The story’s headline is “PATH Power Line Could Be Back on Track by this Summer.”
But here’s what PJM’s Steve Herling is quoted as saying in the article:
“If we determine through analysis that we don’t need a line in the foreseeable future, we would remove it from the RTEP,” Herling said of PATH. “Or, we could pin a new in-service date on it. It would be removed from ‘suspended’ status and the transmission owners would have to re-engage with the states.”
So a more accurate headline would have been: “PATH Power Line Could Be Back on Track by this Summer — Or Not.”
Reporter Pam Kasey has done a great job covering power line issues, it’s a shame whoever puts headlines on her stories is not up to her standard.
The real news in the piece is that:
PJM will make a recommendation about PATH to its board of managers in June or July. It will make its recommendation based on information gleaned in the first part of the year about planned generation construction and retirements and about consumer commitments to reduce demand during peak periods.
The fact that PJM is going to make any decision in June or July is the news, not that they are going to decide one way or the other. There is absolutely no information in Kasey’s story about what decision PJM would make.
Ms. Kasey does an excellent job of summarizing PJM’s plans to overhaul their transmission planning process, as well as the entirely new environment in which PATH will be evaluated, given that demand management and new generation on the East Coast has undercut all of PJM’s past rationale for PATH. We have been covering all of these issues here on The Power Line, and Keryn has been covering them over at StopPATH WV.
This is one more smoke signal from the mysterious PJM citadel indicating what may be coming up this summer.