Legalectric

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:

PSEG Request to Shorten Time to Contest Official Notice

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:

PSEG Response to Motion for Oral Argument

… but here it is in B&W:

BPU delays decision on power line

By SETH AUGENSTEIN

saugenstein@njherald.com

The state’s Board of Public Utilities is delaying its decision on the proposed Susquehanna-Roseland power line while it factors in the withdrawal of a similar power line proposal in Virginia.

The board was slated to decide on the New Jersey half of the power line on Jan. 15. However, the board pushed back the decision date, after opponents filed last-minute paperwork about Virginia’s proposed PATH.

The new evidence cites predicted decreases for regional energy needs delaying another regional power transmission project. Specifically, the Susquehanna-Roseland opponents are now citing recent setbacks for similar “reliability projects,” due to reports that power demands are down, and the need for power transmission lines is declining, the opponents say.

In late December, the PATH Allegheny Virginia Transmission Corp. moved to withdraw its 276-mile, $1.8 billion high-voltage transmission line proposal which would run through West Virginia and Virginia. The company says it will resubmit the plans in the fall. The reported reasons are the decreased demand during the recession and energy conservation.

The developments in Virginia could now factor into the Garden State decision. BPU Commissioner Joseph Fiordaliso wrote a letter Wednesday to all the involved parties announcing that the recent PATH request would be factored into the evidence for the Susquehanna-Roseland line. Fiordaliso set a deadline of Jan. 15 for the lawyers in the case to contest the new evidence, or otherwise comment on how it should factor into the pending decision.

Catherine Tamasik, the attorney for a seven-town coalition opposing the lines, said it could be a positive development for her clients — but it was too early to tell what the new evidence inclusion could mean.

“The BPU is certainly aware of the changing energy environment, and they’re going to take a look at it,” she said Friday.

Susquehanna-Roseland Reply Briefs were due yesterday — I’m representing Stop the Lines.

So it’s nap time today…

Here they are!

STL – Reply Brief

STL – Certification & Exhibits

Municipal Intervenors Reply Brief

Environmental Intervenors Reply Brief

Environmental Intervenors – Certification

Environmental Intervenors – Exhibits

Montville Board of Education Reply Brief

New Jersey Rate Counsel Reply Brief

PSEG Reply Brief

Hmmmmmmmmm… I don’t see anything from Exelon…

Happy reading!  Dig some of the exhibits, like the Motion to Withdraw from PATH-VA, the PJM 2010 Load Forecast (which shows demand has been down down down since the peak of 2006), and the sensitivity analysis that shot down PATH in Virginia!

That’s the PATH path…

They’re withdrawing their application, saying they want them timed together — if so, why withdraw, and not just ask for suspension? “It keeps the blood flowing” they say, but I’d say it keeps the blood boiling. Why not just admit it — it’s not needed, and there’s no way they can prove, and now they tacitly admit they can’t even CLAIM it’s needed.

PATH’s site

A decent article from the Leesburg Journal:

PATH Seeks To Withdraw, Suspend Richmond Hearings

By Margaret Morton
(Created: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 7:48 PM EST)

Representatives of PATH-VA filed several motions Monday with the Virginia State Corporation Commission aimed at scuttling-for now-its application to construct the Virginia portion of an almost 280-mile 765kV transmission line that is designed to bring power from West Virginia to Maryland. The venture is a joint partnership between Allegheny Energy and American Electric Power.

First, PATH filed a motion to withdraw its application to build the line in Virginia. Simultaneously, the company sought to suspend the evidentiary hearing that is slated to begin Jan. 19 in Richmond, pending a decision on the motion to withdraw the application.

PATH attorneys indicated the company intends to re-file an application to the SCC next year, based on the most up to date electrical load information available. Those forecasts are scheduled to be released in May.

At the same time, through Allegheny affiliate Potomac Edison Company, the company filed a new application with the Maryland Public Service Commission to build the line and the Kemptown substation in that state. The commission in September had denied the application on grounds PATH did not qualify as an electrical company under Maryland law.

In a statement issued Monday, PATH representative Mark Nitowski said the filings were intended to “align the procedural schedules in Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia to enable “regulators to consider the need for the project based on the same facts.”

Under the current schedule, the Virginia hearings would conclude before similar hearings are held in either Maryland or West Virginia, PATH attorneys said, claiming it would be better for regulators to consider the arguments at the same time.

The date of the Richmond hearings was set in July, and opponents of the line, who next month plan to challenge the company claims that the project is essential to address growing demand for power, expressed frustration over what they saw were simply delaying tactics by PATH to gain time in order to build a more convincing case for need of the 765kV line.

The filings were in line with what PATH attorney Richard Gary, of the Hunton & Williams law firm in Richmond, indicated the company would do during a public hearing last month in Lovettsville.

Attorney John Flannery, who represents the residents of the Rivers Edge subdivision near Lovettsville, had predicted that PATH would invoke procedural gambits to buy the time the company needed to prove need. Although PATH requested more time, both in November and again on Monday, to make its case, it has not explained why its original applications to all three states could not meet the required standard.

SCC Hearing Examiner Alexander Skirpan, who presided over a public hearing in Lovettsville last month, has not ruled on the PATH motion to withdraw. But, he did deny the company’s motion to suspend the January hearings.

The claim that the PATH line is needed to address power capacity shortfalls is at the crux of the struggle and the legal maneuvers come at a time when national electrical statistics show power usage is flat or declining, in part because of increased conservation methods by users and in part because of the economy.

Dominion Virginia Power recently announced it would scale back a line upgrade in southern Loudoun based on new demand forecasts. The company had planned to upgrade from 115kV to 230kV its line between Arcola and Middleburg. Now that upgrade will only extend to a new substation at New Road east of Rt. 15.

The line serves both NOVEC and Dominion customers, but, citing a growth of only 13 percent in its service area, but a 71 percent growth in the NOVEC area, Dominion said it would concentrate its efforts on the four-mile section from Arcola to New Road. The company cited different types of customers and energy conservation measures as factors in its decision.

And need is what Lovettsville-area residents say PATH can’t prove. SCC expert witnesses in the energy field also testified that the company had not met the proof of need test, with one arguing the company had relied on outdated modeling and flawed assumptions.

Alfred Ghiorzi, who has been a prominent figure in the fight against the line, said Tuesday, “I think they’re trying to game the situation again. They can’t prove need, that seems obvious.”

While PATH attorneys said they did not wish to delay the applications unnecessarily, Flannery noted Skirpan has already allowed PATH two extensions of time for rebuttal-from Dec. 22, to Dec. 31 and now to Jan. 4. Flannery said his concern is that a scheduled oral argument set for Dec. 30 would be a “set up” that would provide PATH the opportunity to compress the schedule to favor the company, extending its deadline to file proof of need while reducing the time citizen-intervenors have to examine the PATH testimony.

“PATH’s intention is not to exhaust its remedies, it is to exhaust us and our resources,” Flannery said to property owners.

Ghiorzi took a more philosophical view. “We’ll have to start all over again. It keeps the blood flowing,” he said of the project’s twists and turns.

“HOT” off the press from Stop the Poles!  The Atlantic City Electric substation in southern New Jersy went up in flames today.

And as to the article below, keep in mind that this is one big honkin’ substation — “distribution” — I don’t think so…

How does a substation burn?!?!?!?!?!   Apparently it’s the plastic wall around it that’s on fire, the “sound” wall, but how could that be? How could that burn?  And I’ve heard that emergency crews can’t get near it,they’re on the scene, but aren’t allowed to get close.  That’s them banded together to the left of the line, and that’s the substation on the left.   Must be pretty intense toxic emissions?!?!?!

Here’s another photo:

Fire reported at Atlantic City Electric Co.’s Orchard Substation in Upper Pittsgrove

By Today’s Sunbeam
December 14, 2009, 4:36PM

UPPER PITTSGROVE TWP. — A fire has been reported at Atlantic City Electric’s Orchard Substation on Bridgeton Road here this afternoon.

Several Salem County fire companies have been called to the scene.

One nearby resident told Today’s Sunbeam that those living near the station had been told to temporarily leave their homes, although this could not be immediately confirmed through official channels.

Heavy smoke to could be seen in the area.

The cause of the fire is still unknown.

The new station is part of Atlantic City Electric’s power distribution network in South Jersey.

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

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

(great, can’t upload here, grrrrrrrrrr)

PJM – 2009 3Q State of the Market Report

Page 9 will tell you all about decreased peak demand:

2005          133,761

2006          144,544

2007         139,428

2008         129,481

2009         126,805

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

Here’s a report of yesterday’s festivities:

State told power plan pros, cons

By SETH AUGENSTEIN
saugenstein@njherald.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The opposition attorneys said they were getting the job done.

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

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