On May 24, the East Virginia State Corporation Commission issued an order dismissing the PATH application in that state. Here is a link to the dismissal order.
Unlike the WV PSC, the SCC placed conditions on AEP/FE should the companies ever want to apply for PATH again in East Virginia. These conditions were taken directly from the recommendations of SCC Hearing Examiner Alexander Skirpan in his April 12 report to the SCC.
These conditions are:
(1) PATH-VA’s Motion to Withdraw should be granted;
(2) PATH-VA should be directed to preserve the analyses underlying the TEAC Slide [A slide from a PJM report on why PATH was not included in PJM’s 2011 Regional Transmission Expansion Plan, also known as the RTEP];
(3) PATH-VA should be directed to file the following information in this docket: (i) the solution of the’Base Case’ and ‘Base Case + Warren’ as text files; (ii) the power flow tests used to identify NERC thermal violations for the’Base Case’and’Base Case +Warren’ scenarios in PSS/e electronic format; (iv [sic])) the results of the studies summarized on the TEAC Slide for the ‘Base Case’ and ‘Base Case + Warren’ in a format and level of detail equivalent to Exhibit Nos. 1-3, of Mr. Paul McGlynn’s prefiled direct testimony in this proceeding ; and (iv) tables of generation loaded into the ‘Base Case’ and ‘Base Case +Warren’ and what generation was reduced in the at-risk scenario. [Alternative scenarios that the SCC had required AEP/FE to provide following attempts by PJM to rig comparisons among various alternatives to PATH.]
(4) Any future application for the PATH Project should include information regarding PJM’s 2012 or later RTEP;
(5) Any future application for the PATH Project should include an analysis of changes in circumstances (as measured from the ‘Base Case’ of the TEAC Slide), including changes in generation,demand response, and energy efficiency resources;
(6) Any future application for the PATH Project should provide information on the PATH Project’s original routes (including routes that do not impact Virginia), consistent with other proposed and alternative routes;
Note in particular that item (4) above requires that AEP/FE must include information from “PJM’s 2012 or later RTEP” in any future application. PJM releases its RTEP for a particular calendar year in February of the following calendar year. This requirement effectively prevents AEP/FE from re-applying for PATH in East Virginia until after February 2013. By then, Dominion’s Mt. Storm to Doubs rebuild project might be nearing completion and Dominion’s huge new combined cycle gas-fired power plant will also be nearing completion, all but making it impossible for PJM to justify a new application for PATH in East Virginia, or anywhere else.