StopPATH WV
  • News
  • StopPATH WV Blog
  • FAQ
  • Events
  • Fundraisers
  • Make a Donation
  • Landowner Resources
  • About PATH
  • Get Involved
  • Commercials
  • Links
  • About Us
  • Contact

Your Misuse of the Commerce Clause Offends Me, Clean Line!

8/31/2017

7 Comments

 
Well, no surprise here... Grain Belt Express and MJMEUC filed for rehearing on the Missouri PSC's denial of GBE's project application. 

Also no surprise that these parties simply recycled their tired, old arguments about what the ATXI opinion said and how it wasn't relevant to GBE's application.  Yawn.

But, just to keep things fully offensive, GBE threw in a few new arguments even stupider than their previous ones, and MJMEUC relied on veiled threats to coerce rehearing from the PSC.  Nice, guys, real nice.  There's probably very few ways you could be more offensive to society than this.

GBE's piggy bank must be pretty low.  I say that because GBE asks the PSC to pretend that the counties have granted approval for its project required under Section 229.100 of Missouri law.
The Commission further erred when it determined that the Company did not submit evidence of county assents in this case. See Report and Order at 14. The record clearly contained such evidence, as the Commission found in its own findings of fact. See Report and Order, ¶ 12 at p. 8, citing Ex. 300 at 33 (Lowenstein Rebuttal) & Sched. LDL-3. In any event, while the Commission correctly noted that certain county commissions have attempted to rescind their previously-granted assents, it is not within the purview of this Commission to determine the validity of assents or rescissions. See Report and Order at 8. See also Ex. 300, Lowenstein Rebuttal, at 33, Sched. LDL-4. The Commission plainly does not have the authority to determine whether governmental approvals are valid, a question that is reserved to the courts. See State ex rel. Elec. Co. of Missouri v. Atkinson, 275 Mo. 325, 204 S.W. 897, 898
(Mo. en banc 1918).
What does this say?  That because GBE submitted assents that were later rescinded, and in one case found illegal, that the Commission should ignore all evidence of recission and illegality and simply pretend county assent under 229.100 has been received into evidence?  In other words, GBE is again asking the PSC to stick its neck out to be beheaded by a court so that GBE can pretend to have a valid permit until a court rules.  And furthermore, GBE is also trying to kick its burden of proof on county assents onto the counties themselves.  By asking the PSC to declare GBE has met its burden of proof that the outdated assents provided are valid, that shifts the burden of proving they are not valid onto the counties.  In essence, GBE wants each county who rescinded assent to file a lawsuit against the company and/or PSC claiming their recission was legal.  This is plainly ridiculous, especially in the face of the one county whose assent was declared illegal by a court.  The PSC cannot ignore that.  How low will you stoop to try to save a buck, Clean Line?  How low will you stoop?

And let's talk about Clean Line's abuse of the Commerce Clause now, shall we?  Clean Line opens this bogus argument like so:
The Commission’s conclusions in this case violate the dormant federalism principles embodied in the Commerce Clause, which restrict state intrusion upon the flow of interstate commerce. Because the Commission’s decision in its Report and Order discriminates against interstate commerce, it is unconstitutional.
Larry, Moe and Curly on an escalator, Batman!  That's the dumbest thing ever!  The MO PSC didn't deny or put restraints on GBE that favored Missouri commerce over interstate commerce.  It denied it because it was contrary to state law.  That state law does not overtly discriminate against interstate commerce.  And just because other states have approved it does not obligate Missouri to approve it or run afoul of the Commerce Clause.  This is probably the dumbest, and I do mean THE DUMBEST, legal argument I've ever heard.
Courts have long-recognized that inconsistent state regulation of those aspects of commerce that by their unique nature demand cohesive national treatment offends the Commerce
Clause.

The Commission’s decision here is equally likely to paralyze the development of interstate electric transmission to deliver low-cost renewable wind power from high capacity states to states that lack renewable energy resources. Accordingly, the Report and Order violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and should be reheard.
So, in Clean Line's world, no state may ever apply its own laws to regulate ANYTHING that ANYBODY thinks may be a "national" priority or it shall be in violation of the Commerce Clause?  Even when a state has jurisdiction to permit and site electric transmission lines, it may never deny an application if the project's sponsor believes there is some national need for its project?  And it's not like this sponsor has any support from a regional planning authority determining a regional need for such a project?

Go away, Clean Line, you're ridiculous. 

Now, let's take a look at MJMEUC's overt threat against the PSC.
Four of the five Commissioners found the Grain Belt Project to be “necessary or convenient for the public service.”34 Specifically, the four Commissioners found the Project “is needed primarily because of the benefits to the members of the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission (“MJMEUC”) and their hundreds of thousands of customers...[who] would have saved approximately $9-11 million annually.”35 But the Report and Order is unlawful and unreasonable, and must thus be subjected to appellate review, and the months or years that will be consumed in that process are likely to cause failure of the Project and denial of the hundreds of millions of dollars of acknowledged benefit to MJMEUC’s members over the planned life of the Project. Therefore, the Report and Order operates to confiscate the benefit to MJMEUC that is acknowledged in the Concurring Opinion – it is unjust for the Commission to acknowledge a benefit and then act to deprive the intended recipient of that benefit.36 The Report and Order is unjust, as well as unlawful and unreasonable, and rehearing is necessary.

So, essentially, MJMEUC, you're threatening to bring a claim against the MO PSC for 20 years of $9 - 11 M annual savings that you may have received if the PSC had approved this project?  And that threat is supposed to make the PSC change its mind?  We're going to set precedent here that a regulatory body can be liable for a potential customer's estimated gain caused by an approved project if said project is ultimately denied because it runs contrary to state law?

You're also utterly ridiculous, MJMEUC.  Go ahead, sue your own state government for hundreds of millions of dollars in "damages."  I dare you.

Gosh, I wonder if the four PSC Commissioners who thought it was a good idea to create and sign that concurrence are having second thoughts yet?  It's definitely not harmless when it's being proposed as the basis for a multi-million dollar lawsuit.  And a violation of the Commerce Clause.  And the idea that Missouri counties should shoulder the burden of proving rescinded assents aren't legal.  If the Commissioners haven't figured out yet that they were led down the primrose path and stabbed in the back by Clean Line and its supporters, here's an idea...
The Report and Order of August 16, 2017, denied Grain Belt’s Application for a CCN, and thus totally resolved the case, leaving no remaining disputes among the parties which needed to be addressed in order to finally dispose of the case. The Concurring Opinion issued on that same date therefore had no practical effect whatsoever, nor did it provide any specific relief to any party to the case. It merely said that hypothetically, if we had to reach a decision on the merits of the Tartan criteria, which we do not, here is how we would have ruled. As such the Concurring Opinion amounts to a mere “advisory opinion”, which by law the Commission is not permitted to issue. State ex rel. Laclede Gas Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Mo., 392 S.W.3d 24, 38 (Mo. App. 2013). See also Order Directing Filing, Commission case no. EO-2013-0359, p. 2 (EFIS No. 2). Accordingly, the Applicants respectfully suggest that the Concurring Opinion issued on August 16, 2017 is unlawful and unreasonable, and should be withdrawn.
It's never too late to rectify a mistake. 

Just when I think Clean Line can't get any more morally bankrupt, they continue to amaze.  Stomping on the backs of others in order to lift yourself up for false praise and reward is a vile and disgusting practice, both in Mayberry and the rest of the world.  Clean Line's moral compass seems to be broken.  Shameful.
7 Comments

DOE's Very Vanilla Energy Markets and Reliability Report

8/29/2017

1 Comment

 
Remember back in April when the new Secretary of Energy issued a memo calling for a report "including an assessment of the reliability and resilience of the electric grid and an overview of the evolution of electricity markets"?  Environmental groups and Trump-haters panicked and screamed about the report being the first step to reviving coal.

Sigh.

And these fools blared on and on for months about the people working on the report, and what it would say.  Someone "leaked" a draft of the report before it was released.
The Sierra Club wasted time and resources suing DOE before the study was even released.

And guess what?  The report didn't do any of the things these prognosticators whined about.

So, the report was released last week.  In its wake, every special interest group claimed how the report provided support for their agenda.

DOE Throws Down Red Flags on Unreliable Wind and Solar

Top Three Takeaways From DOE's Grid Study - AWEA

What to Watch in the Wake of the DOE Grid Study

Energy Groups Push FERC to Make Changes Recommended in Grid Study

Could anyone write an impartial article that could serve as CliffsNotes in lieu of reading the whole boring study?  Give a gal a break?  Sorry, no.  I had to read it myself.  Warning... don't attempt in the evening, it's a real snooze fest.  Best tackled bright and early with lots of coffee.  Lots.

Just like everyone else who read the study (and even some reporters and talking heads who only pretended to read it before trying to write about it), I'm only going to concentrate on the parts that interest me.  Because just like a tub of vanilla ice cream, this "Grid Study" is so blah that you could make anything you want out of it if you sprinkle in your favorite ingredients.  Therefore, I proclaim that this report cautions against building a gigantic new electric grid to support remote renewable development.  Don't like that?  Go read the report and write your own article about it.

And here's how I support my opinion.

The report used a quote from NERC, made when the Clean Power Plan was a thing:

"Because the system was designed with large, central-station generation as the primary source of electricity, significant amounts of new transmission may be needed to support renewable resources located far from load centers.216"
But then the report said:
The studies (see Appendix B) that look into the distant future are exploratory only and represent initial investigations into how to implement high levels of VRE. They do not look into all the operational aspects of reliability due to the needed complex and computationally challenging modeling. Typical assumptions (sometimes implicit) include successful siting of (at times long multistate) transmission lines and new generation, sufficient new and existing economically viable conventional generation and other resources to support the VRE, institutional and market changes, and relevant grid modernization-type spending at both the transmission and distribution level. One study, for the ease of modeling, even assumes the nation’s 66 balancing authorities, including their governing boards and member states, would agree to one national joint dispatch). Some of these assumptions are non-trivial. These studies recognize that given enough time and money, power system engineers can make any resource and configuration reliable, as long as the laws of physics are not violated; whether the changes needed are indeed affordable, doable, and desirable may be a different question. Also, affordability was typically not in the scope of these studies.
So, yes, engineers can make things work.  That's what they do.  They're great problem solvers.  But making "VRE" (code for distant renewables) work is likely not going to be affordable.  So why aren't distant renewables affordable?
Most of the contiguous United States’ wind power plants are installed in the center of the Nation, which has the best wind resources.

Technical and economic factors may drive power plant operators to run generators even when power supply outstrips demand. For example:
For technical and cost recovery reasons, nuclear plant operators try to continuously operate at full power.
Eligible generators can take a 2.2¢/kWh or $22/MWh[yyy] production tax credit (PTC) on electricity sold. This means that some generators may be willing to sell their output for as low as -$22/MWh to continue producing power. Typically, wind generators are the largest such group in any region.
There are maintenance and fuel-cost penalties when operators shut down and start up large steam turbine (usually fossil-fueled) plants as demand varies over a day or a week. These costs may be avoided if the generator sells at a loss to attract a buyer when demand is low.

As EIA notes, the PTC can create an incentive for wind generators to bid at negative prices. If other generators located at nodes in the areas affected by negative prices are unable or unwilling to reduce output, they will have to pay the negative price for their output. That scenario has unfolded on some buses in PJM, as outlined in comments to DOE from PJM staff:
Tax and subsidy policies have had an impact on the economics of certain types of generation. The Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit and renewable energy mandates have had the most significant impact on nuclear generation. Specifically, the nuclear and wind generation are competing to clear in the market during off-peak hours when wind resources are the strongest and load is reduced. In those off-peak hours, the production tax credit has created an incentive for renewable resources to bid negative prices as they must run in order to receive their payment from the federal treasury. Since 2014, PJM has seen prices go negative at nuclear unit buses in approximately 2,176 hours—representing 14 percent of off-peak hours.

RPS compliance costs were found to total $2.6 billion in 2014, averaging $12/MWh for VRE and equating to 1.3 percent of average retail electricity bills.ffff 451 The actual effects of zero-marginal cost electricity on consumers’ bills is situational, and growth in VRE can drive additional costs, including transmission and integration costs.452 453 Because many utility-scale VRE plants are built in locations distant from load centers, they sometimes require major transmission additions to connect the remote generation to the rest of the grid and to load centers. Over the past five years, a portion of the 24,000 miles of new transmission built (about twice the number of miles added from 2006–2010) and $102 billion invested to strengthen the grid and interconnect new generation has been made to interconnect VRE.454 455 Transmission investments (regulated or merchant) can increase bulk power costs and therefore increase customers’ retail bills to the extent that they are not offset by savings attributable to access to lower-cost generation or reduced congestion costs.

Studies on RPS compliance costs do not fully capture the “all-in” costs that the ratepayer (and taxpayers) ultimately bear. These other costs are harder to measure, but may not be insignificant. They may be harder to quantify for many reasons, such as having multiple drivers behind those investments and various distribution-level grid modernization investments (e.g., smart meters and others that are touted to aid VRE integration). New transmission (other than the direct transmission interconnection charged to the renewable generation project and thus reflected in their PPA), as well as effects of VRE variability on the dispatchable fleet, are other examples of costs often not included in grid integration cost studies. Costs of various tax and other subsidies are also not counted.

Numerous technical studies on electricity systems in most regions of the Nation have concluded that significantly higher levels of VRE can be successfully integrated without compromising resource adequacy.hhhh Demonstrating resource adequacy is essenti
al, but achieving the modeled levels of VRE penetration requires a full consideration of “all-in” costs, land use, siting, and other environmental impacts; sustainable economics for non-wind and solar resources; for some studies, required changes at the distribution level; wholesale market design and organizational changes; spending on relevant transmission and distribution grid modernization activities; and ensuring all aspects of operational reliability.iiii These caveats are non-trivial, as they would be for any substantial major changes in the electric power system. However, these studies (particularly those examining high VRE levels) may often assume (or ignore) modeled conditions that could be difficult and/or costly to achieve in practice, such as a large transmission buildout that may face siting or other obstacles, ability of non-wind and solar plants to remain financially viable and thus available, institutional changes, or, for one study, synchronization of all three interconnections.
There's also problems with permitting and siting new transmission for renewables (wind).
The challenge for building transmission continues to revolve around the three traditional steps involved, each of which can be time-consuming, involved, and complex: (1) demonstrating a need for the transmission project, also known as transmission planning, (2) determining who pays for the transmission project, also called cost allocation, and (3) state and Federal agency siting and permitting. FERC has taken steps to help with the first two, with reforms such as Order No. 1000, which remains a work in progress.258 259 260 261 262 Transmission planning entities, as well as regional state-based groups, are also contributing to improving these three necessary process steps. The current and past administrations, aided by various new Federal laws, have issued various Executive Orders and other initiatives to improve the processes involved in siting and permitting of transmission when Federal lands or waters are involved.
All three transmission building steps can be time-intensive and complex; in particular, siting and permitting for large networks or long multi-state lines is challenging. 263 264 265 The second necessary step of cost-allocation can be time-consuming as well. For example, large overlay networks now being built in MISO (“Multi-Value Projects”)266 and SPP (“Highway/Byway Plan”)267 required several years of sensitive negotiations among states brokered by the respective Organization of MISO States and SPP Regional State Committee to determine the cost allocation of each large transmission buildout.268 269

That's right, there's nothing a federal agency can do about state jurisdictional transmission permitting and siting.  I'm a bit puzzled by DOE's footnote referencing this vomitrocious opinion piece from Public Utilities Fortnightly.  Umm... this is only an industry opinion, not science, engineering or any other "data source."  Don't be fooled by this guy's use of his former job to try to pretend his opinion holds any weight.  He's a shill for WIRES, and WIRES is a trade organization for transmission owners, builders and suppliers.  Of course they want to build lots of transmission right now, that's where their paychecks come from!

So, are renewables causing baseload generators to retire?  This is where the vanilla gets flavored.  On the one hand, no, coal's economic problem is caused by low shale gas prices.  On the other hand, yes.
Fuel neutrality is essential for both monopoly-utility resource planning and competitive markets to manage risk and achieve reliability efficiently. Interventions to promote specific fuel types—such as bailouts for coal and nuclear or mandates and subsidies for renewables—skew investment risk and can undermine incentives for reliability-enhancing behavior (e.g., a public intervention to finance pipeline expansion removes incentives for the private sector to invest in fuel security). Fuel-specific subsidies and mandates replace individual choice with collective choice. This one-size-fits-all approach to risk mitigation ignores variances in individuals’ risk tolerances, results in high-cost risk mitigation, and creates perverse incentives for market participants by transferring risk and costs from the private to the public sector.

New technologies with very low marginal costs, i.e. VRE, reduce wholesale prices, independent of— and in addition to—the effects of low natural gas prices. To the extent that additional development of such resources is driven by subsidies and mandates, their price suppressive effect might place undue economic pressure on revenues for traditional baseload (as well as non-baseload) resources and could require changes in market design.

On modeling capacity factors for renewables: Each ISO and RTO calculates the on-peak contribution of renewable resources as a function of historic resource performance. Land-based wind plants are assumed to deliver four to 14 percent of nameplate capacity during peak summer afternoon periods, and solar resources are assumed to deliver between 10 percent and 80 percent of nameplate capacity. Note, however, that as the level of PV penetration increases, the cumulative amount of PV generation on summer afternoons is moving net load peak hour later.

Market designs may be inadequate given potential future challenges. VRE—with near-zero marginal costs and if at high penetrations—will lower wholesale energy prices independent of effects of the current low natural gas prices. This would put additional economic pressure on revenues for traditional baseload (as well as non-baseload) resources, requiring careful consideration of continued market evolutions.

And speaking of natural gas, the report attempts to pit the "no gas pipeline" folks against the "no electric transmission line" folks.  Personally, if I had to have one or the other, I'd go with the gas line.  Once constructed, it's buried (but hopefully not forgotten).  And pipelines are easier to build because they are not state-jurisdictional.  There's a lesson here for transmission opponents... never let the Feds usurp state electric transmission siting and permitting authority.
Natural gas-fired generation has grown nearly continuously since the late 1980s (see Figure 3.19) for several key reasons. These plants have low capital costs and are, in general, relatively less expensive than some competing technologies.108 They are also much less land-intensive than many other types of generation, and thus often can be more easily sited in urban areas near electric demand.109 Similarly, natural gas pipelines can be built more quickly than electric transmission lines (in most states) because they have a comparatively streamlined permitting process, which often has made it easier for a plant developer to build a new gas-fired plant near a large electric load than to build a power plant farther away and transmit its electricity to large load centers by wire.dd

Interstate natural gas pipelines can often be built more quickly than transmission lines because the pipeline owners, once granted a FERC-issued certificate of public convenience and necessity, have eminent domain power under section 7(h) of the Nat
ural Gas Act and the procedures set forth under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 71A). By contrast, electric transmission developers are dependent on states to grant eminent domain authorization.
And let's hear from another former FERC Commissioner who isn't a spokespuppet for the industry and trying to line his own pockets:
Former FERC Commissioner Tony Clark summarizes today’s changing demands on centrally-organized markets: “Affordable power was the goal when markets were created. The current markets are still procuring affordable power, but many state public policy makers no longer see that as the only goal [...] other public policy goals [include...] incenting in-state jobs, promoting ‘green’ energy or other politically favored resources, preserving carbon-free resources, and retaining substantial tax revenues to state and local government.” Clark goes on to say, “[Markets] were never designed for job creation, tax preservation, politically popular generation, or anything other than reliable, affordable electricity.”
States that use public policy goals to determine whether or not a transmission project should be permitted are using the wrong numbers, and that's screwing with electricity markets and making electricity too expensive.

Therefore, states should stop relying on public policy goals like jobs, taxes and economic development, as well as freebies like new transmission headquarters or below cost transmission contracts, to justify approving huge new transmission projects that will only increase the cost of electricity in the long run.

And while we're at it perhaps DOE could start closer to home and take a fresh look at its decision to "participate" in the Plains & Eastern Clean Line under Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act.  The decision to "participate" relied wholly on public policy goals and the desire to play resource favorites and promote a certain type of new generation (wind).  But will the DOE take its own advice?

You need to let them know that you've reviewed their report and that their own recommendations say DOE should end its troubled participation in the Clean Line projects as soon as possible. 

The DOE wants to hear your comments.  No, they really, really, really do!  Submit your comments here. 

Do it now!


Picture
1 Comment

Ut-Oh, Transource!

8/27/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
Ut-oh, Transource!  Or, let's be real here... Ut-oh, AEP!  Your Transource shell company is in big, big trouble!

I traveled to York County, Pennsylvania, last week to attend an informational meeting about AEP's "Independence Energy Connection" put on by the York County Farm Bureau.  The meeting was held at 1:00 p.m. on a Thursday afternoon, and it was packed.  Two hundred people took time out of the middle of their day and reserved a spot to attend this meeting.  And only pre-registered attendees were allowed in, it wasn't an open meeting for Transource and its advocates to undertake "opposition research."  Attendance required forethought and determination.

The York Dispatch sent a videographer, who created a couple of excellent videos of the event here and here.  The speakers were knowledgeable and interesting and provided excellent information for landowners and others interested in participating in the case (or forced to participate after finding themselves in Transource's siting bulls eye).

The land is beautiful, the area bucolic, the citizens informed, determined, and forthright.  These are not people who are going to meekly accept this transmission line plowing its way through their community in order to make power cheaper for people in Washington, DC.  It's not like these landowners don't already make a sacrifice to serve the needs of large cities to the south.  They've been feeding the urban areas for generations, as well as living with large power generation stations that produce more power than the local area uses.  Independence Energy Connection is just one transmission line, one sacrifice, too far.

PJM Interconnection and AEP made a grave error in evaluating the "constructibility" of this project.  It's not sited on "undeveloped land" that no one cares about.  This land is fully developed to its highest and best use  and its owners, and the community surrounding them, are completely committed to keeping the land in its current "undeveloped" state.  In its current state, the land is highly productive as a food factory for urban areas, where patio tomato plants are considered "farming."

We're talking 15 miles of new greenfield transmission rights of way for this section in York County.  But yet the number of people opposed to this project numbers in the hundreds or thousands, only two months after being announced to the public.  It's a run away freight train of vocal, organized opposition that cannot be turned around, no matter how much money AEP spends on big city public relations firms with "crisis communications" and "grassroots organizing" capabilities.

Stop wasting time and money on this project, AEP.  You just can't win this one.  Remember, there is no such thing as "undeveloped land" in the eastern interconnect.  All land is used and useful to its owner and its development density is not an indicator of whether or not a transmission project may succeed.

Ut-oh, AEP! You're done for this time!
0 Comments

FERC is NOT an Appeals Court for State Transmission Permitting Decisions You Don't Like

8/23/2017

5 Comments

 
This mistake gets made a lot.  Usually it is made by regular people who don't understand the transmission regulatory world, courts, or the concept of jurisdiction.  Experienced energy attorneys look down their noses on people who make this mistake.

But what happens when this gross error is committed by one of their own, who should know better?  Is it just a mistake of the most foolish kind, or is it a conscious choice to attempt to scare people who don't know any better to believe they are powerless?

This guy has a glorious sounding pedigree in the energy regulatory field.  A client might think they could trust him to give sage advice about the regulatory world.

But then he wrote an article for legal trade journals that said this:
The developer of the Grain Belt Express line, Clean Line Energy Partners, is now considering its options, including going back to FERC and getting federal approval for the project.  FERC has previously granted the Grain Belt Express line authority to charge negotiated rates more than three years ago.
*blink*  *blink*  *huh* *wha????*  FERC cannot grant "federal approval" to an electric transmission line.  Not no way, not no how.  It also is not relevant to approval of a transmission line that FERC granted negotiated rate authority to the project (whether yesterday or 20 years ago).

This author has sadly conflated and confused Sections 1221 and 1222 of the Energy Policy Act and FERC's jurisdiction over transmission rates.  And he did it in such spectacular fashion that even the lowliest transmission opponent is probably snorting with laughter.

Section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act granted FERC permitting authority over interstate electric transmission projects located in National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors in the event a state was unable to act.  Section 1221 was litigated extensively and the courts effectively neutered it.  It no longer functions.  But here's the thing... any 1221 projects must be located in an NIETC designated by the U.S. Department of Energy.  There currently are no NIETCs designated by DOE.  None.  FERC can't do anything about Clean Line's failure.

Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act enables the U.S. Department of Energy to "participate" in transmission projects financed by third parties.  There has only been one project to ever take advantage of Section 1222.  It cost nearly $100M and 5 years to get through the process.  And that project is completely stagnant and no closer to being built because it is a merchant project with no customers to finance it.  Section 1222 has NOTHING to do with FERC, which is an independent regulatory agency under DOE's bailiwick.  DOE does not have any authority over what FERC does.  FERC has no role whatsoever in the 1222 process, which is handled solely by DOE's Office of Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability (OE).

Transmission permitting and siting is state jurisdictional.  That means that states have sole authority to permit and site transmission.  But for the two instances listed above, state utility commissions are the end of the road for proposed transmission projects.  However, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) does have jurisdiction over interstate transmission rates.  Rates -- the amount transmission companies can charge for the transmission of electricity.  FERC's jurisdiction is limited to rates, not the permitting of the actual transmission infrastructure.  However many years ago it was, FERC approved Grain Belt Express's rate scheme, subject to future compliance filings.  FERC only granted permission for GBE to charge certain rates to future customers.  This has nothing to do with permitting the actual project, only with how much the project can charge its customers.

Joseph Donovan's contention that FERC could approve the project is completely ludicrous.

So, what was the purpose of that article?  Was it intended to "scare" Missouri into changing its mind?  Is the Missouri Public Service Commission supposed to change its mind and approve the project?  Are the Missouri Courts supposed to reverse themselves to allow approval of the project?  Is the Missouri Legislature supposed to be so afraid of FERC that they change Missouri law?  Or are transmission opponents supposed to join forces with experienced regulatory attorneys to point their fingers and laugh at this guy?

Let me start.... feel free to join in at any time...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
5 Comments

PATH's Long Run Costs Consumers Millions

8/22/2017

3 Comments

 
Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
That's the sound of electric ratepayers taking a $7.4M kick in the shorts.

This afternoon, PATH auctioned off its last remaining properties in the tri-state area that it senselessly purchased for a high-voltage transmission line that was never built and never even needed.

PATH paid $8,714,553 for the seven parcels of land that were auctioned today.  The total auction sales today amounted to $1,240,100.  This leaves a delta of $7,474,453.  And who pays for that?   You do.  I do.  Every one of PJM's 65 million ratepayers pays a share.

But that's not all.  We've also paid PATH a return (interest) on these properties ever since they were purchased.  We continued to pay a return on these properties even after PATH was abandoned in 2012.  While PATH marketed and sold some of the properties it owned during the last 5 years, it never marketed the very expensive substation properties.  Instead, PATH told federal regulators it was going to transfer these properties to its affiliates "in the future."

Well, the future finally arrived today, and the Kemptown substation site was sold to the highest bidder.  PATH was so anxious to have the site that it paid $6,830,553 for it back in 2008.  Wanna know what it fetched at auction?  You're a glutton for punishment, aren't you?  The proposed Kemptown substation site sold for only $960,000.  That's a difference of $5,870,553.  I think perhaps PATH overpaid, and then failed to get a good price for it by complete and utter failure to market the property.  But why should they?  You picked up the tab, and the more PATH spent, the more it made.

PATH also sold a couple of lots on Big Woods Road.  It purchased the lots for $860,000.  The lots sold for $105,000.  That's a loss of $755,000.

PATH sold the last two of several lots it spent $4.5M purchasing at Rivers Edge Subdivision in Loudoun County for the purpose of trying to force the release of a conservation easement held by the county.  Lot 5, containing 17 acres, with a 500kV transmission line cutting it right in half, fetched a whopping $64,000.  PATH paid $285,000 for the same lot back in 2009.  That's a loss of $221,000.

Lot 12 in Rivers Edge, an irregularly shaped lot consisting of 43 acres chopped all to hell and back by the same 500 kV transmission line went for $111,000.  PATH paid $689,000 for it.  That's a loss of $578,000.

And, finally, just over half an acre of West Virginia property bisected by a subdivision road fetched a whopping $100.  Yup, that's right.  A piece of property PATH wanted so badly that it paid $50,000 for it has pretty much no value whatsoever.  Not only does the new owner get to pay taxes on their purchase, but also subdivision road fees.  What a bargain!  This property is a loss of $49,900, but I think we should be thankful that we didn't have to pay anyone to take it.

So, who bought these properties?  I don't know.  The bidders were identified only by numbers.  What will the new owners do with the properties?  Who knows... but I think one of them is still zoned agricultural...
Picture
Nice touch holding the auction in the same hotel where PATH held its "Open House" meeting for landowners back in the fall of 2008.  Hey, remember when PATH made the Holiday Inn staff go outside and take away the table borrowed by the opposition to display literature?  Good times, good times.  Getting the stink eye from the two old farts in AEP logo polo shirts was just like old times, too bad they ran for their lives before we could stop and say "hi."

Is this what PJM means when they say, "PJM is charged with planning for the future so that consumers have the most cost-efficient power when they need it.  This solution is the most reliable and cost effective and will save consumers million in the long run."?  I'm pretty sure PJM said those same things about PATH.  And PJM was wrong.  And that's cost consumers millions in the long run.  And what a long, long, loooooong run it's been.
3 Comments

Clean Line's Sugary Empty Threats

8/18/2017

3 Comments

 
Any good grandparent knows what happens when you fill a toddler with sugary snacks and drinks... they turn into short-attention span race cars... zooming through your house at breakneck speed, harassing the cat, jumping on the bed, and dumping out every puzzle and game in the house in 30 seconds flat.

That's sort of what happened with Clean Line's Mark Lawlor after the Missouri PSC denied Grain Belt's application.

It took a while for Clean Line to stiffen its upper lip and say anything.  The first words were Michael Skelly casting aspersions on Missouri, its institutions, its government, its people.  And then he said:
“We will review the order in detail to determine next steps for the project,” adds Skelly. “We are currently assessing all existing authorities available to move the Grain Belt Express project forward, including but not limited to legal appeals.”
Clean Line executives said Wednesday that they were weighing their options for the Grain Belt Express power line, though they acknowledged that the “legal and regulatory conundrum” could add many months or years to the project if they decide to keep trying.
Right, vague talk about appeals.  Blah, blah, blah.  Sort of sounds like a whipped puppy, doesn't he?  *snort*  *sniffle* *wahhhhhh*  Have a lick or two of Clean Line's delicious lollipop and dry your tears...

And remember, GBE's attorney promised the PSC that a dismissal would mean the project is dead and that a separate but ineffective favorable opinion would only be used to convince the counties to grant assent.  Unfortunately, some of the PSC Commissioners took him at his word.

Sometime later Wednesday afternoon Mark Lawlor got ahold of that lollipop and went on a sugar-fueled romp among the media, supposing all sorts of things he could do to move a dead and denied GBE project forward.  Each comment got more outrageous until Mark's pinnacle with a Fox News station out of Illinois, where he said,
"So, the Grain Belt Project will deliver enough power for over a million homes, and will do so at costs that are extremely competitive with wind energy that is clean and renewable.”
No, really, that's exactly what he said, listen to the recording on the video here.  What is it that Clean Line will be delivering that will be extremely competitive with clean wind power?  It can't be clean wind power, so it must be dirty coal power?  Gas?  Nuclear?  All of the above?  I think the sugar was running amok by that time and Mark's brain and mouth were running in different time zones.

What other stupid things did he say?
“We absolutely want to do the project,” said Mark Lawlor, development director for Grain Belt Express. But he added: “Unfortunately, the message that we’re getting from Missouri is that investments of these kind might be better spent in other places.”

Lawlor said the four commissioners’ belief that the project was worthwhile but not approvable under state law “makes for an interesting argument” if Clean Line decides to instead seek federal permission to proceed.

Clean Line director of development Mark Lawlor said another hearing would be sought, but that the company also was exploring legal options.

He added that Clean Line would push ahead with the project, despite the setback in Missouri.

“This is a Missouri problem, it’s not just a Grain Belt problem. This says any transmission line looking to build in Missouri cannot set foot on the commission’s doorstep until there’s permission from counties for a road permit,” said Lawlor.

“It’s too important to our country, and to our energy future, to just walk away,” said Lawlor. “This project is just as valuable today as when we started and probably more so.”

The project’s developers and other supporters harshly criticized Wednesday’s PSC ruling.

“It’s going to apply to future infrastructure projects — not just ours, but anyone who wants to come to Missouri and build transmission lines or pipelines, they’re gonna pay attention to this,” said Mark Lawlor, vice president at Clean Line. “It sends a bad signal to the marketplace.”

He argued that Grain Belt Express and projects of statewide significance should be decided by the PSC.

“It’s certainly not what the legislature intended,” Lawlor said. “It’s certainly not how the commission has worked in its 113-year history, but that’s somehow where we found ourselves today.”

Lawlor said Clean Line would need time to determine its next course of action.

A lawyer representing clean-energy interests said that another appeal is a near-certainty. Mark Lawlor, Clean Line’s vice president for development, wasn’t quite as definite.

“I think it’s sort of placed the burden on Clean Line to go ask the courts to sort this out,” he said. “Because of this legal quagmire, the project can’t move forward. It’s a broken system. It’s a problem for Missouri.”

Lawlor said there are a few options that he and his staff are evaluating. One is to essentially take the case back to the state appeals court – the same body that took the position that in part has led to this “quagmire,” as Lawlor called it.

There is actually a chance that the same court that ruled against Clean Line’s interests could see things differently, according to Renew Missouri’s James Owen.

“There are aspects of this that haven’t been presented before,” he said. “We can point out things that haven’t been thought about.”

The legislature is another avenue, according to Lawlor. He suggested they might want to study the pertinent law and ask themselves, “Is this what we meant to do here? Is this what we want, to have county commissions decide which infrastructure moves forward in the state?

“It would be in legislature’s interests to sort this out.”

There is also a federal avenue through which Lawlor said private developers can partner with the Department of Energy to develop infrastructure.

But Lawlor claims that the issue goes beyond Clean Line’s desire to build a high-voltage transmission line across Missouri. The new administration of Gov. Eric Greitens “has made a point of saying, ‘Missouri is open for business, we want investment in our state.’

“This decision runs counter to that.” As it now stands, he predicted that, “Other investors are going to look at Missouri and this will enter into their decision as to whether this is a good place to invest money.”
Wow, that was pretty impressive, for a company that seems to be out of money.

Lawlor's false bravado seems to have rubbed off on Clean Line president Michael Skelly the next day.  Skelly says:
“It’s impossible if you’re building a multi-state transmission line to get agreements from all 30 counties that you might cross,” said Michael Skelly, the president of Houston-based Clean Line, which is planning about $9 billion of power lines across the Great Plains, Midwest and the Southwest. 

Clean Line has at least three options it is considering, according to Skelly. It can appeal the decision, seek a change of state law or bypass the state by asking the U.S. Energy Department to approve it.

“If none of those three work, we’re toast,” Skelly said in an interview Wednesday.
And then he passes the lollipop to Clean Line's PR lady:
Clean Line’s other options, said spokesperson Sarah Bray, include asking the PSC for a rehearing, working with the state’s legislature to revise pertinent laws or seeking U.S. Energy Department approval under Section 1222 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. The latter would authorize the department to take part in “designing, developing, constructing, operating, maintaining or owning” new transmission.

“The project is certainly not dead,” Bray said.

Bray told RTO Insider that Clean Line was “encouraged by the PSC’s determination that the project is in the public interest and will benefit the State of Missouri.”
That sugary lollipop the PSC handed them has done nothing but fuel delusions of grandeur that the company can't accomplish.  And it's going to waste a bunch more time and money.  Instead of being "toast," like it promised, the company wants to add years to its project schedule pursuing the impossible dream.

And what are Clean Line's options?
  1. Seek rehearing.  Will the PSC suddenly change its mind and do something the courts said was illegal and issue GBE a permit?  No, that's not realistic.  But a request for rehearing is prerequisite to appeal.
  2. Appeal the PSC's denial to the Missouri courts.  Is the Western District Court of Appeals going to reverse itself?  There are no new arguments on this issue.  It's all been said and done before and the appeals court and the Missouri Supreme Court rejected them all.  What makes Clean Line think it's different or special at this point in time?  The law is the law.  The courts follow the law.
  3. Repeal or replace Sec. 229-100 of Missouri law that says a transmission project must have the assent of the county commissions through which it passes.  Read this carefully.  Is Missouri really going to give up local control to have its fate dictated to by out-of-state companies with foreign investors?  This statute has been in effect for years.  It's not realistic to think it can be legislated away at the request of some Texas company in a big fat hurry.  This is unlikely to happen, even if Clean Line spends years buying support to repeal it.
  4. Ask the U.S. DOE to partner on this project under Sec. 1222 of the Energy Policy Act.  Does Clean Line have $100M lying around to fund another 1222 process?  Even if it did, the federal government wants to sell the power marketing authorities that would partner under Sec. 1222.  Once sold, the PMAs would no longer have any government authority, but would be owned by private entities that have to adhere to state law.  And let's be realistic here... even with Sec. 1222 being used on Clean Line's Plains & Eastern project to usurp state authority, that project is going nowhere.  It's dead.  No activity.  Sitting in limbo.  Has no customers to fund it.
None of these sound like workable options.  They would add years and hundreds of millions of dollars to the project.  Clean Line doesn't have years.  The big wind farm building boom is waning with the federal production tax credits that will sunset in just 3 years.  When the PTC goes, so goes any economic advantage for big wind.  Because the PSC denied Grain Belt's application the other day, all those contracts between GBE, MJMEUC and Infinity Wind are void.  The contracts were contingent upon PSC approval.  All that would have to be rehashed at a later date.  Pricing would change without the PTC.  Any opportunity and savings attached to those contracts during the recent PSC application will have to be completely re-done.  And that's the thing, unless appeal is granted (highly unlikely) Clean Line will have to prosecute a fourth application before the MO PSC with no guarantee of a favorable result.  The MO PSC swings wildly from side to side.

And then let's talk about Illinois, where the Supreme Court has taken up the issue of whether or not Clean Line is a public utility that should be granted eminent domain authority.  Even if Clean Line spends all this money trying to bust through Missouri's brick wall, eventually the Illinois Supreme Court is going to issue a ruling that can nullify it.  All of it.  It doesn't matter what Missouri thinks if the Illinois permit is vacated.  Why waste a bunch of time and money in Missouri when it can all be for naught once Illinois rules?  I thought Clean Line put spending money in Iowa on hold pending the Illinois outcome.  But yet they want to do that exact thing in Missouri?

Honestly, these guys are dumber than a box of rocks.  It sounds to me like they're just spewing out a bunch of empty threats and big talk that they can't accomplish.  Perhaps they'll come down off their sugar high soon?  Because Clean Line is dead.  Go away, Clean Line.  You will never succeed.
3 Comments

Clean Line's Delicious Lollipop

8/17/2017

3 Comments

 
Yesterday, the Missouri Public Service Commission held out a tasty, sparkly, beautiful lollipop for Grain Belt Express.  But instead of carefully handing GBE the lollipop to enjoy, the Commission plunged the lollipop into the nearest pile of manure and walked away, leaving Clean Line scrambling to dust off its lollipop before having a lick, and then sharing it with MJMEUC, environmental groups, and the media.

Don't lick this lollipop!
Picture
What exactly happened at the PSC yesterday?

Grain Belt Express's application was denied.  Done.  Finished.  Not approved.  Case over.

But then the PSC did something unfortunate.  It issued what can only be dubbed a useless opinion on the case it had just denied.  The denial is the only thing with any legal effect.  It doesn't matter if they might have approved it, or whether they think it was worthwhile, because it's denied and the useless opinions in the "concurrence" have no authority or effect.  The project is denied.

Of course, Clean Line begged for this favorable opinion separate and apart from a denial, and the Commission spread it on pretty thick.  An actual approval couldn't have been so biased and one-sided.  During oral arguments, Clean Line's attorney said it would use the useless opinion to convince county commissions to assent to its project.  But it looks like Clean Line has used it for everything but.

Clean Line has used the useless opinion to try to shield itself in the media so it doesn't have to utter the word denial.

Clean Line has used the useless opinion to beat up on the PSC and the State of Missouri in the media.

Clean Line has used the useless opinion to make its former customers think their contract is still binding and convince them to sit around like good little sheep and fail to pursue replacements for supply contracts that expire in 4 years.

Clean Line has used the useless opinion as the proposed basis for future legal action.

Clean Line has used the useless opinion to pretend it would make a good platform for federal usurpation of the Missouri PSC's authority.  The Commission whined in its concurrence that the courts had overstepped onto Commission authority.  If they think the Missouri court system stuck its nose where it didn't belong, then the Commission ain't seen nothing yet if the Feds get involved.

Lastly, did Clean Line use that useless opinion to unlock the investor money vault and give its investors false hope that the opinion had some value and effect?  I wonder how the Missouri PSC might have ill-advisedly overstepped by producing knowingly ineffective and overly complimentary opinions that give investors false hope for a project that has failed?  At least one Commissioner had the good sense not to sign that thing.

The Missouri Public Service Commission's "Concurrence" is a powerless, feel-good, useless opinion that does not matter.  It does nothing.  It has no legal force or effect.  It's just a piece of paper.

The only thing that matters from yesterday is the Order denying Grain Belt's Application.  Grain Belt Express was denied by the PSC.  It cannot be built in Missouri.  That isn't some easily scaled "hurdle," it's a 16-story brick wall.  Missouri said no.  End of story.

The Missouri Landowners Alliance's attorney told the AP everything they needed to know yesterday.
"They're done at this point. We won. They can't build the line," said Paul Agathen, an attorney for the Missouri Landowners Alliance. "So it's up to them as to what steps, if any, they take."
So there Clean Line sits, holding its dirty PSC lollipop, hoping everyone has a lick.  Just say "no" to that lollipop or you're going to end up with a mouth full of.... 

Next... what happens when a Clean Line employee consumes too much sugar?  Stay tuned...
3 Comments

The Clean Line Blame Game

8/16/2017

3 Comments

 
In the wake of the Missouri Public Service Commission's denial of Clean Line's Grain Belt Express project today, fingers were pointing everywhere.

Clean Line's Michael Skelly blamed the PSC.
“The PSC’s decision to deny approval of the project, despite the clear public benefits, sends a clear message that investors contemplating new infrastructure projects should not come to Missouri. Today’s ruling is inconsistent with good government and sound public policy and it is our hope that moving forward Missouri will work to remove barriers to building new critical infrastructure projects.”
The PSC blamed the courts.
Instead, the commission said it was bound by a court opinion rendered earlier this year on the Mark Twain Transmission Project. That case involved the issue of assent — or permission from counties to use right-of-ways to construct the project.
Screwball environmental fringe group Renew Missouri blamed the governor.
"...the decision on the Grain Belt Express today shows our new Governor’s administration isn’t serious about economic development and household budgets as promised. Just more talk with no action.”
Let's pause here and put on our thinking caps, shall we? 

What's the problem?

Grain Belt Express did not have necessary county assents.

Whose fault is that?

It's Clean Line's fault, of course!  None of this would have happened if Clean Line had produced county assents.

And why couldn't Clean Line produce county assents?

Because it treated county commissions and affected landowners like they didn't matter.  Instead of offering something landowners could accept, Clean Line thought it prudent to ignore landowner concerns and request eminent domain to take their property against their will.  If Clean Line had truly worked to find a way to get landowner support, the county commissions may have granted assent.

But Clean Line didn't. 

The denial of Grain Belt Express is only Clean Line's fault.
3 Comments

Grain Belt Express Strikes Out - Denied by Missouri PSC for the Third Time!

8/16/2017

5 Comments

 
Picture
Citizens across Missouri are celebrating today in the wake of the Public Service Commission’s (PSC) denial of Grain Belt Express’s (GBE) application to build a high-voltage transmission line across the state. The application, GBE’s third, was unanimously denied at a PSC meeting this morning. The Commissioners stated that they are constrained by a recent court opinion that requires local county assent before the PSC can grant a permit.

Block GBE-Missouri President Russ Pisciotta stated, “This is a huge victory for the impacted property owners and property rights. We are so thankful to all that made this possible.”

Key to the landowners’ victory is the steadfast opposition to the project by County Commissions. A transmission project must receive the assent of the commission of each county crossed prior to approval by the PSC. In Ralls County, where support of the project was rescinded, Presiding Commissioner Wiley Hibbard says he will continue to stand with his constituents.

“I am very pleased that the local control of county commissioners was upheld by the PSC. Local officials have much better insight on how these projects will affect their counties. Please know Ralls County is not against green energy, in fact our Ralls Co. Electric Co-op has over 500 megawatts of wind energy currently available. Anyone interested in taking advantage of this clean energy opportunity without taking our land by force is welcome in Ralls County,” said Hibbard.

Caldwell County Presiding Commissioner Bud Motsinger said he has tried to reflect the opinions of voting constituents.

“I am very pleased that the PSC has listened to the public comments and public opinion. It is very important for local citizens to express opinions on issues that concern them and their county. This is an example of community involvement protecting the future of Caldwell County,” said Motsinger.

Block GBE-Missouri believes that offshore wind is a viable option for the east coast, without disrupting and clear cutting thousands of acres halfway across the country in the Midwest. Offshore wind is a reliable and consistent supply because it blows during peak times, when terrestrial wind often cannot produce. Block GBE believes distributed and locally sourced renewables provide economic development to the area that will use the energy produced, and keeps energy dollars at home, where they provide local jobs and tax benefits.

Block member Jennifer Gatrel stated, “It was never about whether or not the energy was renewable, but about disruption and loss of production for the many family farms, as well as reduced property values and permanent hazards for landowners in GBE’s path. Use of eminent domain to coerce cooperation, and poor compensation, did little to convince landowners to sacrifice their wellbeing for the benefit of consumers in Missouri cities and other states far away.”

During oral arguments on the issue earlier this month, GBE’s attorney shared with the Commission that if the project was dismissed, it was dead.

“Farmers are long term thinkers. We plan in decades, not years. We will fight this as long as it takes. Property rights are worth protecting,” said Block GBE spokeswoman Jennifer Gatrel.

BACKGROUND: Grain Belt Express was a 780-mile high-voltage direct current transmission proposed to run from Kansas to Indiana to move wind energy from the Great Plains to the East Coast.
5 Comments

Todd Burns:  Liar?  Or Just Stupid?

8/10/2017

5 Comments

 
It's one or the other.  Let's contemplate this...

When I asked Todd Burns what his company's return on equity was, he appeared confused.  He didn't know what a return on equity was.  It was only after I explained what it was that he finally remembered that Transource's return on equity for this project is "10 to 11 percent" something like that.  FACT:  Transource has applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a 10.9% ROE.  The matter is currently in settlement discussions, with an administrative hearing possible if a settlement is not reached.

I met a handful of the Transource guys and gals the other night.  Most attempted to be personable and avoid direct lies while trying to answer my increasingly hard questions.  And then I worked my way up to Todd Burns.

He also had trouble admitting that Transource has received an incentive from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that allows the company to file to recover all its sunk costs from ratepayers in the event that PJM decides to abandon this project. 

So, do the lawyers and bean counters at "Transource" (really utility giant AEP, because Transource has no employees of its own) not share basic information, such as return on equity and who pays if the project is abandoned, with Todd Burns?  Todd needs to hustle home to Columbus with great alacrity and find out about all this stuff!  Otherwise, he looks rather stupid to a public who does know about it.  Or maybe he looks like a liar who was pretending to be uninformed so he could avoid the question?  As if that could happen.

Todd Burns also seemed to be confused about a lot of other facts during an interview with the Waynesboro Herald Record.  Despite that, the reporter managed to write a great, balanced article.  The Herald Record has the best coverage of this issue that I've seen (other media take note!)  What was it that Burns said?
Burns said some of the negative feedback is based on misinformation about the project. “There’s a lot of confusion and a lot of things being said that aren’t accurate,” Burns said.
I blame you, Todd.  I think most of the "misinformation" is coming from you.  Please, allow me to demonstrate...
“Burying lines causes problems,” Burns said. “If a line fails and it’s underground, it can’t be located and fixed immediately. That’s what happened recently on the Outer Banks.
“The environmental disturbance is greater to trench and bury a line than to run it overhead. And it’s ten-times more costly to do it underground.”

It is NOT "ten times more costly" to underground lines.  In fact, it's only twice as costly, roughly.  AEP has been claiming undergrounding is "ten times more costly" for years, along with a whole bunch of other excuses for taking the cheaper and easier option of aerial lines.  And the technology does exist to determine where a fault is on an underground line.  And you probably can mark an underground line to prevent all by the biggest idiots from pile driving onto it.  I'm not buying the environmental disturbance thing, either.  I've seen what transmission companies do to rights of way when building overhead lines.  So, let's update these excuses, because they sort of sound like a lie to me.

As well, who cares how much it costs to underground lines?  If the landowners require undergrounding, then that is the cost of fixing this "bottleneck."  Are you saying that unless you can build this cheaply that all the savings for the DC-Baltimore elite will evaporate?  A more expensive project doesn't clear a cost-benefit analysis?  Then, obviously, this project isn't worth doing.  It is not incumbent upon Pennsylvania and Maryland landowners to sacrifice by allowing the cheapest project you can build in order to move cheaper power to the city.  If you want them to sacrifice for the cities, then the landowners need to have input into how the final project looks on their property.  And by having input, I mean actually making the determination -- I don't mean having an opportunity to toss comments down a black hole at Transource where they are completely ignored.  The only way a landowner can have effective input is when eminent domain is not an option.  Anything else is coercion, not negotiation.  Which brings us to...
“I’ve heard people are concerned about land use and whether they will be able to use their properties,” Burns said. “People will still be able to work under the power lines, although obviously there would be a limit on building underneath them. The land is still useable.”
Burns said property owners would be compensated for the easements through their land. “We’re going to be acquiring easements from the landowners and compensate them for it. They will retain the rights to certain activities,” Burns said.
He said property-owners shouldn’t be worried about the threat of eminent domain. “Our approach is we negotiate fair market value for anything that has to be acquired,” he explained. “We use eminent domain less than three percent of the time.”

If you want to see how landowners can still work under high voltage transmission lines, carefully watch the AEP videos on this page.  Nuisance shocks, EMF, and big brother monitoring your activities on your own land?  What's not to like?  But wait, there's more... like aerial spraying of the right of way with chemicals to keep growth down,  or power line workers coming on your property for maintenance or repairs and leaving gates open, driving large equipment through your fields, and disturbing the soil.  The truth is that you will have picked up a parasitic tenant on your land... in perpetuity.

"Compensation" for property taken may be less than you'd expect.  After all it is a value created by an out of state company, that will never even lay eyes on your place, from market studies of similar land sales of property in your county.  It is Transource's idea of the value of your property, not yours.  As well, you may only be paid for the property in the right of way, when the right of way itself devalues the rest of the parcel.  Payments for damages will be argued over in court for years... at your expense, if you don't accept what the company wants to give you.

I'm pretty sure Transource land agents will use the threat of eminent domain 100% of the time in order to coerce the landowner to sign on the dotted line.  That isn't negotiation, that's coercion.
Burns said he is confident the Independence Energy Connection will save customers money not just in the greater metropolitan areas south of here, but locally. “The driver is to give customers in this area access to lower costs,” he said. He said it is too early to estimate what the cost savings might be, or whether local, independent energy companies will pass the savings on to customers. “They may have other initiatives that will affect your bill,” Burns said.
Perhaps Burns needs to talk to his underlings, who have readily admitted that the lion's share of the savings is for customers in the DC/Baltimore area.  And PJM agrees with that.  That's why 80.52% of the cost of this project will be paid for by DC, Baltimore and Northern Virginia Customers.
Picture
Those who receive the benefits (in this instance cheaper power) pay the costs.  That's how PJM works.  Any savings for the project area (benefits) are not commensurate with the cost to the community and the individual landowners.  Their costs are much greater than any benefit they may receive.

And I hate to let Burns know, but one of his underlings actually confirmed that market efficiency projects perform a leveling of costs across the region.  If power is cheaper in the cities, the cost of it must rise somewhere else.  All that cheap power "bottlenecked" in PA and MD and unable to reach the cities?  Those are the prices that are going to go up once the "bottleneck" is removed.

And then Burns admits he has no hard evidence of how (or even if) this project will lower local electric bills.  Then he supposes that local electric companies may keep any savings that develop for themselves.  Of course... always thinking ahead, that Todd, to explain now why bills will never go down after this project is built.

Todd is not telling the truth about project benefit.  But he may not be the only one with a penchant for prevarication.  Transource spokeswoman Abby Foster made up a whole bunch of satisfied and happy landowners out of thin air.
Despite the many negative comments exchanged from person to person around the packed community center, Transource officials said there was also positive feedback.
“We found in this area, people understand the greater need for infrastructure,” said Abby Foster, community affairs representative for Transource Energy. “Everyone here benefits from something being on someone’s property.”
Foster said the positive comments she heard came from residents who see the financial benefits of easements on their properties as well as the benefits of costs savings on energy bills.
She said some residents don’t like the exact location of the proposed line across their properties but are willing to have it shifted to a different location on their properties.
“There’s a lot that has shifted because of public input,” Foster said.
Why are there no quotes from these people?  Why didn't the reporter talk to any of them?  Is that because they don't exist?  These must be the mysterious folks who have requested monopoles, because those people are just as elusive.  What it seems more like is that Transource is making up a mythical landowner who is pleased because Transource is altering its plans to suit Mr. Mythical.  A company that presented its public image as "take it or leave it" would be seen as unfavorable by the public.  One that pretends it is bending to the will of the people may curry more favor.  But when there are no happy people in reality, it's all an illusion.  Nobody wants this transmission line on their property.

And as far as that “everyone here benefits from something being on someone’s property” line, puh-leeze.  I heard that from one of the Transource people at the open house.  It was the tagline of the night.  And it sucks.  It doesn't work on the public, just so you know, Transource.  Other companies have tried it before you.  It is met with anger and confusion.  It has no relevance for affected landowners.  Just because we use eminent domain and rights of way to take property for public use does not mean that everyone should gladly sacrifice for the selfish needs of others.  And that's what this is... rural sacrifice for urban benefit.  This project isn't needed to keep the lights on.  It's only "need," according to PJM, is to make power cheaper in the cities to the south.  Those cities like to keep their pretty skylines lit up all night long.  There's no reason at all to keep an office tower lit inside all night.  Maybe if the cities quit wasting so much electricity, they wouldn't need to call older, more expensive plants to generate during peak load a few days out of the year.  And then we wouldn't "need" gigantic transmission towers in Pennsylvania.

Let's wrap up with this...
“We’ll look at a route that strikes the best balance,” Burns said, mentioning recreational activities, historic value and land use concerns. “You rarely come up with one that’s gonna satisfy all those things. Ultimately, it will be at the state level to decide where it goes.”
It is up to the state to decide WHETHER it goes, not just where.  Opposition to this project is huge and gathering mass every minute.  Loud, forthright opposition kills transmission projects.  Todd Burns is going to need to get himself educated quickly!  Or else quit lying.  He's not very good at it.
5 Comments
<<Previous

    About the Author

    Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.
    In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history.

    About
    StopPATH Blog

    StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project.  The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

    StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view.  If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty.  People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself.  If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

    Got something to say?  Submit your own opinion for publication.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories

    All
    $$$$$$
    Aep Vs Firstenergy
    Arkansas
    Best Practices
    Best Practices
    Big Winds Big Lie
    Can Of Worms
    Carolinas
    Citizen Action
    Colorado
    Corporate Propaganda
    Emf
    Eminent Domain
    Events
    Ferc Action
    Ferc Transmission Noi
    Firstenergy Failure
    Illinois
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Land Agents
    Legislative Action
    Missouri
    Mtstorm Doubs Rebuild
    Mtstormdoubs Rebuild
    New Jersey
    Newslinks
    Opinion
    Path Alternatives
    Path Failures
    Path Intimidation Attempts
    Potomac Edison Investigation
    Power Company Propaganda
    Psc Failure
    Rates
    Regulatory Capture
    The Pjm Cartel
    Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes
    Transource
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.
✕