EC September 2008

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

9 participants
20 discussions

Re: [EC] Fwd: DeWeese Comments
by Jim Sconyers 26 Sep '08

26 Sep '08

Let's talk to them ... can't hurt, can it? Especially with the PA decision(s) in hand. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Original Message ---- From: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> To: ec(a)osenergy.org Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 11:17:11 AM Subject: [EC] Fwd: DeWeese Comments Here is what the Majority Leader of the WV House of Representatives said about TrAILCo. Can we get WV legislators to do something similar? JBK >>> Letty Butcher <multiflora123(a)yahoo.com> 9/25/2008 10:51 PM >>> http://stopaptrail.org/images/DeWeese_Reply_to_Exceptions.pdf _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec

2 1

Re: [EC] Fw: TrailCo NMF revised
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 26 Sep '08

26 Sep '08

Holly There has been no decision by the PSC on our Petition for Reconsideration, and the thirty days for an appeal has not yet begun to run. I have attached seven documents relating to the FOIA requests. The first three documents relate to the request to the PSC and consist of: (1) Sierra's April 17 2008 FOIA request, (2) the PSC Commissioners' May 1, 2008 Vaughn index of records withheld by the Commissioners themselves, and (3) the PSC General Counsel's May 2, 2008 transmission of the PSC documents (1128 from staff) and the Vaughn Index from the Commissioners. The last four documents all relate to the FOIA request to Gov Manchin: (4) is the FOIA request itself, (5) is the Governor's initial response, (6) is our letter explaining is some detail the basis for our request for a Vaughn index, and (7) is the Gov's acknowledgement of the request for a Vaughn statement. I believe we should file the suit in both instances. The case against the Governor is straight forward -- a Vaughn statement is necessary to sustain his burden of proof. The PSC case over the documents withheld pursuant to the Vaughn index is obviously harder. The question is not whether they have concealed documents which are not listed on the index. The question is whether the assertion of the claims of exemption in the index are valid, and even if so, whether there are nonetheless reasonably segregable materials that can be released. There is never any certainty in a challenge to an assertion of exemptions, but the failure to seek in camera review by a Court basically licenses the respondent to take aggressive and unwarranted license with limited exemptions. Especially when tied to the duty to segregate exempt from non-exempt, the challenge is warranted. Please call if there are any further questions. Bil On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:51 PM, <Holly.Bressett(a)sierraclub.org> wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > Just making sure I didn't miss your message about TrailCo. I haven't > worked on getting authorization for the PUC appeal or the two FOIA cases > because I am waiting for your responses to my questions regarding the FOIA > issues. I want to be sure that the 30-day timer hasn't started on our > appeal of the PUC decision. Did they rule on our motion for reconsideration > yet? > > Holly > > Holly Bressett > Environmental Law Fellow > Sierra Club Environmental Law Program > 85 Second St., 2nd Floor > San Francisco, CA 94105 > (415) 977-5646 (phone) > (415) 977-5793 (fax) > > > *"William V. DePaulo, Esq." <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com>* > > 09/10/2008 12:12 PM > To > Holly.Bressett(a)sierraclub.org > cc > Subject > Re: Fw: TrailCo NMF revised > > > > > Holly > > I am out of town until next Wed and will try to get back to you then with > more detail on the FOIA requests. > > Bill > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:21 AM, <*Holly.Bressett(a)sierraclub.org*<Holly.Bressett(a)sierraclub.org>> > wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > I've been holding off on TrailCo in anticipation of your answers to my > questions below. Jim told me you were at the DNC so this may have gotten > buried in your inbox. Please get back to me when you can. Thanks, > > Holly > > Holly Bressett > Environmental Law Fellow > Sierra Club Environmental Law Program > 85 Second St., 2nd Floor > San Francisco, CA 94105 > (415) 977-5646 (phone) > (415) 977-5793 (fax) > ----- Forwarded by Holly Bressett/Sierraclub on 09/10/2008 09:21 AM ----- > > *Holly Bressett/Sierraclub* > > 08/27/2008 11:00 AM > > To > "William V. DePaulo, Esq." <*william.depaulo(a)gmail.com*<william.depaulo(a)gmail.com> > > cc > "Jim Sconyers" <*jim_scon(a)yahoo.com* <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com>> Subject > Re: Fw: TrailCo NMF revised*Link*<Notes:///882573400081B039/836E2FFC0D1E63358825749F007855E9/B9F0E5BA5FCFAF44882574AC007FA33D> > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > I understand the claim that the Governor's office should have provided a > Vauhgn index but the claim against the commission seems like a stretch. Did > the index identify and describe the documents? Of course, FOIA is not > foolproof but in my experience, it seems like there is nothing else to get > unless we know of specific documents that were witheld and not put on the > index. If you could elaborate on your thinking that would help me > understand what the claim is. If you have statutory cites or case law that > might be best. > > Is your plan to file the FOIA cases right away and then wait for the > decision on reconsideration before filing in state court? When is the > soonest you would want to file the FOIA requests. Sorry, I'm totally > swamped right now and just trying to prioritize things. Let me know if this > should go to the top of my list! > > Holly > > Holly Bressett > Environmental Law Fellow > Sierra Club Environmental Law Program > 85 Second St., 2nd Floor > San Francisco, CA 94105 > (415) 977-5646 (phone) > (415) 977-5793 (fax) > > *"William V. DePaulo, Esq." <**william.depaulo(a)gmail.com*<william.depaulo(a)gmail.com> > *>* > > 08/21/2008 04:13 PM > > To > *Holly.Bressett(a)sierraclub.org* <Holly.Bressett(a)sierraclub.org>, "Jim > Sconyers" <*jim_scon(a)yahoo.com* <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com>>, "Jim Kotcon" <* > jkotcon(a)wvu.edu* <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu>>, "Barbara Fallon" <* > brbr_fallon(a)yahoo.com* <brbr_fallon(a)yahoo.com>>, "WV Chapter Energy > Committee" <*EC(a)osenergy.org* <EC(a)osenergy.org>> cc > Subject > Re: Fw: TrailCo NMF revised > > > > > > > Holly > > Both FOIA requests were filed under the state FOIA which is almost a > verbatim reproduction of the federal statute. In short, we do not have an > option to sue anywhere except in state court. > > PSC - requested all documents pertaining to the April 15, 2008 Joint > Stipulation -- the document in which PSC Staff withdrew its opposition in > exchange for a laundry list of financial and other incentives. > > PSC Staff produced all documents (1100+) responsive to request, as did CAD > (700+). > > The Commissioners produced a relatively small number of documents and > issued a Vaughn index for the balance. Without seeing the docs it is > impossible to assess whether the exemptions asserted -- deliberative > privilege for internal communications -- is validly asserted. > > GOVERNOR - requested ALL documents pertaining to TrAILCo proposal, not > merely those relating to April 15 Joint Stip. Governor produced 1100+ > documents, most relating to tax he wants to impose on the transmission line > if and when built. Importantly, the Gov office refused to produce a Vaughn > index. Without such an index they cannot sustain their burden of proof, as > all documents are presumed non-exempt unless and until an exemption is > asserted and substantiated by an index. > > PSC Appeal -- far and away the biggest matter the PSC did not address was > CO2 emissions. The PSC took the position that the proposed transmission > line was "electron neutral," i.e., that the line didn't "know" where the > moving electron originated. That, of course, is technically true. In West > Virginia it is also totally specious because 97% of the state's electric > energy is generated from coal. And the PSC's August 1 order itself relied > on the economic justification associated with 4 billion dollars of > construction costs for four (4) new IGCC coal plants now on the drawing > boards. > > The PSC also totally ignored the fact that all of the purported economic > benefits associated with the increased use of coal will be converted to > economic leg weights when the impact of a now certain cap and trade system > (or carbon tax of some sort) is adopted next year. > > I want to emphasize that we don't have any slack time on the appeal or > preparation for PATH. TrAILCo's transcript is 3,000 pages long. I lived > thru it live but I still need to serve up the case to the Supreme Court, > because the PSC has intentionally buried all of the evidence in a 183-page > behemoth of a decision issued on August 1. We need to go now. > > Please let me know if you need any additional information. > > Bill > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:40 PM, <*Holly.Bressett(a)sierraclub.org*<Holly.Bressett(a)sierraclub.org>> > wrote: > > Thanks, Bill. I will need some more information regarding the FOIA > appeals. For example, what did you request and what did you receive and > what was witheld (or can you even tell what was witheld)? Did the agencies > assert any privileges or exemptions? If so, were they lawfully invoked or > do you believe the exemptions are being abused. Are we actually bringing > suit under FOIA, or the state's public records law. If it is FOIA, wouldn't > you want to file in federal court? As for the appeal of the PSC's decision, > you make note that the environmental impacts were not properly considered. > Could you elaborate? What was considered, what was not, and what law are > you relying on? > > Jim, at this point, I am still investigating the legal claims (as you can > see above). I didn't get the sense that we needed immediate approval since > the PSC's decision is not even final yet, and when it becomes final, we have > 30 days. If there is a reason to file sooner, please let me know. It is my > understanding that you are going to be talking with Aaron Isherwood about > how the National Coal Campaign may be able to help with this and the PATH > transmission line. I'll follow up with him if it impacts the Supreme Court > appeal and/or the FOIA appeals. Thanks to you both, > > Holly > > Holly Bressett > Environmental Law Fellow > Sierra Club Environmental Law Program > 85 Second St., 2nd Floor > San Francisco, CA 94105 > (415) 977-5646 (phone) > (415) 977-5793 (fax) > > *"William V. DePaulo, Esq." <**william.depaulo(a)gmail.com*<william.depaulo(a)gmail.com> > *>* > > 08/21/2008 10:01 AM > > To > *Holly.Bressett(a)sierraclub.org* <Holly.Bressett(a)sierraclub.org> cc > "Jim Sconyers" <*jim_scon(a)yahoo.com* <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com>> Subject > Re: Fw: TrailCo NMF revised > > > > > > > > > Holly > > Here is a revised NMF which I hope is responsive to your requests. Please > let me know if you have any additional questions or topics you'd like > fleshed out in more detail. > > All the best, > > Bill > > > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:43 PM, <*Holly.Bressett(a)sierraclub.org*<Holly.Bressett(a)sierraclub.org>> > wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > Jim has attached the new matter form and I'm hoping you can supplement it > with our legal strategy. I'm confused about the FOIA appeals and the > Supreme Court appeal so I was hoping you could separate everything and give > me a clear description of the legal claims. If you are anticipating actual > FOIA lawsuits in conjunction with all of this let me know, it may make sense > to do one authorization for all the legal challenges. Thanks, > > Holly > > Holly Bressett > Environmental Law Fellow > Sierra Club Environmental Law Program > 85 Second St., 2nd Floor > San Francisco, CA 94105 > (415) 977-5646 (phone) > (415) 977-5793 (fax) > ----- Forwarded by Holly Bressett/Sierraclub on 08/20/2008 11:51 AM ----- > > *Jim Sconyers <**jim_scon(a)yahoo.com* <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com>*>* > > 08/14/2008 07:41 AM > > To > Holly Bressett <*holly.bressett(a)sierraclub.org*<holly.bressett(a)sierraclub.org> > > cc > aaron isherwood <*aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org*<aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org> > > Subject > TrailCo NMF revised > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a revised version of our TrailCo powerline NMF. It still needs to > go to our ExCom for certain approval. > > Jim Sconyers* > **jim_scon(a)yahoo.com* <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com> > 603.969.6712 > > Remember: Mother Nature bats last. > > > > > -- > William V. DePaulo, Esq. > 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 > Charleston, WV 25301-2163 > Tel: 304-342-5588 > Fax: 304-342-5505* > **william.depaulo(a)gmail.com* <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com>* > **www.passeggiata.com* <http://www.passeggiata.com/> > > > > -- > William V. DePaulo, Esq. > 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 > Charleston, WV 25301-2163 > Tel: 304-342-5588 > Fax: 304-342-5505* > **william.depaulo(a)gmail.com* <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com>* > **www.passeggiata.com* <http://www.passeggiata.com/> > > > > -- > William V. DePaulo, Esq. > 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 > Charleston, WV 25301-2163 > Tel: 304-342-5588 > Fax: 304-342-5505* > **william.depaulo(a)gmail.com* <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com>* > **www.passeggiata.com* <http://www.passeggiata.com/> > > -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel: 304-342-5588 Fax: 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

1 0

Fwd: DeWeese Comments
by James Kotcon 26 Sep '08

26 Sep '08

Here is what the Majority Leader of the WV House of Representatives said about TrAILCo. Can we get WV legislators to do something similar? JBK >>> Letty Butcher <multiflora123(a)yahoo.com> 9/25/2008 10:51 PM >>> http://stopaptrail.org/images/DeWeese_Reply_to_Exceptions.pdf

1 0

Re: [EC] Fwd: [MVCAC] Trail Is Dead
by Jim Sconyers 25 Sep '08

25 Sep '08

below Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Original Message ---- From: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> To: ec(a)osenergy.org Cc: Frank Young <fyoung(a)wvhighlands.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:16:00 PM Subject: [EC] Fwd: [MVCAC] Trail Is Dead I certainly don't think the title is accurate. Perhaps a better title would be: "Yet another backroom deal to sell out West Virginia". I have not seen the deal, but it seems to me that Allegheny has presented yet another "offer" of using our own money to buy us off, while they still make a profit at our expense. ...and still build it through West Virginia. JBK >>> "Julieann F. Wozniak" <jwozniak(a)windstream.net> 9/23/2008 10:04 AM >>> >Power line plan killed >Allegheny Energy won't put it through Greene, Washington >Tuesday, September 23, 2008 >By Janice Crompton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette > >Allegheny Energy is abandoning plans for a high-voltage line through Washington and Greene counties, according to the terms of a settlement agreement reached yesterday. > >The agreement between the Greensburg-based utility and Greene County officials halts plans for a controversial 37-mile, 500-kilovolt power line from North Strabane in Washington County, to Dunkard, Greene County. > >In exchange, Greene County commissioners have agreed to support a companion project which includes a new electric substation and a 1.2-mile transmission line from Greene County to West Virginia, where the line would continue 240 miles into Virginia. > >West Virginia has approved the $1 billion project, and Virginia is expected to do so as well. > >Terms of the agreement, hammered out last week, include a payment of $750,000 to Greene County and other provisions from the company, which sought a compromise after two state Public Utility Commission judges recommended against every phase of the proposal due to lack of need and other considerations. > >The agreement may end more than 18 months of bitter feuding that pitted property owners and officials against Allegheny Energy. The terms of the deal are contingent on final project approval by the PUC before Feb. 16, 2009. > >Along with the financial settlement to Greene County, the company has agreed to return easements to the dozens of property owners in both counties who would have been affected by the line, many of whom sued the company in recent months, claiming that the easements, obtained decades ago, were no longer valid. > >The agreement leaves out Washington County officials, who say they were presented with the pact on Friday, then asked to approve it by yesterday. > >Washington County commissioners Larry Maggi and J. Bracken Burns said they were left out of what they call the "backroom deal" and won't support the agreement, although they, too, were offered $750,000 for Washington County. > >They wonder why their counterparts in Greene County have so readily approved the agreement while the PUC judges harshly criticized the plan, calling the 1.2-mile segment in Greene County a profit-driven attempt to ship "cheaper coal-fired generation" along an "energy superhighway" to the east. The judges said they also saw no need for the 36-mile Pennsylvania segment of the line. With language like that, it's unclear whether the PUC will honor the settlement agreement. > >The commission will review the agreement to determine if it's in the public interest, said spokeswoman Jennifer Kocher. > >"It didn't smell right -- the whole deal," said Mr. Maggi, who said signing the agreement would have nullified the argument that the power line isn't needed either regionally or locally. > >"The agreement in essence says that the argument we've advanced for the past two years is wrong," Mr. Burns said. > >Allegheny Energy has said the Pennsylvania portion of the project is needed to avoid local power interruptions in the next few years, but a grass-roots citizens' group and other property owners were able to convince the PUC judges that it wasn't so. > >Other terms of the agreement require Greene County and other local officials to help form a study group to identify potential new alternatives to the high-voltage line, such as demand-side management, energy efficiency programs and physical upgrades to existing lines, including new substations, transmission infrastructure, and possibly up to 10 miles of new 500-kilovolt lines in Washington County. There would be no new lines in Greene County. > >The company also has agreed not to seek federal intervention for the project if the PUC denies its application. According to the Energy Act of 2005, the federal government has backstop authority to approve transmission projects even if they are denied by states. > >Members of the grass-roots Energy Conservation Council of Pennsylvania said they are still reviewing the agreement, of which they also were not a part. > >They have questioned the wisdom of entering into such a pact after the PUC judges gave them good reason to hope that the company's application would be denied. The five-member PUC panel may or may not adopt the recommendations of the judges. > >Mr. Burns said he saw nothing in the agreement that would preclude the company from proposing different high-voltage lines in Washington County. Under such circumstances, it's unfair to taxpayers to enter into such an agreement, he said. > >"My values aren't negotiable and my principles don't have a price tag," he said. >Janice Crompton can be reached at jcrompton(a)post-gazette.com or 724-223-0156. >First published on September 23, 2008 at 12:00 am _______________________________________________ MVCAC mailing list MVCAC(a)cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec

1 0

Re: [EC] Fwd: [MVCAC] Trail Is Dead
by Jim Sconyers 25 Sep '08

25 Sep '08

Ditto me! Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Original Message ---- From: Beth Little <blittle(a)citynet.net> To: Jonathan Rosenbaum <freesource(a)cheat.org>; Energy Committee <ec(a)osenergy.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 2:25:22 PM Subject: Re: [EC] Fwd: [MVCAC] Trail Is Dead Doesn't sound dead to me; just detoured a little. -----Original Message----- From: ec-bounces(a)osenergy.org [mailto:ec-bounces@osenergy.org]On Behalf Of Jonathan Rosenbaum Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 2:03 PM To: Energy Committee Subject: [EC] Fwd: [MVCAC] Trail Is Dead http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08267/914268-58.stm _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec

1 0

Fwd: [MVCAC] Trail Is Dead
by James Kotcon 23 Sep '08

23 Sep '08

I certainly don't think the title is accurate. Perhaps a better title would be: "Yet another backroom deal to sell out West Virginia". I have not seen the deal, but it seems to me that Allegheny has presented yet another "offer" of using our own money to buy us off, while they still make a profit at our expense. JBK >>> "Julieann F. Wozniak" <jwozniak(a)windstream.net> 9/23/2008 10:04 AM >>> >Power line plan killed >Allegheny Energy won't put it through Greene, Washington >Tuesday, September 23, 2008 >By Janice Crompton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette > >Allegheny Energy is abandoning plans for a high-voltage line through Washington and Greene counties, according to the terms of a settlement agreement reached yesterday. > >The agreement between the Greensburg-based utility and Greene County officials halts plans for a controversial 37-mile, 500-kilovolt power line from North Strabane in Washington County, to Dunkard, Greene County. > >In exchange, Greene County commissioners have agreed to support a companion project which includes a new electric substation and a 1.2-mile transmission line from Greene County to West Virginia, where the line would continue 240 miles into Virginia. > >West Virginia has approved the $1 billion project, and Virginia is expected to do so as well. > >Terms of the agreement, hammered out last week, include a payment of $750,000 to Greene County and other provisions from the company, which sought a compromise after two state Public Utility Commission judges recommended against every phase of the proposal due to lack of need and other considerations. > >The agreement may end more than 18 months of bitter feuding that pitted property owners and officials against Allegheny Energy. The terms of the deal are contingent on final project approval by the PUC before Feb. 16, 2009. > >Along with the financial settlement to Greene County, the company has agreed to return easements to the dozens of property owners in both counties who would have been affected by the line, many of whom sued the company in recent months, claiming that the easements, obtained decades ago, were no longer valid. > >The agreement leaves out Washington County officials, who say they were presented with the pact on Friday, then asked to approve it by yesterday. > >Washington County commissioners Larry Maggi and J. Bracken Burns said they were left out of what they call the "backroom deal" and won't support the agreement, although they, too, were offered $750,000 for Washington County. > >They wonder why their counterparts in Greene County have so readily approved the agreement while the PUC judges harshly criticized the plan, calling the 1.2-mile segment in Greene County a profit-driven attempt to ship "cheaper coal-fired generation" along an "energy superhighway" to the east. The judges said they also saw no need for the 36-mile Pennsylvania segment of the line. With language like that, it's unclear whether the PUC will honor the settlement agreement. > >The commission will review the agreement to determine if it's in the public interest, said spokeswoman Jennifer Kocher. > >"It didn't smell right -- the whole deal," said Mr. Maggi, who said signing the agreement would have nullified the argument that the power line isn't needed either regionally or locally. > >"The agreement in essence says that the argument we've advanced for the past two years is wrong," Mr. Burns said. > >Allegheny Energy has said the Pennsylvania portion of the project is needed to avoid local power interruptions in the next few years, but a grass-roots citizens' group and other property owners were able to convince the PUC judges that it wasn't so. > >Other terms of the agreement require Greene County and other local officials to help form a study group to identify potential new alternatives to the high-voltage line, such as demand-side management, energy efficiency programs and physical upgrades to existing lines, including new substations, transmission infrastructure, and possibly up to 10 miles of new 500-kilovolt lines in Washington County. There would be no new lines in Greene County. > >The company also has agreed not to seek federal intervention for the project if the PUC denies its application. According to the Energy Act of 2005, the federal government has backstop authority to approve transmission projects even if they are denied by states. > >Members of the grass-roots Energy Conservation Council of Pennsylvania said they are still reviewing the agreement, of which they also were not a part. > >They have questioned the wisdom of entering into such a pact after the PUC judges gave them good reason to hope that the company's application would be denied. The five-member PUC panel may or may not adopt the recommendations of the judges. > >Mr. Burns said he saw nothing in the agreement that would preclude the company from proposing different high-voltage lines in Washington County. Under such circumstances, it's unfair to taxpayers to enter into such an agreement, he said. > >"My values aren't negotiable and my principles don't have a price tag," he said. >Janice Crompton can be reached at jcrompton(a)post-gazette.com or 724-223-0156. >First published on September 23, 2008 at 12:00 am _______________________________________________ MVCAC mailing list MVCAC(a)cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac

1 0

Fwd: [MVCAC] Trail Is Dead
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 23 Sep '08

23 Sep '08

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08267/914268-58.stm

2 2

SCE to Patent Advanced Metering
by Duane330＠aol.com 18 Sep '08

18 Sep '08

GRIDWISE NEWS. Philip Bane, September 11, 2008. Utility Attempts to Patent Advanced Metering _http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/industry/Utility_Attempts_to_P… nt_Advanced_Metering.html_ (http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/industry/Utility_Attempts_to_Pa…) In a move that could have worldwide repercussions, one of North America’s largest utilities has filed to obtain U.S. patent rights to broad uses of an advanced metering infrastructure. As you will read, Southern California Edison (SCE) has the best of intentions. Even so, we believe the move may cause some confusion and consternation. We are publishing this early warning to alert you to key points: * What does the patent cover? * What is SCE’s intent? * What are the patent issues? * What are the business issues for utilities and vendors? Note: SCE will hold an industry Web conference September 19th to discuss the pending AMI Use Case patent and proposed non-exclusive worldwide royalty free license that has been shared with the industry for comment. Watch for an SCE press release announcing the Webinar. SCE’s AMI Use Case Patent Filing The United States Patent & Trademark Office defines a patent as a property right granted by the government “to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States” for a limited time in exchange for public disclosure of the invention when the patent is granted. The SCE application specifies “a method for communicating between a utility and individual customer location ...via the Internet or via an advanced utility meter.” SCE is attempting a business methods patent covering the way the technology is used (not the underlying technology itself). It broadly covers the business use of any and every AMI technology - regardless of the communications platform – and extends to grid operations. We recommend a thorough reading of SCE’s claims. (See link below.) SCE’s Motive and Intent SCE Vice President Paul De Martini is the head of SCE’s Advanced Technologies Group and one of the inventors named in the patent filing. (He and the other inventors have assigned all rights to SCE.) In an exclusive SGN interview, he explained SCE’s intent. The primary goal, says De Martini, is to ensure SCE and the utility industry can freely use AMI systems to empower customers to manage their energy and to improve operational efficiency. SCE decided to file a business methods patent as a defensive measure. SCE and other utilities have previously been subjected to costly claims for patent infringement on non-AMI technology. SCE decided to file the AMI patent to proactively preclude others from claiming that SCE was violating their technology. If it gains a patent, SCE intends extend that protection to the rest of the industry by offering a worldwide nonexclusive royalty-free license to anyone interested. SCE is working with EPRI, UtilityAMI and others associations to vet the license terms. De Martini recently used an EPRI meeting to brief a group of utilities on his patent and licensing plans. According to him and other attendees, those utilities were generally receptive to SCE’s draft terms. EPRI is leading an effort to develop a Smart Grid Open Source Repository as a way to share additional use cases with the industry (over and above those covered by the patent application). Patent Issues We certainly understand SCE’s concerns. The high-tech industry has many skilled, professional and ethical patent professionals. It also has a dark side of ugly patent infringement lawsuits. Firms have been formed solely to buy up obscure patents, then to extort payments from big companies under threat of lawsuit. Even if a company chooses to pay a license fee to avoid the cost of litigation, it opens itself (and the rest of the industry) to future specious claims of technology infringement. As many know, SCE has been a leader in applying technology to utility infrastructure. But applying is very different from inventing or discovering. With this filing, SCE is taking the position that it invented certain uses for an AMI system, such as the ability to use a home area network interface in a meter to send energy information to customers. The patent examiners will now have to determine if that is a valid claim. SGN is not taking a position for or against SCE’s decision to seek a patent, but we are warning that the development of intellectual property in the emerging Smart Grid industry will be controversial and contentious, given that it addresses the heart of a market worth many billions over the next decade. Business Issues If SCE is successful, the entire industry will secure the right to use AMI in the manner claimed, since SCE is willing to grant irrevocable royalty free licenses. But utilities and vendors will have to assess whether a license from SCE will provide sufficient safety. First, they must assess if they can live with SCE’s license terms. If the license terms are satisfactory, they must next determine if there are other areas still unprotected. SCE’s patent application only addresses certain uses for AMI. The situation will be especially problematic for vendors, who must determine what SCE’s patent will mean to their own intellectual property claims. With Wealth Comes Pirates SGN has broadcast the unrivaled economic opportunity for utilities and Smart Grid vendors. (See the link below to How Electronomics Will Make Utility Pros Rich). However, with any economic opportunity comes risk. Although SCE has apparently acted with the best of intentions, its filing highlights the pitfalls facing many utilities and Smart Grid vendors. As SGN highlighted recently in the article The Dangers of Meter Data, North American utilities are dangerously naïve about the upcoming upheaval from data overload, data privacy and lack of security. And about the dangers from unscrupulous patent pirates. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you for or against SCE’s patent claims? _Current SCE Draft License_ (http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/smartconnect/open-innovation/use-cas…) _USPTO Web site for searching patent applications_ (http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html) (Input Patent Application Number 20080177678) _How Electronomics Will Make Utility Pros Rich_ (http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/industry/How_Electronomics_Will…) _The Dangers of Meter Data_ (http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/pu blish/industry/The_Dangers_of_Meter_Data_Part_1.html) **************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)

1 0

Historic announcement, historic alliance
by Duane330＠aol.com 18 Sep '08

18 Sep '08

GE, Google Boost Efforts For Improved Power Grid By _JEFFREY BALL_ (http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=JEFFREY+BALL&ARTIC…) , _PAUL GLADER_ (http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=PAUL+GLADER&ARTICL… SER=bylineAND) and _JESSICA E. VASCELLARO_ (http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=JESSICA+E.+VASCELL… AND) Wall Street Journal, September 18, 2008. _General Electric_ (http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?symbol=GE) Co. and _Google_ (http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?symbol=goog) Inc. said they will jointly ramp up their efforts to prod the U.S. government to upgrade the nation's electrical-transmission lines so that the grid can better accommodate more renewable energy. Both companies sell technology that would benefit from an improved grid. GE has built one of the world's biggest wind-turbine businesses over the past few years, and Google makes computer software it says could help facilitate the introduction of more renewable energy to the U.S. grid. The announcement comes as Congress is considering separate legislation that would open new areas in the U.S. to oil drilling and renew federal tax credits for wind and solar energy that are due to expire at the end of the year. GE Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt and Google CEO Eric Schmidt called on Congress to continue the renewable-energy tax credits. Wind energy was the second-biggest source of new electrical capacity in the U.S. last year, behind only natural gas, according to the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group. Still, wind power provides only about 1% of total U.S. electricity. Taking into account the benefit of the tax credit, the per-kilowatt-hour cost of wind energy has dropped over the past five years from about 15 cents to about eight cents, Mr. Immelt said, adding: "That makes wind very competitive with coal." But the tax credits have been short term, requiring Congress to renew them frequently. That has led to a boom-and-bust cycle in the wind industry that advocates say has hampered greater growth. Mr. Immelt has largely staked his legacy on GE's clean-energy efforts, a push the company calls "Ecomagination." The company has said revenue from that effort will grow to $25 billion in 2010, up from $6 billion in 2004, with products ranging from hybrid locomotives to wind turbines. Google hopes renewable energy can help it lower the costs of running its data centers, one of its greatest expenses. To that end, the Internet search giant has invested tens of millions of dollars in wind and other renewable-energy technologies. Last year, the company said it would invest hundreds of millions of dollars from its corporate and nonprofit arms in businesses working toward generating cheaper electricity. Beyond the tax credits, Messrs. Immelt and Schmidt said their companies will work together to lobby for government policies to expand the electrical grid to accommodate more renewable energy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Google, GE to work together on green energy _By Elise Ackerman, San Jose Mercury News_ (mailto:eackerman@mercurynews.com?subject=San Jose Mercury News: Google, GE to work together on green energy) Article Launched: 09/18/2008 08:02:46 AM PDT Google and General Electric announced Wednesday that they would work together to push the development of renewable energy. The companies said they would team up to lobby the federal government to modernize the electrical grid and collaborate in the development of technologies for plug-in vehicles and geothermal energy. "We are trying to make renewable energy cheaper than coal energy," Google co-founder Larry Page said at a news conference Wednesday afternoon. The partnership was unveiled at Google's annual Zeitgeist conference, a two-day think-fest where Google's business partners are invited to Mountain View to discuss global issues with leaders such as former vice president Al Gore and Mexican businessman Carlos Slim, as well as celebrities including Leonardo DiCaprio and Forest Whitaker. Against a backdrop of continued financial turmoil, Google's leaders said their business was in good shape and unlikely to experience a direct impact from the current crisis. "The company has a large amount of cash in very boring investments," Chief Executive Eric Schmidt told reporters. As of June 30, Google had $16 billion in cash and securities and other current assets. Schmidt said Google plans to move ahead with a previously announced deal to provide search-advertising services to Yahoo, despite scrutiny by regulators in the United States and Europe. Schmidt said that his company had anticipated there would be objections to the deal, and that it is carefully structured to comply with antitrust regulations. "We have probably not explained it well enough," he said. Advertisers have expressed concern that the pact would lead to an increase in the cost of advertising brokered by Google. Page pointed out that the price of advertising is not set by Yahoo or Google but in an auction where advertisers decide what an ad is worth to them. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< **************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)

1 0

Re: [EC] Fw: Allegheny Energy Files Proposal on Pennsylvania Transmission Project
by Jim Sconyers 12 Sep '08

12 Sep '08

Yes - why not both? Good letter now, more legalistic response soon. Becoming obvious that getting TrailCo to the WV line is critical to the whole proposal. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Original Message ---- From: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> To: ec(a)osenergy.org Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 12:28:43 PM Subject: [EC] Fw: Allegheny Energy Files Proposal on Pennsylvania Transmission Project Bill, et al. I think we should file a response in PA to let them know that we oppose TrAILCo and their proposed approval of the 1.2-mile segment between the 502 Junction and the WV State Line. We have filed appeals of the WV certificate approval, and a premature approval of the PA segment would bias consideration of our appeals. Further, it would be useful to fully document TrAILCo's behind-the-scenes negotiations and tactics, and their efforts to cut some opponents out of the process, while buying off others with legalized bribes (using ratepayers money to do it), as happened here. I can draft a letter to that effect, if you think it is useful. Alternatively, a formal legal response might be more appropriate. Whaddya Tink? JBK >>> Letty Butcher <multiflora123(a)yahoo.com> 9/11/2008 9:20 AM >>> --- On Wed, 9/10/08, Wojtowicz, Ralph <wojtowicz(a)metsci.com> wrote: From: Wojtowicz, Ralph <wojtowicz(a)metsci.com> Subject: Allegheny Energy Files Proposal on Pennsylvania Transmission Project To: "Wojtowicz, Ralph" <wojtowicz(a)metsci.com>, cesunlight(a)earthlink.net, multiflora123(a)yahoo.com, roecalvert(a)hughes.net, michael(a)troutdesign.com, billgolemon(a)frontiernet.net, bgkessinger(a)comcast.net, kward(a)wvgazette.com, news(a)hampshirereview.com, news(a)moorefieldexaminer.com, news(a)grantcountypress.com, WVBiker98(a)aol.com Cc: mpisciotta(a)citynet.net, bwest(a)pecva.org, thomas(a)theshepherdstownobserver.com, cesunlight(a)earthlink.net, news(a)morganmessenger.com, news(a)dominionpost.com, newsroom(a)therepublicannes.com Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2008, 7:45 PM Please forward. Allegheny Energy Files Proposal on Pennsylvania Transmission Project GREENSBURG, Pa.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 10, 2008--Allegheny Energy, Inc. (NYSE:AYE) announced today that its Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company (TrAILCo) subsidiary filed a motion with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission to defer any decision on a portion of its proposed transmission line project, the Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line. The request will allow the company to pursue a more collaborative process to explore whether there are new and creative alternatives to the proposed 36-mile portion of the 500 kilovolt line in Greene and Washington counties and related facilities. The company's motion also requests that the Commission timely approve a 1.2 mile section of 500 kilovolt line extending from the West Virginia border to a new substation in Greene County, Pennsylvania known as 502 Junction. This portion of the project addresses critical reliability concerns that could adversely impact the mid-Atlantic region, including Pennsylvania electric customers, as early as 2011. The motion is intended to be considered in conjunction with exceptions filed today by TrAILCo in response to two Administrative Law Judges' recent recommendation that the company's application be denied in Pennsylvania. In its exceptions, TrAILCo also explicitly asks the Commission to reverse the recommended decision of the Judges and approve the 1.2 mile segment between the West Virginia state line and 502 Junction. _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC September 2008