Our recent experiences with the West Virginians for Reliability front guys, reminded me of a post I did last July titled “The System Is Not Outdated, Just Misused”. The post contains a link to an article by Eric Lerner in the journal The Industrial Physicist that explains the reasons why there are problems with today’s transmission grid.
Lerner presents the science, not the propaganda. What does Lerner say? He says that deregulation engineered by big energy traders has caused current grid problems, not old lines or inadequate capacity. We have plenty of transmission capacity to meet our electrical needs. We don’t have capacity for energy traders who are bent on using our grid to generate new sources of profit.
Here is a link to the article. See for yourself.
So if the power companies want West Virginia land owners like the Ives to “get over it,” is this because there is some great national interest in grid reliability?
Or is it really about AEP’s new plans for a national transmission company that gets FERC subsidies and guaranteed profits? Last year, on an investor conference call, AEP CEO Mike Morris documented the losses AEP took as demand for electricity fell. Except for one bright spot –
So Barbarados [ph] commercial office people deserve a great deal of credit. The Energy Trading Group has been conservative but successful.
It really looks like Mr. Morris supports the national interest (sarcasm alert). The AEP Energy Trading Group, the most profitable division of AEP in 2009, is based in Barbados so it doesn’t have to pay US taxes.
So West Virginia land owners can rest assured that they are giving up their land for a “higher interest”, but that isn’t the national interest. The ones benefiting from TrAIL and PATH are the tax dodging power companies like AEP.
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.
Expert testimony on PATH by electrical grid engineer Hyde Merrill has just been filed with the East Virginia State Corporation Commission. Here is a link to Mr. Merrill’s testimony.
If you are an intervenor in the WV PSC PATH case, you need to read Merrill’s testimony carefully. You have been reading for the last year on The Power Line that PATH is not needed. Now, Merrill’s testimony tells us why.
November 17 is the deadline for all intervenors to file their written direct testimony in the WV PSC case. If you do not take advantage of Mr. Merrill’s facts in your own testimony, you will have missed a major opportunity to stop PATH in WV.
Merrill’s testimony will also be filed in the WV case by Nov. 17, but the early filing in East Virginia gives WV intervenors access to his arguments now.
Here is some of what Mr. Merrill reveals about PJM’s black box:
- PJM has recently revised its estimates of projected power flows in its CETO models downward, but has not adjusted its justification for PATH. These lower power flows, if included in the PATH plan, would eliminate several of the NERC violations PJM is claiming.
- Even PJM’s revised CETO values are too high, compared with similar projections used in New York and New England. Merrill points to these higher than industry standard power flow estimates as the main way that PJM has rigged its argument for PATH. Correct CETO values used in PJM modeling would completely eliminate all NERC violations claimed by PJM engineers in the PATH application.
- PJM applies NERC standards incorrectly in its identification of NERC violations.
- By including only demand management actions that have cleared PJM markets, PJM has completely inaccurate power demand estimates for time periods more than three years in the future. PJM essentially eliminates the reductions demand management after 2012, resulting in much higher power flow estimates that would be expected.
- PJM changed its assessment of voltage instability between 2008 and 2009 which resulted in identification of voltage drops appearing for the first time in the PATH argument. Merrill could find no explanation of why this change was made in PJM’s testimony and believes that the changes may have been the result of calculation errors.
- Merrill shows clearly how PJM has rigged how it counts or excludes new east coast power generators to suit its conclusion that PATH is needed. Merrill shows how PJM undercounts new generators that would solve east coast power shortages, but overcounts generators to show how existing circuits are overloaded.
- Investment of a few hundred million dollars in reactive power capacitors and transformers, much of which PJM is already planning to do even if PATH were built, would solve most of PJM’s NERC violations and all of its voltage instability problems.
Intervenors are the only way that citizens of West Virginia can really participate in the PSC decision process. We intervenors have an obligation to make the best case we can against PATH. Hyde Merrill gives us that opportunity.
Now it’s up to us to use what he has provided.
Experts in the East Virginia PATH case before the State Corporation Commission have filed testimony providing a detailed description of why PJM Interconnection’s reasoning about PATH is wrong.
Engineer George Loehr is one of the leading grid reliability experts in the US. In his testimony, Loehr states that PATH is more about profit for AEP/Allegheny than reliability.
PATH would effectively provide a subsidy to existing and future western [PJM] generators – access to the lucrative eastern load centers without cost to themselves. Conversely, the western subsidies would place eastern generators at a significant disadvantage.
Ken Ward has more information about the testimony on Coal Tattoo, plus links to the testimony of Loehr, engineer Hyde Merrill and engineer/economist Robert Fagan.
Here is Mr. Merrill’s conclusion about PATH:
PJM’s planning studies do not justify the PATH line. The vast majority of alleged reliability issues that are presented in support of the PATH line are not based on any modeling or contingency analyses as NERC requires. None of the alleged violations is based on reasonable assumptions regarding the need for power transfer from western to eastern PJM — i.e. reasonable Capacity Emergency Transfer Objective (“CETO”) values. And even if the alleged violations were based on credible analysis — which they are not — none of them creates a present need to build the proposed PATH line. Rejecting PATH now will allow time to develop far better alternatives for the evolution of the power system within PJM’s boundaries.
In contrast, approving this line will lead to increasing reliance by the East Coast on remote coal-fired power plants with continuing or increasing transmission congestion, transmission losses, and a greater risk of cascading blackouts.
Read this remarkable testimony if you want to know in detail why AEP, Allegheny and PJM are wrong about their claimed need for PATH.
In 2008, consulting engineer Hyde Merrill provided testimony to the East VA State Corporation Commission concerning Allegheny Energy/PJM’s TrAIL project that was planned for PA, WV and VA. Mr. Merrill was testifying as an expert on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council, a strong opponent of the line.
I am providing a link to this testimony here, in part 1 and part 2, for three reasons:
- Mr. Merrill completely refutes all the arguments presented by Allegheny Energy and Dominion Virginia Power and PJM in support of the proposed power line.
- Mr. Merrill’s testimony will give PATH intervenors in the WV PSC case a good look at one expert’s testimony in the case.
- While Mr. Merrill’s testimony is somewhat technical, with a little patience, the general reader can begin to understand why both PATH and TrAIL are not needed, even using PJM Interconnection’s own data and now refuted predictions of power demand.
This testimony was about the impact of the TrAIL line specifically on East VA, but almost all the data and arguments are a part of the PATH case as well.
Last summer, George Loehr, an electrical engineer with 45 years experience managing grid operations in New York and the eastern US, testified before the Senate Energy Committee.
That testimony is a clear, complete and succinct statement of why PATH is not a cure for grid reliability problems. In fact, as Mr. Loehr demonstrates, PATH will create many new reliability problems.
The passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) was heralded as a major step forward in improving the grid and reducing the likelihood of large blackouts. One drawback, however, is its almost exclusive focus on transmission. It does not address generating capacity sited close to the load centers, or demand side management programs. These strategies are often preferable to transmission as a means of improving overall system reliability. They have the added benefit of adding to the system’s installed reserve margin. My own experience over the years has indicated that a certain minimum amount of capacity – in the neighborhood of 80% of the peak demand – must be located within a load center to provide voltage/reactive power support, black start capability, network security, etc.
If we wish to address electric power energy issues, we must address them in a more comprehensive manner. At present, the EPAct, and policies adopted thereunder, encourages the construction of new transmission not needed for reliability. It subsidizes remote generators, discriminates against local and distributed generation and demand side resources, forces many customers to pay for someone else’s benefits, increases the likelihood of blackouts, and makes our grids more vulnerable to terrorist attack.
Every single point that Mr. Loehr makes in these introductory paragraphs illustrates why PATH will fail to do what PJM Interconnection and the power companies claim.
Here is a link to Mr. Loehr’s complete testimony. It is a complete education on how to fix our electrical grid from one of the leading experts in North America. (The original link just to Loehr’s testimony no longer works. The current link is to the entire transcript of the Senate hearing. Mr. Loehr’s testimony begins on page 86.)