And the assault on rural America to serve the wants of urbanites continues with Avangrid/Central Maine Power's New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) project.  The proposal is drawing flack for its route crossing the Kennebec Gorge, a natural resource that draws tourism to the region.  Rafting guides, legislators, environmental groups, citizens, and even outdoors retailer Patagonia, have panned the project and are gearing up to fight it before the Maine Public Utilities Commission and in the court of public opinion.

The NECEC was first runner up in a competition to provide Massachusetts with "clean energy" that was set into motion by a 2016 law requiring the state to use more renewable energy.  The first project Massachusetts selected, the Northern Pass project, was rejected by New Hampshire siting authorities earlier this year.  Northern Pass was rejected because it placed a burden on the state without an equal benefit to the state.  Although Northern Pass has been trying to sell its project to New Hampshire for years without success, it was the contract to supply Massachusetts with renewable energy that incited its latest push and ultimate rejection by the state.

Other competitors to supply "clean" power to Massachusetts include TDI New England, a project that would run under Lake Champlain, with the remainder buried under existing rights-of-way.  TDI New England was not opposed by residents and environmental groups precisely because it was buried on public property, but Massachusetts rejected it because it was more expensive.

And there's our problem!  The idea that some entity that wants "clean" power at the cheapest price possible can visit its agenda on others who will not benefit from a project.

Sure, we've all been indoctrinated to believe in climate change and to want to do our part to protect our planet over the long term.  But environmental groups using mysterious funding sources have upped the ante to try to get us to believe there's a climate emergency in the works.  It's such an emergency that we must change the ways we generate and use energy that have developed over centuries RIGHT NOW.  We must plow ahead and plunder our landscape in the name of "clean energy."  We must make the hard sacrifice to our land and way of life immediately if we're going to save the planet!  And then what happens?  Well, the ones clamoring for this change want all the sacrifice to happen in someone else's back yard.

Massachusetts makes a law to use renewable energy.  And then it expects to visit that law on other states by constructing new transmission lines to bring in renewable power generated elsewhere (in this case, Canadian hydro, although the environmental benefits of simply re-directing existing generation to Massachusetts is high speculative).  Massachusetts made the law, Massachusetts should provide the energy to fulfill it.

But what if Massachusetts doesn't have the resources to meet its own mandate?  Then it must acquire the resources from other states (or countries?).  It is not incumbent upon these other states to knuckle under and make the big sacrifice to make sure Massachusetts can accomplish its goal.  After all, the residents of these other states didn't get a vote in making the law in the first place.  They weren't represented at all when it was made (maybe other New England states need to stage a tea party in Boston Harbor in protest?)  So it looks like Massachusetts is completely at the mercy of the other states volunteering to supply the resources to carry out Massachusetts law.  If it was truly voluntary, it would be one thing.  But these other states mind being the sacrifice zone for Massachusetts.  They mind a great deal.  What if Massachusetts could acquire the resources it needs while requiring little sacrifice from the other states?  That's the TDI proposal that was rejected because it was "too expensive."  Meeting Massachusetts law in a way that doesn't require mass sacrifice in other states is too expensive for Massholes (err... what do you call people from Massachusetts anyhow?  I'm just going with the vernacular here...)  But the price of meeting Massachusetts law is on you, Massachusetts.  Don't try to foist the financial responsibility off onto other states by impacting their tourism, their electric rates, their sense of place.

Oh sure, transmission developers who smell a buck will tell you that these other states are happy to sacrifice.  And the same developers will tell the other states that they're going to benefit from "economic development" and tax money.  But those claims, even if true, are a sorry trade off for a perpetual sacrifice.  They don't convince the people.  The only ones who become convinced of trumped up "benefit" are the ones who would personally profit from just such an arrangement, such as businesses and suppliers, or lazy local elected officials who simply can't resist selling their constituents down the river in exchange for what looks like a free lunch.  There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.  That transmission line will become a bigger burden than you were told it would be, and the tax payments won't be as large or lucrative when balanced against the financial loss a new transmission line may bring to the community.  The transmission developer doesn't give a damn about your community or its financial well-being.  It only cares about the profits it can earn if it can get a project approved and built.  That such a project can sprinkle millions around affected communities and still rake in a hefty profit tells you everything you need to know.

Opposition to new transmission brings delays and additional costs.  A project that meets overwhelming opposition at roll out will probably end up costing more than one with a higher initial price tag that doesn't inspire any opposition.

Wake up, Massachusetts!  Stop hiding behind greedy transmission developers with bad ideas at cheap prices and fully own your proposed burden on other states.  You're going to have to get this done with willing cooperation from other states, or you're not going to get it done at all.  The price of a project that isn't opposed is the true cost of your law, unless you want to create your own resources to meet it in state.  Not my law, not my problem!

This same scenario plays itself out across the country as greedy renewable energy companies propose to create sacrifice zones across rural America to supply renewable energy to population centers.  Nobody wants to sacrifice for the selfish needs of others.  Sure, in an earlier century, people had to make a sacrifice so that others could have electric service, and sometimes they still need to sacrifice to make sure our electric grid is reliable.  But "dirty" power and the cost of electricity won't crash the grid.  Changing the source of power for environmental or cost considerations comes at a price, and that price includes whatever it takes not to visit sacrifice on others who won't receive any benefit and don't want to participate.

Build it in your own back yard (or on your own rooftop!), meet the requirements of others drawn unwillingly into your plan, or do without.  It's just that simple.  If you create a problem, don't expect others to solve it.

Oh whoopie-de-doo!  Samsung promises all its factories will be powered by 100% renewable energy.  So, get ready for more of this:

More pristine rural vistas clogged up with industrial power plants and blinking red lights as far as the eye can see.

Samsung acts like this is a good thing.  Like this is something that will make people buy its phones.  Not this girl!

Samsung folded after a year of being harassed by Greenpeace. 

Greenpeace?  That's still a thing?  I hardly ever see Greenpeace making news anymore.  Is this really what mainstream America wants?  To have their buying choices directed by fringe environmental bullies?

I notice that it's acknowledged that Samsung will not actually be using renewable energy.  Instead it will make some shakedown payments to renewable energy companies to increase renewable energy profits.  Renewable Energy Credits, or RECs, are an imaginary way to "buy" renewable energy and pretend a company is environmentally conscious, while continuing to use "dirty" fossil fueled power to run its factories.  Whoever invented a way to create an additional revenue stream for energy generators out of thin air is a financial genius.  Simply buying RECs excuses a company from actually running its factories on renewable energy while allowing them to say they do.  The whole scheme smacks of environmental extortion to me.

Is the environment made cleaner this way?  Well, no.  The factories continue to use their current power source, and the renewable energy generator who sells the REC gains another revenue stream.  The renewable energy generator is going to generate anyway... and any actual electrons generated are purchased by someone who actually uses the electricity.  But renewable energy is so CHEAP, they say, it's competitive with other sources of energy.  That's because the renewable energy generator has two income streams... that from actual energy generated and that from imaginary feel-good credits that it sells to clueless companies like Samsung.  Without companies like Samsung subsidizing renewable energy generators with shakedown payments, renewable energy wouldn't be so cheap.

Rural America is being gobbled up at a rapid pace and the land that once provided food is now providing this:

Who needs food?  You can just look at pictures of food on your cheap Samsung smart phone.  After all, why would a farmer continue to break his back farming when he can sit on the porch and watch the red lights blink at night and still draw an income?

Don't give me any of that propaganda about how wind turbines and farming can happen on the same property.  Every wind turbine takes acreage out of production.  And they drive the people who have to live near them crazy. 

Rural folks are gathering in increasing numbers to stop the wind invasion in their communities.  I don't think they care about Greenpeace, or Samsung, or RECs.  They just don't want to live in the middle of an electric generation plant. 

So next time you're shopping for a cell phone, remember your last meal and where it came from.  No, I mean really came from.  Food is not manufactured out of thin air like RECs.  Nobody cares more about the environment than a working farmer.  Not even Samsung.

There will be some celebrating going on in New Jersey tonight after the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities adopted the recommendation of one of its administrative law judges and denied the transmission application of JCP&L this morning.  JCP&L, a FirstEnergy affiliate, had filed an application to build an insane transmission proposal inside a commuter rail right-of-way and just feet from thousands of homes.  It called its project the Monmouth County Reliability Project.  As if it was ever about "reliability."

Although one news outlet called today's decision "stunning" and claimed "State boards often approve such requests from utility companies. Friday's unanimous rejection by the New Jersey BPU was stunning to many who follow energy markets and the energy industry," it's not at all surprising to transmission opposition leaders.

Today's victory is the just result of hard work and determination by Residents Against Giant Electric (RAGE).  RAGE completely owns and deserves this victory!  I'm not sure when I've ever seen a citizens group work so hard and so cohesively toward a common goal.  They are an inspiration to transmission opponents everywhere!  Although they'll never get back the two years and half a million dollars they spent in pursuit of their goal, they achieved something invaluable -- a sense of community and the knowledge that a small group of committed individuals can change the world.  The next generation who watched their parents wage this battle will grow into adulthood with the knowledge that they can win if they stand up and fight.

Today's rejection of JCP&L's plan is not only a defeat for FirstEnergy, but also a rejection of PJM Interconnection's planning process.  PJM insisted the project was needed, and even provided witnesses to support it.  JCP&L continually hid behind PJM and used PJM's claims of need like a shield to deflect criticism.  Perhaps that's why the industry might be so "stunned."  Does the industry believe if they can coerce PJM to work a transmission project into its regional transmission expansion plan that will ensure the approval of state utility regulators?  It doesn't.  Not even.  The only and final judge of whether a transmission proposal gets built is the state utility regulator, not PJM.  The days of state utility regulators following meekly in PJM's footsteps are over.  PJM has been wrong, dead wrong, about numerous transmission proposals that found their way into its regional plan.  MCRP is just another to add to the growing list.  And you know how that old story goes about the boy who cried "wolf?"  At what point will PJM's credibility about transmission planning tank completely?  The more unneeded transmission projects PJM orders and continues to support, even in the face of better alternatives, the more damage it does to its credibility.  Pull yourself out of the gutter, PJM, and start doing your job impartially and with the best interests of electric consumers in mind, instead of the financial interests of your utility members.

Bravo to the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities for being brave enough to agree that, yes, the emperor is naked.  PJM is a paper tiger.  PJM's endorsement of a transmission project is not proof of its necessity.  The BPU is a shining example for other state regulatory commissions that may be faced with other PJM-ordered projects that are unnecessarily costly and damaging to the citizens they serve.

The citizens saved the day in New Jersey.  They didn't wait for someone else to act, they didn't hope that someone else would represent their interests, they didn't bank on someone else providing the funds necessary to wage this war.  In this case, the citizens found that the someone who could stop this project resided within each one of them.  Congratulations, RAGE!

Looks like there's something in your ointment.

Yes, we all know you're in a great, big hurry to get your Wind Catcher scam approved by state regulatory commissions.  And just when you thought you had things all sewed up in Oklahoma with a July 2 commission hearing on your settlement agreements with certain parties, Stan dropped the ball.

Stan did nothing to put out the opposition fire that started in and around Bixby.  In fact, he threw gasoline on it by ignoring the concerned people and pretending he had things handled in the media.

Yesterday, the City of Bixby filed a motion to intervene at the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.  Bixby reasons that it did not receive proper notice of the project in time to participate in the administrative hearings before the Commission.  Up until about a month ago, AEP planned to route its transmission line north of Tulsa through Osage County and tie into its northern substation.  Now AEP says it will use a route south of Tulsa right through Bixby, and word is AEP has optioned a 160-acre property upon which to build a ginormous, new, 40-acre substation in Bixby, just down the road from Bixby's planned new elementary school in one of the fastest growing areas of the city.

The City of Bixby also filed a motion to continue hearing to postpone the Commission's July 2 hearing on Wind Catcher until September 1 or later.  The City of Bixby needs that time to examine Wind Catcher's application, and the Commission needs to calculate exactly how much cost a new 40-acre substation and re-route south of Tulsa will add to Wind Catcher's cost.  The City also asks that the Commission schedule a public comment hearing for affected individuals in and around Bixby.

Bixby's assistant mayor commented the other night regarding the substation, saying that he just couldn't even imagine what a substation of that size would look like.  Neither could the people of Mt. Airy, Maryland, when AEP proposed a 41-acre substation for its 765-kV PATH transmission line on a farm surrounded by thousands of homes.  Those people fought that plan...

...and they won.  No one can be sure what it would have looked like, but it would have been monstrous.

It looks like AEP planned to tie into an existing substation north of Tulsa.  Now they're planning to build an entirely new substation?  That comes with a huge increase in cost and time to construct.  And just the other day AEP said it had not yet decided on a route.  No final route.  No substation.  No timeline.  No idea how much this will cost or when it may be completed.

The only thing missing from this jar of ointment is the shysters from Clean Line popping back up and saying, "I told you so!"  Of course, using Clean Line's proposed route would have necessitated the construction of another huge tie line from the south to existing lines in Tulsa, sort of the same situation AEP finds itself in right now.

Almost, AEP, almost.  You almost got to enjoy all those creamy, delicious profits.  And then they were snatched right out of your hands by wildfire opposition.

Ut-oh!

This is Stan Whiteford.  He's a communications professional with Public Service Co. of Oklahoma.  He's been doing that job for a long, long time.  And then Wind Catcher happened.  Stan wasn't prepared.  Stan is stale, boring, and uses canned talking points.  Stan's on camera persona is awful.  Stan seems surprised to be the most hated man in Bixby.  Stan can't handle this job.  It's time for Stan to retire.  Don't be a Stan.

Yesterday, Stan said:

And he also stated:

So what happened last night at the Bixby City Council meeting when Stan had his opportunity to "reach out" to the hundreds of people gathered on the Wind Catcher issue?

And then what happened?

Stan doesn't walk his talk.  His claims of "reaching out" to concerned residents are nothing but a performance for the media.  Nobody believes Stan anymore.  His credibility is less than zero.

And you know what's weird?  The jocular act Stan launches into when talking about all the supposed "benefits" of Wind Catcher.  It's really not funny to anyone but Stan and whatever idiot wrote "smile beneficently while talking about tax revenue" in Stan's script needs to tone it down.  Stan only looks creepy when he does that.  Really creepy!

There are no benefits for the landowners affected by Wind Catcher's transmission line.  "Investment in the state" is something no landowner cares about.  And perhaps Stan doesn't realize that part of the reason Oklahoma is so "desperate" for revenue to support schools is because of wind tax credits handed over to out of state wind developers.  So why should Oklahoma build even more wind turbines?  Claims of Wind Catcher being "pro-business" because Oklahoma has low electric rates and it will attract businesses to the state are also just something nobody seems to care about... even the businessmen of Bixby that PSO invited to a private meeting where they were fed a card stacked, cherry picked, cheer squad performance for Wind Catcher.  Word is they decided to remain neutral.

The whole tax revenues thing is a scam transmission companies use to try to lure local governments into selling out their citizens and taking the utility blood money.  Looks like Bixby isn't falling for it.  Maybe Stan should jettison that talking point.  It's falling on deaf ears. 

And let's talk about misinformation, because Stan thinks that now that he's losing, and losing badly, that it's because of "misinformation."  Stan wants you to focus on facts and real issues... like $300M of additional tax revenue for the state.  That's not an issue.  The issue is the lack of need for the project, and the millions of dollars it will cost PSO customers in higher electric rates.  All Stan's claims of lower electric rates have been examined by the OCC and found not credible.  In fact, the judge recommended that the Commission deny the application.

Stan is misinformed if he thinks the problem with Bixby is an information deficit.  The problem for Stan is that the residents of Bixby know the truth about the project and they refuse to be victimized.  No matter how much Stan tries to "communicate the benefits" of the project to Bixby, there's no going back from staunch opposition.  How many people will change their mind and begin to support the project once Stan tells them about all the "benefits?"  Exactly none, that's how many.

And speaking of fictional characters...

Stan says:

No one has actually seen or heard any of these landowners.  I think they all live in the woods with Bigfoot and are quite elusive.  Or maybe Stan is simply making them up in a weak attempt at bandwagon.

Stan is really not very good at his job.  He's allowed the Bixby problem to turn into a raging inferno.  Perhaps Stan and PSO/AEP thought they were so close to the finish line that they didn't have to pay attention to the new opposition that was developing.  Perhaps they thought they could stuff the genie back in the bottle with a couple of meetings for businessmen and the chamber of commerce, maybe sprinkle a few "donations" around, pretend they "respect" landowners, and wave around some tax revenue.  It didn't work.  It never works.  And now AEP has a huge problem with Bixby that's going to affect what happens at the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.  Last night, Bixby voted to hire an attorney to take action to ask the OCC to dismiss the Wind Catcher application.  And whoopsie, Stan, the Associated Press picked it up, resulting in headlines like this around the country: 

Oklahoma residents, city against $4.5B wind power line route

Stan is continually owned by the Wind Catcher opposition in the media.  Watch as Stan is pitted against fresh, engaging, and real opponents in news stories and ends up looking like a shyster.

Wind Catcher project gets blowback from some Bixby residents.

Bixby City Council joins fight against PSO Wind Catcher project.

Stan has completely failed on Wind Catcher.  Don't be a Stan.

What was it AEP's CEO said about the time line for the company's Wind Catcher project recently?

May and June.  AEP must have its Wind Catcher project approved in May and June.  Of course, May and June were an extension of AEP's original time line to  have Wind Catcher approved by April.

And here it is mid-June and the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) has yet to make a ruling.  It sort of seems like they've been waiting for a settlement to happen so they didn't have to make a decision at all.  However AEP has failed at reaching a settlement with all parties, and the parties who oppose have proposed their own settlement.  And what about the Administrative Law Judge?  Didn't she hear this case months ago and issue a Report and Recommendation that AEP's application be denied?  What about that?

Will AEP push its approval deadline ahead, or is this really it?  How fast can Invenergy build a wind farm, and how fast can Quanta build a transmission line?  And would either one of these two AEP contractors want to invest serious money buying components without a guarantee that AEP will reimburse them in the event the project is cancelled?

I'm going to guess this is AEP's last desperate push to get its project approved.... because its recent filing at the OCC has desperation written all over it.

Here's what AEP has asked the OCC to do:

The fly in AEP's ointment is that the Commission has yet to issue the requested order.  The Commission has not yet filed a response to AEP's motion.  The hearing is not yet set.

But, I wonder, if AEP can re-open some alternate evidentiary record on a whim, whether the affected public can also contribute to this new record by giving public comment during the proposed hearing?  I suppose anyone can ask by filing a motion similar to AEP's.  Being a regulatory attorney is no big thing... even a monkey can do it.  And it sort of looks like a monkey DID do it for AEP.... because the legal basis for AEP's proposed course of action for Wind Catcher doesn't really give it legs.  AEP's monkey is simply throwing stuff against the wall and hoping something sticks. 

Because AEP is desperate.  Desperate to get Wind Catcher approved before its own impossible deadline.

It remains to be seen what, if any, response the OCC will make to AEP's desperate machinations in this election year.  I'm pretty sure AEP cannot cast a corporate vote for PSC Commissioners, nor can it force its employees to cast certain votes as a condition of their employment (although apparently it can force the employees to sign letters of support to the OCC).  Who will be electing the OCC Commissioners?  The people of Oklahoma!  The same people who may have their properties devalued and spoiled by a new transmission line.  The same people whose electric bills will go up to pay for AEP's Wind Catcher folly.  I'm sure the OCC Commissioners will choose very carefully... while you watch.

UPDATE:  The Oklahoma Attorney General and Public Utility Division of the OCC have also filed a motion docketed this morning asking the Commissioners to consider their joint statement against preapproval and proposed settlement agreement in the event that the Commissioners decide to approve Wind Catcher despite all the evidence that this project is not beneficial to ratepayers.

And the best part?  They have asked for the OCC to re-open public comment and made it easy on you.  That's some pretty wishful thinking ;-)  Or maybe it was just common sense...

It's a perfectly reasonable request.  If AEP wants to create a new evidentiary record, then the record should be open to everyone.  If ordered by the Commissioners, this means that anyone and everyone will be permitted to speak directly and in person to the Commissioners during any new hearing that is set and let them know what you think.  So, mark your calendars, landowners and keep your eye on the OCC docket to see when and where (or if) a hearing is ordered by the Commissioners.  AEP failed at public notice of its plan and the vast majority of landowners were not aware of Wind Catcher's effect on their properties during the first OCC hearing.  If you feel you weren't heard, this could be your golden opportunity!  Don't miss your chance!

News flash!  That's because "here" (the Midwest) doesn't have a network of expensive, gigantic transmission lines to pay for.

Think about it.

DOE obviously hasn't.

DOE is stuck in 2009, when the idea to lower coastal power prices by building a "national grid" was novel.  Now that idea can only be called FAILED.

So, the DOE has a big new idea for "the installation of a network of high-voltage, direct-current transmission lines could boost the availability of reliable, affordable power generated by renewable sources at load centers on the East and West coasts."

Hey, Einstein, building your ginormous dream grid costs money.  Lots and lots and lots of money.  We're talking billions.  And your plan expects that electric customers nationwide will finance that investment over decades to come and pay its private investors/owners double-digit interest throughout its lifetime.  No thanks, we simply can't afford it.

Don't you think that adding additional costs to move energy thousands of miles will only increase energy prices, both on the coasts and the Midwest?  Building new transmission to reduce costs on one part of the system only produces a leveling of costs across the region.  If prices go down on the coast, they will increase in the Midwest.

And maybe, just maybe, the people who live in the Midwest don't want to live in an ugly, noisy, industrial power plant that only benefits the politically powerful players on the coasts.  And maybe they don't want to live in and work under a network of new high voltage transmission lines.  And they will resist, no maybe about it.  They will shout and block and delay your dream grid for years and years, and that costs even more money.

Don't do it, DOE.  Quit wasting my tax money on stupid things like TransGrid-X 2030.  You already tried this idea once, remember?  You called it Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act, and you decided to "partner" on an HVDC transmission line from the Oklahoma panhandle to Memphis.  And it failed.  It failed spectacularly.  It couldn't find any customers to purchase capacity.  No income, no project.  So what makes you think, DOE, that a new network of HVDC transmission lines from the Midwest to the coasts would be able to find customers?  You've already done this experiment once and it failed.

I do note that your "symposium" has participation from companies that would benefit financially from building billions of dollars of new transmission.  So you're just acting as a facilitator for private investment here?

Swamp, swampy, swamperson.  Get out of the muck!  Don't you have enough trouble already with your swampy plan to save coal?

The real cutting edge on transmission is to stop building it and develop a secure system of interconnected local microgrids that can be autonomous self-contained systems that continue working seamlessly whether connected to a larger network or not.

Or maybe you can hold a seance and ask Nikola Tesla what he thinks?  That's probably a more productive use of my tax money.

AEP announced the addition of several parties to its proposed settlement agreement in Oklahoma last week.  The sycophantic trade press and other outlets duly reported this as regulatory progress.  Lots of smoke and mirrors for something of relatively little value.  It doesn't matter how many minor parties sign up to receive something of value to them when the major party who will pay for the project continues to oppose the settlement.

In the regulatory world, any party with an interest in the proceedings may become a party to the case.  If some of these interests are purely selfish, it doesn't matter.  All sorts of entities intervene in a regulatory proceeding in order to try to score a piece of the pie.  Such was the case in Oklahoma when AEP filed its audacious plan to buy the country's biggest wind farm and build and own the world's biggest "generation tie line."  The project fundamentally changes the nature of wind and other generation projects in Oklahoma and the gen tie line makes other transmission to export renewables obsolete.  So, it's no surprise that a bunch of companies with interests in building generation and transmission in the state intervened in the case.  They intervened because AEP's plan interferes with their own plans.  If AEP builds its project, all these other companies may have to abandon some of their own plans.  But what if they can intervene and negotiate with AEP to preserve some of their own plans and still make money?  Everyone makes money, everyone's happy, right?

Except someone has to pay for all these companies to make their money.  AEP suggests its customers in Oklahoma will pay for its project.  If AEP adds guarantees that the intervening companies will also make money from their own projects, then that only adds to the cost burden for AEP's customers.  And that's exactly what happened last week.

Intervening party Oneta Power received a power purchase agreement for 300MW of gas-fired generation, plus a commitment that AEP will issue an RFP for additional gas generation in the near future.  Now maybe purchasing gas generation would be cheaper for Oklahoma consumers, but this purchase is in addition to, not instead of, AEP's purchase of a wind farm.  It increases consumer costs, not reduces them.  AEP says it was going to purchase this power anyhow, but that plan was originally tanked and replaced by Wind Catcher.  Now all of a sudden, AEP needs both.  If that doesn't smack of buying off a party with someone else's money, I'm not sure what does.  AEP says that this agreement is "in the best interests" of its customers because it allows them to build Wind Catcher.  It has no benefit of its own.

Other recent settling parties received similar goodie bags that also provide no benefit to AEP customers, such as agreements not to infringe upon the retail sales territory of another company, and to allow others the opportunity to build future additions to AEP's transmission system around the wind farm.  None of that saves AEP customers any money.  The customers are still hit with the full cost of the wind farm and transmission line.

And there are plenty more parties who probably want their own piece of the pie before this is done.

It doesn't matter how many pieces of pie AEP serves up to these parties if the parties representing AEP customers don't belly up to the buffet.  The OK Attorney General and Public Utility Division of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission are the only parties to the case who could even remotely be said to represent the interests of AEP customers, and they're not budging.  These parties have made their position quite clear when they filed their own settlement agreement containing terms they believe will protect consumers.  AEP could agree to these conditions and settle the case, then go on to build its project.  However, AEP has refused to do so.  Instead it has gone around serving pie to all the other intervenors with selfish intent.  Perhaps AEP thinks that if it gathers enough parties and generates enough smoke and mirrors that the public will believe they will benefit from the project and that will give the OCC Commissioners enough "cover" to approve the project against the "best interests" of AEP ratepayers in the state.

So why won't AEP agree to the Attorney General's settlement terms?  Because they actually provide protections to AEP's customers who will pay for the project.  AEP says its project will provide benefits to customers, but when the guarantee that it will do so is inked out in black and white on a legal agreement, AEP won't sign it.  This can only mean that AEP's promises of customer benefit are fake.  If providing the promised benefits interferes with AEP's profit, then there is no real benefit and the project should be cancelled or denied.

AEP has asked the Oklahoma Corporation Commission to approve its recovery of costs for Wind Catcher from its customers.  The OCC can do this at any time.  But if the benefits determined by the OCC in any approval don't happen, then the OCC is fully responsible for making a bad decision.  And they must know it would be a bad decision because they haven't done it.

But the project can still be approved without the OCC Commissioners taking responsibility for making a bad decision if a unanimous settlement is presented for approval.  In a settlement, all the parties with an interest in the case have agreed on how to dispose of it through negotiation.  Everyone gets something, and the applicant achieves its goal.  Nobody could blame the OCC since the parties agreed that the settlement was in their own best interests.  It sure seems like the OCC Commissioners are waiting for a settlement so they don't have to take responsibility for making a big mistake.

And AEP is trying mighty hard to come up with a settlement, but not hard enough to stand behind its own promises of customer benefit.  A contested settlement, where one or more parties do not join the majority and continue to oppose, is unlikely in this instance.  Approval of a contested settlement would be categorized as a bad decision that sticks to the OCC Commissioners.  It's all about who the contesting parties are and why they are contesting.  If a minor party, like Clean Line Energy Partners for instance, contested the settlement because AEP refused to buy its failed Plains & Eastern transmission project route, a contested settlement may be reasonable.  However, if the Attorney General  contests in the best interests of ratepayers, that's a whole different animal.  In order to approve that kind of contested settlement, the OCC Commissioners would take it upon themselves to determine the best interests of the ratepayers against the better judgment of the Attorney General, and they would own every bit of fall out when AEP's promised benefits don't materialize.

Pretending that buying support from self-interested parties is progress is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

And speaking of smoke, be sure not to miss this news story out of Bixby, Oklahoma last week.  Bixby officials asked AEP to make a presentation about its project, and they went, like lambs to the slaughter.  AEP sent its governmental schmoozer, some project rep, and Tim Gaul, its corporate siting guy.  Some of you veteran transmission opponents may recognize that name.  Gaul has shown up as the siting guy on many AEP transmission projects in the past, although he used to work for transmission siting contractor Louis Berger before he went through the transmission revolving door and earned himself a plum position at AEP.  Gaul has been the guy who decided to place a transmission line in your back yard, although public accountability has been rare.  Watch as an unnamed landowner gets in Gaul's face and berates him while pointing a finger.  It gives me the warm fuzzies!  The look on Gaul's face... hahahaha!  Bravo, unnamed landowner, bravo!  You spoke for a lot of people who never had such an opportunity!

At the end of the evening, Bixby officials voted to send written opposition to the project to the OCC.  The people of Bixby have spoken.  There's no purer truth in the transmission business than this...