"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you,
then they fight you, then you win." -- Mohandas Gandhi
From Thursday’s Washington Post:
The governors of Virginia, Maryland and Delaware have announced a partnership designed to promote and coordinate the development of wind energy off the mid-Atlantic coast.
Officials in the three states said that by working together, they hope to advance the construction of power lines and advocate jointly for federal legislation that would help pave the way for what many expect will become a critical source of electricity for coastal communities.
In a joint statement last week, the three governors said offshore wind energy would help meet the region’s electricity needs while doing the least harm to the environment. They also highlighted its potential to create jobs. In Virginia, officials estimate, construction of wind farms offshore and on land would create more than 3,000 jobs over the next two decades.
Here is a link to the entire article.
These governors need to figure out if they want offshore wind power or coal fired power through PATH. They can’t have both. If the governors of MD and VA allow PATH to be built, they will flood the east coast with “cheap” power that will eliminate the market viability of electricity from offshore wind. They have to choose. Rhetoric isn’t enough.
The article contains one misleading statement. It refers to offshore wind as a source of power for “coastal communities.” There is enough generating potential off the east coast to power much more than “coastal communities.” Fully developed wind farms off the Atlantic coast could power all the major cities from Portland, ME to Key West, FL and provide power for export to inland cities.
The East Virginia SCC hearing in Lovettsville, VA didn’t end until 11:20 Thursday night, so no newspapers reported on it until this morning. Here is a link to the report on the hearing in Leesburg Today.
The Leesburg Today article doesn’t mention it, but a significant number of WV and MD citizens attended the Lovettsville hearing and testified against PATH. Only two people testified in support of the line, and one of them had completely confused PATH with the already approved TrAIL line which also runs through Loudoun County, VA.
Note that the VA SCC hearing examiner said he would make a decision on the VA SCC staff’s motion to dismiss the PATH case “within days”. There has been no decision on dismissal or delay by the WV PSC either.
Delaying a decision only works in the power companies’ favor, especially in WV, because the WV PSC, by law, must make a decision on the PATH certificate of need in 400 days. Almost two months have run off that 400 day clock since the MD PSC dismissed the MD PATH application, eliminating PATH’s eastern terminus.
If the WV PSC decides to dismiss the PATH application outright, that is not a problem. If the WV Commissioners accept the power companies’ demand to only delay the case deadline, then they will have lost 60 days of their required 400 day decision period.
No state or federal agency has yet done an independent analysis of PJM Interconnection’s claims about the need for the PATH power line. Now we have such an analysis in the form of written testimony filed in the VA SCC case by Robert Fagan, Hyde Merrill and George Loehr, leading national experts on transmission operation and grid reliability.
Richard Klein, a consultant to community groups based in Maryland, has just written an excellent summary of their testimony with a point by point comparison to the claims made by PJM/AEP/Allegheny in their public statements and PSC applications.
If you want to get up to speed quickly on what independent experts say about PATH, Klein’s summary will do it for you. Here is a link to Klein’s summary.
Klein also shows clearly how the current state PSC processes do not do a very good job of assessing the value or feasibility of projects like PATH. He calls for a much more comprehensive energy planning process at the state level to protect citizens and rate payers from corporate boondoggles and federal interference.
If you want to educate your local legislators, county commissioners and newspapers about the PATH situation, download Klein’s report and print copies for them. All of us who are trying to stop PATH need to get this information in front of anyone who will read it.
I have included a link to Klein’s report in the right hand column under Educate Yourself About the Facts so you can find it quickly in the future.
Yesterday was the deadline set by the WV PSC for all pleadings concerning the dismissal or delay of the PATH case. Two pleadings stand out.
AEP/Allegheny “revised” their “proposal” once again. Here is a link to their “revision.” The PSC’s “untenable morass” comment in its order last week appears to have had an impact on the power companies. They have dropped their “conditions” and stated they no longer want to bifurcate the case schedule. They couldn’t just drop it completely, though, because they included a reference to it in a footnote.
The power companies also accepted the PSC staff’s recommendation to extend the case deadline by 247 days, not the 217 days they initially requested. The PSC staff, although willing to accept delay, is still insisting on dismissal as the best solution to the problem that the power companies have created in Maryland.
The other excellent pleading that you should read was filed by the Sierra Club/WV Highlands Conservancy. Here is the link to the memorandum filed by the SC/WVHC. The memorandum makes a clear and detailed argument that the power companies created the current mess by failing to answer the MD PSC’s questions promptly and clearly and should not be allowed to dictate the terms of a solution.
SC/WVHC also point out that their expert testimony in the VA SCC case that is now public utterly destroys claims by PJM/AEP/Allegheny that PATH is needed. Delaying the WV case, when we have no idea what the power companies plan to do in Maryland, makes no sense. Delay only gives PJM and the power companies time to “adjust” their “planning” to address the killer evidence presented by independent engineers Robert Fagan, Hyde Merrill and George Loehr.
SC/WVHC say in their memorandum that we should start all over with a revised application in all three states. SC/WVHC state that power company claims that they will file something somewhere by December 31 is just more smoke and mirrors and does nothing to resolve any of the problems created by the power companies in Maryland.
The best solution would be to dismiss applications in WV and VA and let the power companies re-apply when they have told us what they will do in MD.
It looks like round one in the Susquehanna-Roseland fight went to the power companies. In this case PPL (the energy conglomerate in PA that used to stand for Pennsylvania Power and Light) applied to the PA Public Utility Commission for permission to build the Pennsylvania section of the power line.
In PA, the Public Utility Commission process starts with an administrative law judge (ALJ) hearing evidence in the case. The ALJ in the Susquehanna-Roseland case just issued a ruling recommending to the five person PA PUC that the Pennsylvania section of the line be approved. Here is a link to a newspaper article on the ruling.
The line’s New Jersey section still must be approved in that state. Gov. Corzine, a supporter of the Susquehanna-Roseland line, was just defeated by Republican Chris Christie, whose campaign included some statements against the power line project. Now we will see if new Gov. Christie will follow through on his campaign rhetoric.
Opponents of Susquehanna-Roseland are still on their feet in Pennsylvania. They will still have a chance to make their case to challenge the ALJ’s recommendation in front of the entire five-person PUC.
West Virginians should be following the Susquehanna-Roseland case closely. We will be paying for the project under the same federally imposed rate scheme that would be used to force us to pay for PATH. Susquehanna-Roseland is the northeastern end of what PJM/AEP had originally planned as a single project stretching from the Ohio River Valley into New York.
The Problem with Giving Eminent Domain Power to Private Corporations
Here’s the story today in the New York Times.
Eight years ago, the US Supreme Court upheld the right of New London, Connecticut to give the power of eminent domain to Pfizer, the huge drug corporation. In the landmark case of Kelso v. New London, the Supreme Court justices approved the radical step of allowing private corporations the right to condemn and take private property from other property owners.
As a result, Pfizer destroyed a residential neighborhood in New London and destroyed people’s homes. Yesterday, Pfizer announced they are closing their New London office park and moving 1400 jobs out the city. Those “jobs” were a big part of the reason New London pushed for granting Pfizer eminent domain. So much for that.
This is exactly why you don’t give private corporations or individuals the right to take other people’s property. This is not a “public purpose.”
Corporations, like people, have bad ideas. They change their minds. They have dumb projects that won’t work. Like PATH.
Eminent domain is not a privilege that should be conferred lightly by legislatures and courts — or Public Service Commissions.
Citizens in Upshur County are planning to attend the Upshur County Commission meeting at 10:15 on Thursday, Nov. 12. They will be encouraging the Commission to remain active in their role as intervenors in the WV PSC case. If you can attend the Commission meeting, please do so and offer your ideas about how the Commission can best represent Upshur County citizens in the PATH case.
Upshur County citizens are taking a leading role in telling the truth about PATH in the media. Here is a letter to the editor published yesterday in the Charleston Daily Mail from Rhonda Brooks of Buckhannon.
Letters to the editor are essential tools for fighting the propaganda and paid advertising that AEP/Allegheny put in every local newspaper throughout the state.
In addition to the WV PSC’s order, the WV PSC staff filed their response to AEP/Allegheny’s scheme for tolling the case deadline and bifurcating the case.
Here is a link to the staff’s filing.
The most interesting part of the document for me was the staff’s reference to the power companies’ shiny .44 that they laid on the table last week. Apparently, the WV PSC staff is ready to call their bluff.
Here is what they said today:
Adding further uncertainty is the Applicants’ assertion they may re-file with FERC. The implications of a FERC filing are profound and certain to lead to extensive and time-consuming litigation in the Federal Court system as to whether FERC can assert jurisdiction or if the federal backstop provision is even constitutional. If the decision is made to file with the FERC, it could be several years before a decision is made in Maryland’. [emphasis mine]
In other words, “Go ahead, punk, make my day.”
The WV PSC issued an order this evening that includes the following response to the Staff’s motion to dismiss and the power companies’ suggestion to create two separate case schedules:
After a preliminary analysis, given the size and complexity of this case, the attempt to split the issues for purposes of either hearing or testimony may create an untenable morass.However, the Commission is willing to consider further argument on this point.
At present, the Commission is prepared to do two things. First, the Commission will suspend the current procedural schedule, as contained in the September 4,2009 order. In particular, this means that the Staff and Intervenors will not be required to submit pre-filed testimony on November 17, 2009. If the Commission does not grant the Staff motion to dismiss, the Commission will issue a revised procedural schedule.
Second, the Commission will grant the parties until 12:00 noon, Tuesday November 17,2009, for the purpose of filing a final response to the Staff motion to dismiss and offer to toll tendered by the Applicants. As to the Applicants’ filing, the Commission would be interested in receiving recommendations for a workable procedural schedule that does not require separating the testimony between need and non-need issues.
So it looks like the PSC agrees with most of the parties that bifurcating the case would create a procedural “morass.” That is an excellent description of what would happen if the case were split as the power companies suggested.
Beyond that, we don’t know much, except that the PSC has decided to change next week’s deadline for testimony. With all responses on dismissal or tolling to be filed by next Tuesday, it looks as though we should have a final PSC order on the issues raised by the Staff and the power companies by the end of next week.
WV land owners who earlier signed agreements with AEP/Allegheny to allow surveying for the PATH line, even though no decision on the line is due from the PSC until June 22, 2010, are beginning to notify the power companies and the WV PSC that they have changed their minds.
Here is the latest notification that the power companies will not be permitted to survey for the PATH line until it is approved by the PSC.
Last Friday, AEP/Allegheny made a motion in the VA SCC PATH case to delay the VA procedural schedule with essentially the same conditions they requested in WV to separate the issue of whether PATH is needed from all other issues in the case.
Here is a link to the motion in East Virginia.
The power companies make a very clear threat in their motion that if the VA SCC tries to delay the case without the power companies’ other conditions, AEP/Allegheny will remove the case from East Virginia and apply to FERC. Their hand is on the long barreled .44.
The Plot Thickens – Power Companies Notify MD PSC That They Will Re-Apply by 12/31/2009
AEP/Allegheny filed additional information concerning their motion to delay the PATH case in WV. This supplemental information consisted of a letter to the MD PSC from power company lawyers. This is the text of that letter in its entirety:
Please be advised that The Potomac Edison Company intends to submit a filing to the Commission regarding the construction of the Maryland portion of the Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline Project to the Commission by December 3 1 , 2009. The filing will be submitted in a new case and not in the above-referenced case.
Note that the letter states that Potomac Edison will be the applicant, not PATH Allegheny. Does that mean that Potomac Edison will own and operate the MD portion of PATH, not PATH Allegheny? What will happen to the FERC approved rate scheme which includes the 14.3% profit incentive that was awarded to PATH Allegheny and not Potomac Edison?
More important for us in WV, what will the WV PSC do now that we know MD’s application won’t be refiled for another two months? We don’t know what they are planning in MD until we see the application. Can the WV PSC take their word for it and proceed with the WV case? Or should we all wait and see where the PATH line is going to end up?
AEP/Allegheny didn’t ask the WV PSC to do anything more than they already asked for last week. They just filed the Maryland letter.
Here’s a link to the full filing today by AEP/Allegheny in WV.
Think back to last summer as you consider AEP/Allegheny’s claim that they will file in MD by 12/31/2009. Last summer, the power companies insisted they would be applying for PATH in WV in October 2008. They didn’t apply until May 15, 2009. Deadlines are a a little iffy with AEP/Allegheny.
Some time has passed since the legal staff of the WV PSC filed their motion to dismiss the PATH case. Since then, AEP/Allegheny filed a response that requested a 217 day delay in the case.
Other parties are beginning to file their responses to the power companies’ request to delay the case.
First, let’s look more closely at the power companies’ request for delay or “tolling” of the 400 day limit to the PATH case. AEP/Allegheny requested the delay, but put certain conditions on the delay. They would only agree to delay the case if the case were divided, or “bifurcated” as lawyers say, into two cases. One case would deal only with evidence regarding the need for PATH. The other case would deal with all other issues. The “need” case would be delayed by the requested 217 days, while the deadline for presentation of evidence on all other issues would remain at the current Nov. 17, 2009, about a week away.
This condition, of course, is absurd. The power companies are the only party to the case that believes that the PATH line can be judged on the basis of whether it is needed or not without connecting the question of need to the costs that West Virginians will bear. The PSC must weigh both costs and benefits of PATH and almost all parties to the case do not see any division between the need issue and any other issues in the case.
The bifurcation of the case is also absurd, because the PSC Commissioners cannot possibly enforce the separation of issues. If an intervenor includes references to need in his or her Nov. 17 testimony, will the Commissioners go through all the written testimony and cross out references to need?
Originally, the PSC staff requested a delay of the case without conditions or a dismissal of the case. The frivolous conditions requested by the power companies would seem to leave the Commissioners with dismissal as their only alternative.
Three parties to the case, Tucker County Landowners, the Jefferson County Intervenors’ Group and J.C. Baker & Son, Inc. have proposed a third alternative. Tucker County Landowners and the Jefferson County Intervenors’ Group have filed a joint response which calls for a tolling of the case immediately so the PSC and the parties can come to a decision about what should happen in the WV case in light of the dismissal of the MD PSC case. J.C. Baker & Son, Inc. has requested a tolling of the entire case for a time determined by the PSC which adjusts the entire case schedule, without bifurcating the case either by issues or by schedule which does not give preference to the power companies’ view of the case.
Meanwhile, the clock keeps ticking. We are approaching the halfway point in the legally required 400 days allotted for the PATH case. If the case cannot be completed in the 400 days, currently set for June 22, 2010, the PATH certificate of need will automatically be granted. Those of us in the case are also facing our first deadline for submitting testimony in less than ten days.
It is clear that the PSC needs to act immediately as the staff and the other parties have requested. Any further delay gives a significant advantage to AEP/Allegheny by allowing them to run out the clock with no progress in the case.
We should find out this week if the PATH case will be dismissed, delayed or will continue as planned.
AEP/Allegheny just responded to the WV PSC staff motion of last week by asking the WV PSC to toll the deadline for a decision on PATH by 217 days from June 22, 2010 back to January 25, 2011.
In their motion to dismiss the PATH case last week, the PSC legal staff also gave the power companies an alternative. Under WV law, which is heavily slanted to favor the power companies, the PSC must make a decision on a certificate of need in 400 days or the certificate is automatically granted. Only the power companies, in this case “the applicant,” can ask for a delay or a “tolling” of this deadline.
Rather than risking a complete dismissal of the case, the power companies blinked and decided to ask for a delay.
The three Commissioners still have to issue a ruling on both the staff’s motion and the power companies’ motion to delay the case. So far, nothing has been decided. Only motions have been filed. The Commissioners have not issued an order to finalize their decision.
If you read the power companies’ motion, note that they attached their response to the East Virginia SCC staff’s motion to dismiss in their WV motion. This seems very odd, unless you realize that they wanted the WV PSC to see that shiny long barreled .44 that the power companies laid on the table in East Virginia.
They couldn’t resist flashing the big iron in WV as well. Note this from the body of the power companies’ WV filing:
Potomac Edison’s decision on re-application for approval of the Maryland Segments and the Kemptown Substation will be announced in the near future. Whether this filing is made with the Maryland Commission or with FERC, it will assuredly confirm the Kemptown Substation as the eastern terminus of the PATH Project.
The delay in the WV case is definitely a sign of the power companies’ weakness in WV. However, this may just be one more step in moving the entire case to the federal level, pushing aside all state regulators and citizens.
Will the political leaders of WV, VA and MD stand with us against PATH if the power companies go to FERC? We shall see.
The collapse of US manufacturing has changed the face of the US coal industry. There is falling US demand for steam coal (to produce electricity) and metallurgical coal (to make steel). This is beginning to look like a long term trend. Here is a link to an AP article today explaining current trends.
We are entering a period of rising coal prices, driven by coal exports, and lower natural gas prices. In the last year, there has been a dramatic shift in electrical power production from coal to natural gas. Coal is now producing less than 47% of all electricity consumed in the US. Just two years ago, this figure was more than 50%. There is further discussion of coal/natural gas differences on The Power Line here.
Natural gas is used primarily for domestic heating, cooking and electricity production because the US has no capability to export natural gas. Coal is easily exported, so domestic coal prices are influenced much more by international markets. There is basically no basic steel industry in the US anymore to use US metallurgical coal. That is not true of Asia, where steel production is rising again, pulling US coal export prices higher.
US coal producers have shifted their production from steam coal to metallurgical coal and supplies of steam coal in the US are falling. As steam coal supply falls, prices rise for steam coal as well as metallurgical coal.
WV electricity users have seen this trend recently as both AEP and Allegheny Energy asked for, and got, rate increases of more than ten percent from the WV PSC. AEP has made it clear that it will return to the PSC for the next two years for similar increases.
PJM Interconnection’s argument for PATH and TrAIL is based on low coal prices and rising peak demand on the east coast. The huge new power lines make even less sense now that it is much cheaper for east coast power companies to build and operate their own natural gas fired power plants.
John Howley reports here that:
The falling trend of Maryland’s net imports of electricity provides little support for the nightmare vision of impending blackouts and brownouts. Maryland’s power imports fell from 24,715 GWh in 2003 to 20,505 in 2007. The severe economic recession of the past year has likely reduced imports further.
As it turns out, MD didn’t even need PATH even before the current economic collapse. 4 gigawatt hours of power is a lot of electricity. When they do need it again, natural gas will be the choice to generate it, not imports of coal fired power along huge power lines.
