Archive for July, 2011

West Virginia urges FirstEnergy to rebuild Pruntytown line

Thursday, July 14th, 2011

According to http://calhounpowerline.com/, in March, both houses of the WV Legislature passed a concurrent resolution, SCR149, urging the WV PSC to order FirstEnergy to rebuild the Pruntytown to Mt. Storm 500 kV transmission line.   Note that this resolution is non-binding, so it is not an order by the legislature.   This line is also the only remaining section of the PJM grid that PJM claims will have any problems, under emergency situations, for the next 20 years, once Dominion’s rebuilding of the Mt. Storm to Doubs line is completed.
WV PSC staff attorney John Auville, filed a petition requesting that the PSC order AEP and FirstEnergy to conduct a report on the condition of their high voltage transmission system in WV, with particular focus on the 40 year old Pruntytown to Mt. Storm line.  Auville wants this report submitted to the PSC within 30 days. To further this point, it is Staffs understanding the Pruntytown-Mt. Storm line recently when out of service due to equipment failure and it did not create any problems for the system, with standard operating procedures remaining in effect.
All we have heard from PJM for the last five years that the world will come to an end of one of its high voltage transmission lines goes down.  Keep in mind that Dominion hasn’t even started replacing the Mt. Storm to Doubs line, so PJM’s system is still the same as it has always been, except for the addition of the TrAIL line that was energized on May 19.  Mr. Auville notes that the decrepit Pruntytown went down and didn’t cause PJM to take any unusual actions in response.  This transmission line can easily be taken off line right now to be rebuilt

PATH Application Withdrawn in Virginia

Thursday, July 14th, 2011

Virginia did allow the withdrawal but with conditions.:
(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.

PATH application withdrawn in Maryland

Thursday, July 14th, 2011

On June 22, 2011, the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) closed case #9223 based on the withdrawl filed by Potomac Edison.  What is important to note is that they can come back in a year’s time and reapply.  In Maryland there are no conditions placed upon a new application.  Click here to read the full ruling.

Admin: Log in