Economist Challenges PJM’s Distorted Planning Process

Tomorrow, I’ll be in Annapolis, Maryland, for the Maryland Comprehensive Energy Outlook Advisory Committee Meeting.

My prepared remarks challenge PJM‘s “hair of the dog” approach to climate change adaptation: If heat waves are getting worse because of carbon emissions, heck, just burn some more coal!

“PJM’s ‘transmission-only’ planning process produced an illogical result: In order to meet the growth in peak demand that is partly driven by climate change, we should burn more coal.”

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

3 responses to “Economist Challenges PJM’s Distorted Planning Process

  1. mdenergygal

    Your main issue seems to be with PJM’s tariff. Shouldn’t you be complaining to PJM or to FERC?

  2. John Howley

    MDEnergyGal raises an important point: Project Mountaineer is driven by lucrative incentive rates approved by the Bush-era FERC as requested by AEP-PJM.

    Maryland decision-makers need not accept PJM’s planning outcome at face value and instead should develop a planning process that meets the needs of Marylanders. This would support what should be the PSC’s decision to reject MAPP and PATH because they do not meet the test of need.

    As for public input…PJM is a private business group that is only lightly supervised by FERC (a point made by the GAO in a report last fall).

    Individuals do not have standing to file motions with FERC. FERC never held any public hearings on PATH, TrAIL, or MAPP that I know of.

  3. Pingback: The Pollution of PATH « Maryland Energy Report

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s