Finds lack of permit for one segment of line should not delay entire project

Update courtesy of Utility Regulatory News #4034: The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has upheld a decision by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in which it issued a certificate of construction to an electric utility for a new high-voltage transmission line, even though the utility had not yet obtained from federal authorities a separate permit for one section of the line.

At issue was a proposal from PPL Electric Utilities Corp. for the construction of a new transmission line and associated substation in Lackawanna County. The utility averred that it had developed its plan in response to a directive from the PJM Interconnection that PPL identify a new transmission route that could alleviate a potential overload situation between Pennsylvania and New Jersey. In the course of siting the new line, PPL had determined that it would be prudent to concurrently upgrade an existing line that runs from Wallenpaupack to Bushkill. However, a portion of that line goes through the Delaware Water Gap Recreation Area (DEWA), such that a permit from the National Park Service is required for that particular line segment. When the commission granted the certificate requested by PPL, the commission took note of the fact that the utility’s DEWA permit was still pending, leading the commission to caution that PPL was being authorized to begin work only on non-DEWA portions of the line. Upon a challenge by a conservation group that the commission should not have allowed the utility to commence work on any aspect of the project until all necessary certificates and permits were in hand, the court agreed with the commission that the absence of the DEWA permit should not preclude the utility from working on non-DEWA sections of the line.

Observing that the PJM directive expected PPL to have new transmission capacity in place by 2012, and that additional delay would clearly cause the utility to miss that deadline, the court said that the commission had acted neither arbitrarily nor capriciously in authorizing the company to initiate work on non-DEWA line segments. The court found that the commission had properly balanced environmental, social, cost, and time factors and had reached a well-reasoned and well-supported conclusion. For the full story, subscribe to URN.

Posted: September 13th, 2011 under reliability.
Comments: none

Pepco had previously been warned about its performance

Update courtesy of Utility Regulatory News #4029: Finding that the level of citizen complaints about frequent and prolonged power outages remained unacceptable, the District of Columbia Public Service Commission has adopted more stringent performance standards for the sole electric utility in the District, Potomac Electric Power Co. (Pepco). The commission stated that existing performance benchmarks had proven ineffective in inducing the kind of service improvement the commission had anticipated when the original reliability standards had been established. Consequently, the commission deemed it necessary to enact stronger reliability requirements.

Under the new rules, Pepco is required to make steady progress year over year as to both the frequency and the duration of service interruptions. More specifically, the commission enacted new baseline values for both the System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI) and the System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI). The SAIFI is set at 1.13 for 2013 and the SAIDI at 2.68 for that year. Thereafter, Pepco must reduce its SAIFI level by 3.4% annually and its SAIDI level by 9.3% per year. The commission said it wanted the utility’s SAIFI to be no higher than 0.89 by 2020 and its SAIDI to be at or below 1.35 by that year.

The commission contemplated, but ultimately decided against, additional civil penalties for missing the SAIFI or SAIDI targets, finding present penalty provisions adequate. However, the commission warned the utility that it remains extremely concerned about the company’s service record and that its determination on penalties could be revisited if the utility does not show marked signs of improvement. For the full story, subscribe to URN.

Posted: August 25th, 2011 under reliability.
Comments: none