fewer streams crossed, no change in existing land use, crosses Appalachian Trail on existing 230kkV RoW, least distance of Highlands area crossed, all on existing cleared RoW, likely to have the least impact compared to the other alternatives routes because existing RoW would not have to be expand.  Staff recommends approval, because it runs along existing RoW, least impact compared to other route.  Minor adjustments may be appropriate.  Montville has requested move 3 specific towers, and staff reocmmends that Board direct PSEG to relocate or report why it’s not pssible.  In relation to routing issue, STL argued that existing residential homes within a specific distance no longer eligible for FHA.  Baord staff recommends further evaluation of this issue. Switching issues, Jefferson and E hanover, and alternatives were proposed.  Staff recommends moving substations.  Staff notes that use of existing RoW reduces impacts, if approved by board, towers will either be monopole or towers based on characteristics of route.  During course of proceeding, company changed from 4 to 3 conductors, impacts charactteristics of line, change is based on engineering requirements.  Likely to reduce EMF fields. (EH?).  Intervenors have not provided sufficient evidence to prove it’s not safe.  Comapny argues EMF is not dangerous, and EMF are below limits established by any state and regularly used appliances.  Staff has analyzed EMF testimony, and has comcluded that it will be below all established standards, and electrical fields will below NJ’s standards.  Staff recommends that the board require PSEG monitor EMF levels and report results to board, to demonstrate that this meets their state EMF levels.

Cost allocation methodology.  Current PJM tarrif regionalized it across PJM.  FERC has adopted paper hearing, which has been set in response to the remand from 7th circuit decision directing FERC to explain why current methodology is sound (NO IT DOESN”T, that is NOT what remand said and it is not what FERC is requesting in its Order to PJM).  It is unknown when the board will have complete certainty of cost allocation (short paper hearing process, it’s fast tracked).  Given long construction schedule, staff recommends the board not wait until cost allocation (Fox is smiling again at this point)

Staff urges that board issue an order that local zoning does not apply.  Board attach conditions:

– Board direct PSEG to work with Montville Bd of Ed to relocate towers to address their concerns.

– Company follow with report relocating 3 towers to relocate.

– Work in good faith to determine relocation of other alignments that are practicable

– Report within 90 days about other relocations, and if can’t, proceed as proposed.

– Continue to optimize locations of access roads, tower locations and structures, with other agencies to greatest extent possible.

– Evaluate issues explored about inability to obtain FHA mortgages.

– Monitor regarding EMF levels

– Work on continuing basis with fire and safety at Hopatcong and Roseland

– Avian protection plan with guidance from USFWS

– Board require the company to report to the Board the findings of PJM’s next RTEP analysis.  If that RTEP analysis finds that the project is no logner necessary or can be delayed significantly, staff recommends the Board retainspecific authoirty to reopen the proceeding.

– Hopatcong and Roseland switching stations, should routing require modifications, get approval from board.

– This route is located with areas governed by the National Park Service, Highlands Preservation Act and the Watershed Property Review Board.  Staff recommends that the board specifically state in its order that the order shall not be construed as certificate, license, permit to construct or disturb land in these jurisdictions until the company receives the relevant approval from these governing bodies and from any other non-municipal bodies.

Fiordaliso moved, ?? (male) seconded.

Fiordaliso – Having served as hearing officer, which has taken about a year to come to judgment, I feel confident that this board has fulfilled its duty to residents of state of NJ.  Staff committed time and resources, investigating every possible angle, trying to determine whether this is needed, to maintaini electrical service, for all their hard work, I would like to point out certain individuals (thanks staff).  Speed sometimes does not substitute for trying to get it right.  I have to indicate that this was the most difficult decision that I’ve had to make since I’ve been a member of this board, to weigh all the factors involved during the evidentiary hearings.  This was a fair and open process, everyone who wanted to participate could, I wanted them to walk out of the public hearing indicating that they could be heard.  I have heard from the public and witnesses, met with staff, examined every angle of this proposal when PATH and MAPP revelation occurred.  The only thing I could do was to take notice of that, and the supplemental hearing that we had htis month.  With that, it is my contention that it hinges on reliability, increasing infrastructure is a reasonable plan, everyone wants to avoid power outages plaguing our already fragile system.  This project is one part of a wider system, remain focused on renewable, but we have to ensure safe, reliable service for the state of NJ.  PSEG will work with other stakeholders so the process will be a fair and equitable one for all parties.

Butler:  I have nothing to add, I think staff’s analysis was thorough, I’m convinced this is needed.

Fox: Lot of questions and issues.  First, I want to let you know, I reluctantly will be voting for this.  I am hoping that we will not go through this again.  This is an issue of timing, what’s in front of us now (they could choose to wait a couple weeks for additional information that’s in the works).  NERC sets reliability standards, FERC picked NERC, this is based on need, balancing out reliability for the good citizens of this state.  Based on what we have in the record.  What is in the record says there is a need, in 2012.  Timing is everything, PJM projected then, it projects that now, violations in 2012, that’s a little over 2 years away.  It’ll take 18 months or so for this to be constructed.  Our first responsibility is reasonableness of service.  We are subject to a one year time constraint.  If we don’t decide this, we are told this will go to FERC and they will take over the case.  A lot has happened, an economic downturn has taken place, federal government is promoting appliance standards, GHG has not been passed but some day will have to be, NJ will establish more extensive programs to reduce electricity use, a large part revolves about how much it is reduced, we have clean energy, efficiency, renewable energy programs, most of that is not included by PJM.  The Energy Master Plan has reduction of energy use, that is not factored in.  FERC oversees PJM, this board does not.  PJM is largest wholesale power in the world, responsible to NERC and to FERC, they do not report to us (sure, give away your authority over transmission, good idea).  PJM’s RTEP, looks at transmission, generation, customer loads.  The higher the forecast.. PJM’s RTEP, category A, B, C violations were possible, and I think that NERC set these standards and the RTO’s are responsible for following.  Fine?  (from staff: Fine of up to $1 million a day).  Differences between MAPP and PATH, staff has asked for a briefing, two, and it comes down to category C violations, this is not responsive to demand response.  Herling testified that project would still be needed, not directly impacted by load forecast, so we still have this violation, the loss of double circuit line.  The issue I want to get to is risk.  How much risk are we willing to bear, how much are we going to take, prevent that from happening.  Herling had no knowledge of what that risk might be.  Modeling, when I was at EPA we did a lot of modeling, and I am not happy with how this is being handled.  TEAC is contemplateing using sensitivity analysis on load forecast, and the only information we have in the record is from PJM, taking into account different load forecast, using state’s projections, great idea, they don’t do that now.  How much are we going to pay for not having an outage.  Asked to look at actual peak loads in NJ, and it’s quite minimal.  From 06-09, the unrestricted load has exceeded peak for 44 hours.  What is the risk that we’re willing to pay for?  We are used to having outages, when weather occurs, and I’m sure we could probably pay away, that’s a risk analysis that I’m sure had been done.  Is the risk that we’re lessening here worth the cost of a billion dollar line balanced against cost and impacts.  We need to get PJM to look at risk of outage, balanced against category C.  NERC has been modified standards, but again, timing is the issue.  NERC requires RTOs to test events, each has their own internal test, as NERC modifies, they should consider consistent standards, tests, for all future analyses.  Federal Policy Act of s005, set up two NIETC, where here is a huge need, we’re smack in the middle of it, we’re paying more because we’re congested.  The recommendations staff did I thought were good.  I ask that my fellow commissioners to ask the RTO to develop some risk and cost benefit analysis if you don’t require it in their case, why would they), category C violations, having RTOs accountable.  What PJM did was require a billion dollar transmission project.  The existing record I don’t think clearly showed the impact of these violations, that our ratepayers are paying for (and you’ll approve it?  HELLO!?).  That needs to be done for any xmsn lines (like THIS one?).  When the RTO says it exceeds rating, we need to look at the magnitude.  Load forecasting needs to be modified in PJM, direct and indirect costs and benefits, i.e. EMF, does it fit here or not, I think that we really need to look at what raetpayers would pay.  Board has been working on effective alternatives to xmsn, national and regional level.  Our NJ Master Plan deals with that, and it is not in the RTEP model.  No one seems to have jurisdiction over generation. (well duh, you deregulated!).  New generation, existing generation, we don’t have control over instate generation, what goes out of service.  We need most cost effective way to look at generation, it’s probably in Washington, maybe us working with other states.   Due to timing of this issue, and what is in the record before us, there is not any real evidence looking at load forecasting, looking at forecasting, I’m obviously gong to have to vote for this (??? that conclusion makes NO sense) and obviously having reliability issues two years from that.

Nicholas Asselta: The reliability is what strikes me as the most important, infrastructure is what NJ is about today, and in the future, has to continue to move forward to make us economically viable.  We know what our situation is, we know what the situation of the US is in the world competitive market, it is the key for us to retain power.  I bleive this project is needed reliability wise, major imporovements, I support this project.

Elizabeth Randall:  We all went to staff over and over.  The need is critical, the category C violations are important, and it is unacceptable to do nothing, it is important to have reliability.

Fiordalis0: Forgot one of his extended family (moi) in the back.

Board: Unanimous vote.

(BARF – how disgusting can it get)

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:

BNSF is looking at allowing electric transmission line companies us its rights-of-way “to send electricity from massive wind farms to major population centres” while giving BNSF access to “low-cost power for electric locomotives”. So rail might also be integral to Obama’s smart grid initiative by using railway cables and rights of way for electrical transmission. Norfolk Southern, has apparently joined BNSF in exploring electrification. Meanwhile, Union Pacific, the U.S.’s other mega freight rail company is apparently speaking to transmission line companies about providing its rights-of-way, that may include electrifying corridors.

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?

Feb. 01, 2010

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.

Read the rest of this entry »

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):

BPU Secretary letter to PJM

Here’s what PJM had to say:

PJM Letter in response to BPU Query

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

Environmental Intervenors – January 25, 2010

Stop The Lines! January 25, 2010

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:

BPU Scheduling Order Jan 25, 2010

BPU Amended Scheduling Order Jan 26, 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:

STL Discovery re: PJM Letter 1/21/10

STL Letter to BPU 1/25/10

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:

Municipal Intervenors – Motion for Escrow

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:

Illinois Commerce Commission v. FERC – August 6, 2009

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:

FERC Order January 21, 2010

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

Municipal Intervenors – Renewal of Motion to Intervene

PSEG Response to STL Intervention Motion

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!):

Municipal Intervenors Motion to Depose PJM’s Herling

As you can see, it’s been an intense few days, and isn’t letting off anytime soon.  More to follow as it develops.

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:

BPU Secretary letter to PJM

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

NEWARK, N.J. (Dow Jones)–New Jersey regulators voted Friday to delay for up to 30 days their decision on a high-voltage power line proposed by a unit of Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. (PEG).

New Jersey’s largest utility has been planning the transmission project for two years, saying it will relieve stress on existing lines, improve reliability and provide access to lower-cost power. But the timetable for what’s known as the Susquehanna-Roseland project has come into question, as other projects in the 13-state PJM Interconnection power market, which includes New Jersey, have been put on hold in recent weeks.

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities said that in light of the other delays, it will hold off on its decision and request a further review from PJM. The grid operator, in a short letter to regulators this week, said the New Jersey project is still needed and isn’t affected by the delays of other projects.

“We should seek and receive further detailed confirmation from PJM,” said Commissioner Joseph Fiordaliso, before the board voted unanimously for the delay.

The $750-million, 45-mile project planned by Public Service Electric & Gas, which is a unit of Public Service Enterprise Group, would run from northern New Jersey into Pennsylvania. PSE&G could earn up to a 12.9% return on its equity investment in the project, which is scheduled to be operational in the summer of 2012.

In a statement, a spokeswoman for PSE&G said the utility is disappointed with the delay and considering its options to ensure reliable service for its customers.

PSE&G is partnering on the transmission project with PPL Corp. (PPL), which would build the $510 million Pennsylvania portion of the line. PPL won the backing of state regulators there Thursday.

But slumping power demand driven by the recession and conservation and curtailment programs is causing utilities and regulators to reconsider the schedule for transmission projects. Although expected to rebound this year, power demand declined in 2008 and 2009, with last year’s drop being the largest in more than 70 years.

In recent weeks, Allegheny Energy Inc. (AYE) and American Electric Power Co. (AEP) said they plan to delay a $1.8 billion transmission line from West Virginia to Maryland because of a less-robust outlook for power demand. Pepco Holdings Inc. (POM) followed by asking Maryland regulators last week to suspend a review of a $1.2 billion transmission line through Maryland. The companies will await a study of regional transmission needs expected from PJM in late June.

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

Opponents of a massive North Jersey power project hailed the state Board of Public Utilities’ decision yesterday to postpone a vote on the high-voltage matter for 30 days as the first step toward derailing it.

But BPU officials, at a special hearing in Newark, said they only delayed a vote to ensure they have all information needed to assess the merits of PSE&G’s proposed Susquehanna-Roseland line, especially after a similar power project stalled recently in the mid-Atlantic region.

“The significance of the case makes it absolutely essential that the commissioners be in a position to fully review the record and have the depth of understanding to weigh its benefits and liabilities,” said commission member Joseph Fiordaliso.

At issue is a 45-mile, $750 million high-voltage line that would cut through Morris, Essex, Sussex and Warren counties, which Public Service Electric & Gas contends is needed to maintain reliability of the regional electricity grid. A similar 101-mile connecting line in Pennsylvania got that state’s approval Thursday.

Project opponents say it would harm the environment, make people living near the line ill, and bring “dirty” coal-generated power through New Jersey solely to benefit out-of-state power needs and generate profits for the power company.

“This would be devastating to North Jersey and my town, which will be ripped to shreds by this project,” said Fredon Mayor Carl Lazzaro.

“They’ve never proven they need all of this electricity. It’s all about making money for their shareholders,” added East Hanover Mayor Joseph Pannullo.

The BPU was poised to decide the fate of the project yesterday but agreed to let the issue of the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) be put into the New Jersey record.

PATH Allegheny Virginia Transmission Corp. asked permission from a Virginia regulatory agency to withdraw a proposal to build a 276-mile, $1.8 billion high-voltage transmission line from West Virginia to Maryland, due to a weak economy and a growing energy conservation movement.

PSE&G, in a brief letter to the BPU on Thursday, said problems in Virginia and West Virginia had no impact on its power needs or the Susquehanna-Roseland project. But the board demanded a detailed analysis from PSE&G as soon as possible.

“We are disappointed in the board’s action to delay the decision on this important electric reliability project. We are considering our options to ensure that the region’s electric customers have the safe, highly reliable service they have come to expect,” said PSE&G spokeswoman Karen Johnson.

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

NEWARK — The state Board of Public Utilities on Friday delayed for a month a decision on Public Service Electric & Gas Co.’s proposal to upgrade its transmission line through Morris, Sussex and Warren counties.

During a special meeting, the board unanimously voted to ask PJM Interconnection, the regional power transmission organization, to explain its position that the $750 million project is necessary.

The board is making the request in light of the recent withdrawal of a line project in Virginia because new forecasts show it will not be needed soon, and the delay of another project in Maryland for a re-evaluation of power need forecasts in that region.

In a letter sent Friday, the board asked whether PJM plans to conduct a needs review for PSE&G’s 47-mile Susquehanna-Roseland upgrade similar to the reviews in the other states, and to explain whether those two delays have any effect on the need for the project here.

Joseph L. Fiordaliso, the commissioner serving as hearing officer for the project, said that PJM’s brief, two-paragraph statement sent Thursday to the BPU affirming the project’s need was not enough.

“We need more than this summary statement. We need PJM to state how it reached this conclusion,” Fiordaliso said.

The delay cheered the 17 interveners, including several Morris and Sussex municipalities, the Montville Board of Education, environmentalists and a citizens group, all of which oppose PSE&G’s plan to add 500-kilovolt lines to towers reaching as tall as 195 feet. They had been unhappy that Pennsylvania authorities on Thursday approved the part of the line in that state.

“We hope they are going to get a sensitive analysis done. We hope that will show the line is not necessary,” said Dave Slaperud of the Stop the Lines citizens group.

“There is a safer and better way to do this,” said East Hanover Mayor Joseph Pannullo, who opposes the upgrade because he believes electromagnetic fields from the lines cause health problems.

Karen Johnson, a PSE&G spokeswoman, said the utility was discouraged by the delay.

“We are considering our options to ensure that the region’s electric customers have the safe, highly reliable service they have come to expect,” Johnson said.

One of those options is to bypass the state review and seek approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which can evaluate and OK a project if local authorities have not acted within a year, as is now the case here.

Efforts by PSE&G to settle differences with officials along the line by paying amounts ranging from $200,000 to more than $400,000 to cover costs associated with construction were largely rejected — only three of 16 towns affected agreed to the settlements.

Colleen O’Dea: 973-428-6655; codea@gannett.com.

===============================================

Susquehanna-Roseland line approved with conditions in Pennsylvania; New Jersey vote is delayed

By Express-Times staff
January 15, 2010, 8:38PM

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities today postponed its vote on a Pennsylvania-New Jersey power line that would cross the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area and a portion of Hardwick Township.

Its delay came a day after the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission granted conditional approval to the Susquehanna-Roseland project linking the Berwick, Pa., area to Roseland, N.J.

Allentown-based PPL Electric Utilities proposes building the Pennsylvania portion of the 500-kilovolt line, with Public Service Enterprise Group picking up the project at the New Jersey border and continuing it along an existing 230-kilovolt line.

PSE&G says the 130-mile line is mandated by PJM Interconnection, the regional entity responsible for planning the transmission system, to meet projected regional demand. Its $900 million to $1 billion cost would be shared among the 51 million electric customers in the PJM region covering 13 states and the District of Columbia, according to the utility company.

Pennsylvania officials’ approval is not final until an order is entered by the utility commission. Among conditions imposed in Thursday’s votes are that construction may not begin until the National Park Service issues necessary permits to build in the Delaware Water Gap area. The park service has said it does not expect to issue the permits until May 2012. The commission’s approval would expire in three years unless construction has begun, under another condition of approval.

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities voted unanimously today to consider new evidence on the need for the project, particularly to determine if demand truly exists for the additional power. Board members said they expect to rule on approval within 30 days.

The delay follows a request by PATH Allegheny Virginia Transmission Corp. to a Virginia regulatory agency to withdraw its proposal to build a 276-mile, $1.8 billion high-voltage transmission line from West Virginia, through Virginia and to Maryland. The company cited a weak economy and growing energy conservation movement.

Fur was flying last night, late when I got a chance to check in, whew…

PJM – last minute filing

PSEG – Response to PJM filing

Environmental Intervenors Response to PJM

Municipal Intervenors Response to PJM

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…

BPU Secretary letter to PJM