Today, AEP/Allegheny’s front company PATH-VA filed an amendment to their recent motion to withdraw their East Virginia PATH application.
The information in this amendment is stunning!
The power companies now say that PJM Interconnection’s 2010 RTEP revision will state that PATH is NOT needed by 2014 as PJM claimed last year. As a result, the power companies claim that if they are allowed to withdraw their VA application, they would not re-apply until the third quarter of 2010, at the earliest.
Here is an extended quote from this filing:
On December 4,2009, the Hearing Examiner requested that PATH-VA supplement the record in this proceeding with the results of additional load flow analyses. PJM has diligently
pursued these sensitivity analyses, as requested by the Hearing Examiner. These sensitivity analyses, particularly Scenarios 3 and 4, include updated changes in generation projects with
signed Interconnection Service Agreements, anticipated demand response and new energy efficiency resources that cleared the May 2009 RPM auction, and the 2009 load forecast (Scenario 3) and the recently released preliminary updated 2010 load forecast (Scenario 4). Although not fully completed, PJM’s work has progressed to a point where, under Scenarios 3 and 4, the analysis indicates that the PATH Project would not be needed to resolve NERC reliability violations in 2014, as identified in the pending application. Consistent with its regional transmission planning responsibilities, PJM will incorporate the sensitivity analysis as noted above and perform a complete analysis through the more comprehensive 2010 RTEP process to determine when the PATH Project will be needed. The sensitivity analyses noted above, are not comprehensive and are not sufficient for the purpose of determining a need date for the project.PJM has acknowledged these results to PATH-VA and has stated:
“PJM is, at this time, completing a number of sensitivity
analyses, as ordered by the Hearing Examiner in the Virginia
proceeding, Case No. PUE-2009-00043, with respect to the need
for the PATH Project. These analyses are nearing completion but
suggest a delay in the need date for the Project. Specifically,
scenarios that include the demand response resources that cleared
through the 2012/1 3 RPM Base Residual Anction, as well as
updated queue information and load forecasts, suggest that the
PATH Project appears not to be needed in 2014 as a result of a
reduction in the scope and severity of observed NERC reliability
violations. Consistent with PJM processes, the PATH Project will
be considered in the 2010 RTEP next year to determine when it
will be needed to resolve NERC reliability violations.” (Letter to
James R. Haney, Vice President, PATH Allegheny Virginia
Transmission Corporation and Michael Heyeck, Senior Vice
President -Transmission, American Electric Power Service
Corporation from Steven R. Herling, Vice President of Planning,
PJM Interconnection L.L.c., dated December 28,2009.)These new developments raise questions about the ability of PATH-VA to support the Application now on file with the Commission that is based on a need for the PATH Project in 2014.
Here is the footnote from this page that refers to PATH-VA’s future plans:
Although the Motion stated that PATH-VA’s intention was to file a new application for the Project in early 2010, there is no intention now to do so. PJM’s ongoing review including the 2010 process will dictate when a future application for the Project will be filed and that is not expected to be earlier than the third quarter of 2010.
In other words, when the VA PSC forced PJM to do a real world analysis instead of their goofy simulations, it turns out that we don’t need PATH, certainly in 2014 as PJM claimed, and maybe never.
Keep in mind that AEP/Allegheny just a few days ago re-filed their application in Maryland without including the revised need analysis that PJM had done in East Virginia. PATH-VA is owned by Allegheny. How could PATH-VA know about it and Allegheny’s wholly owned subsidiary Potomac Edison not know before they re-filed their Maryland application? The MD PSC should be asking Allegheny why they withheld this important information from their MD application.
The Power Line 