Today the PA OCA provided the results of months of expert analysis of PJM, Transource, and outside evidence. They provided testimony from three expert witnesses that all agreed that the IEC is a terrible idea. In fact, they concluded that the application should be rejected by the PUC “with prejudice”, a term reserved for those occasions when a conclusion is so obvious that the other party deserves a rebuke.
Here are some of their findings:
- PJM never considered how much HARM would come to ratepayers in the areas where power would be taken away. Put simply, taking power from Pennsylvania will leave less (inexpensive) power available, resulting in a higher rate for the power that is left. I quote: “only those regions that would experience reduced costs were included in the calculation. All regions whose costs would increase as a result of the project were simply ignored.” (Rubin testimony p. 27)
- When we subtract the “losers” from the “winners” to find out the net savings of the project, the latest data from PJM shows a grid-wide savings of just $17 million over 15 years. (Rubin testimony p 36)
- Transource has been claiming a cost of $366 million to construct the project, but the net present value cost is actually $498 million. (page 37)
- So PJM would like us to spend $500 million in order to save $17 million. Make sense, right?(page 39)
- Pennsylvania rate payers would be stuck with $24 million per year over 15 years. (page 43)
- The IEC would generate 3 cents of savings for every dollar spent on it (page 47)
- The “congested” area that the IEC would try to fix, has experienced a 95% reduction in congestion since the IEC was proposed to fix it. In the last three years, system-wide congestion has decreased over 60%. In other words, the problem doesn’t really exist there any longer (Lanzoletta page 17)
- There are huge proposed changes to the support and costs of coal, nuclear, and renewable sources. PJM did not attempt to quantify their effects (Lanzoletta page 19)
- The existing 230kV lines owned by BGE and PPL that run on either side of the IEC-east could be used as alternatives (Lanzoletta page 21)
- PJM did not evaluate those lines, because they were not proposed, and PJM does not maintain an inventory of existing lines’ unused capacity, nor would they have evaluated them even if they had the inventory (Lanzoletta page 21).
- Non-transmission alternatives exist. If Virginia, DC, and Maryland are successful in hitting their targets for load reduction, they could save the equivalent of one moderate-sized utility. The IEC would not be needed.
So where do we go from here? We’ll see… but there is no doubt that we are headed in the right direction!
OCA Direct Testimony of Scott Rubin Statement 1
OCA Direct Testimony of Peter Lanzalotta Statement No 2[9833]