If you have read Jackson Kelly attorneys’ request to delay the WV PSC case again, you will see a reference to PJM’s load forecasts. Here is a link to the 2011 draft PJM load forecast that AEP/Allegheny’s attorneys refer to in their filing.
You’ll learn all you need to know from the Executive Summary. Here are the numbers of projected load in the coming years that PJM will be using in its capacity auctions, compared with PJM’s predictions last year:
Compared to the 2010 Load Report, the new PJM RTO summer peak forecast shows
the following changes for three years of interest:
o The next delivery year – 2011 -2,585 MW (-1.9%)
o The next RPM auction year – 2014 -2,797 MW (-1.9%)
3,090 MW (1.9%) – with ATSI, DEOK
o The next RTEP study year – 2016 -3,925 MW (-2.5%)
1,796 MW (1.1%) – with ATSI, DEOK
The references to ATSI and DEOK refer to new power companies’ load that will be added for the first time in those years. The only load increases are a reflection of adding new power companies to the forecast. Leaving those new companies out shows downward revisions for all years of the auctions’ coverage.
Remember all that sunny testimony about the economic outlook from PJM engineers last year? Here is what they say in this report:
A downward revision to the economic outlook for the PJM area has resulted in lower peak and energy forecasts in this year’s report, compared to the same year in last year’s report.
So, in complete contradiction to PJM’s rosy load growth picture in PATH’s 2009 application to the WV PSC, PJM has been revising those figures downward every year since. And AEP/Allegheny’s lawyers claim that this constant downward revision only prompts a delay of the original inaccurate application?
I don’t think so. Time to start over, boys.