This is Thomas Stallbaumer.  He and his ancestors have been stewards of this land in Nemeha County, Kansas,  since 1854.  He plans to eventually hand the care of this land over to his children, who plan to hand it to their children in turn. This picture was taken by his daughter, Kayla, as he gazed over land that has been virtually unchanged since his grandfather built a home here more than 150 years ago.

But now a company from Texas wants to build a high voltage transmission line less than a thousand feet from Stallbaumer's property.  This is what he will be looking at in the future while relaxing on his swing, if Clean Line Energy Partners gets its way.

That's hardly a fair reward for a lifetime of hard work and dedication to the preservation of this land.  The electricity to be carried by the proposed transmission towers is being touted as "clean" renewable energy for "eastern states."  Next time you easterners flip the switch to waste some of your "clean" energy from Kansas wind farms, remember Thomas Stallbaumer, sitting on his swing and wondering why Kansas regulators and Clean Line Energy Partners don't know the difference between energy that is merely renewable, and energy that is sustainable.

"Sustainable energy is the sustainable provision of energy that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs." 

Renewable energy, as defined by Clean Line Energy Partners, is energy that is produced by a renewable source, even if production and delivery of that energy causes permanent harm to humans, animals, and businesses, and removes sustainable farmland from production...forever.  Clean Line Energy Partners' unsustainable energy practices force regulators to make a conscious choice of who must sacrifice so that others may benefit.  Sustainable energy requires no sacrifice.

These cheerful people are the Kansas Corporation Commissioners who will be presiding over an evidentiary hearing this week, where Clean Line Energy Partners will be spinning a web of lies and justifications for its project, and asking these people to silence the objections of Thomas Stallbaumer, and other landowners just like him all across Kansas.

In 2011, the KCC approved the power of eminent domain for a project that had no customers, proclaiming it "needed."  The Commission bought Clean Line's illogical contentions without performing even perfunctory examination of their validity.  None of the Kansans who would eventually be expected to sacrifice for this project were notified or allowed to participate in that hearing.

This year, Clean Line was back with another application, this time for a route meandering across the state, from southwest to northeast.  The only "notice" some affected landowners received occurred at a very late date, in some instances AFTER the deadline to file testimony that had already been set by the KCC.  The "notice" also misinformed landowners of their legal rights to participate in a hearing that could result in the condemnation of their real property.  Further inquiry at the KCC produced more misinformation, with landowners being told that they must hire an attorney to intervene in the case on their behalf.

And the legal errors continue.  Last week, pro se intervenors were prohibited from filing testimony because the deadline for testimony had passed nearly two months prior, weeks before the legal deadline to intervene.  Read the direct testimony of Thomas's son, Matthew, that was filed before the Order denying it.  I dare you to forget Matthew's testimony after reading it and looking at the exhibits.  Intervenors were also told that they would not be permitted to participate in cross-examination, submit exhibits or even call witnesses.  Intervenors will be limited to making opening statements and filing post-hearing briefs.  In essence, intervenors are now being limited to meaningless "participation" whereby they will not be allowed to submit any evidence that may contradict Clean Line, nor allowed to even question Clean Line's evidence.  This is not due process.  This is not justice.

The KCC is in a big hurry to make a decision on this case within an arbitrary 120-day deadline.  They have been hurried along by aggressive Clean Line attorneys who have been doing their best to ban Kansans from the proceeding.  What's the hurry on a project that has no customers and is not needed for reliability or market efficiency reasons?  Why must this project be rushed through approvals in Kansas to such an extent that the citizens are stripped of their right to participate in a legal process that could take their property?

If the KCC and Clean Line thought a quick process would avoid scrutiny, they are mistaken.  In fact, this travesty of justice has attracted nationwide attention, and will continue to do so this week as the case is heard.

Check back here for more landowner stories and updates on hearing progress.

LET’S GIVE THE PSC AN EARFUL ON ELECTRIC BILLS in Advance of PSC “Public Comment” on Meter-reading, Billing Practices!

The West Virginia Public Service Commission has announced “public comment” hearings will be held in Shepherdstown Oct. 23-24 and in Fairmont Oct. 24-25, to give citizens a chance to speak about problems they have been having with their electric bills.

We are asking ratepayers to turn out in force to hold Potomac Edison and Mon Power accountable for their failure to read meters every other month – as required by the PSC – and the resulting problems ratepayers have had with bills.

But first we are asking citizens to attend our meeting, to hear the problems that the PSC has turned up in its general investigation of FirstEnergy (the owner of the two utilities), the explanations and excuses being offered by the company, and how ratepayers can use their own bills to identify problems.

Two meetings, you say? Why is that necessary?

Because the PSC has decided that before it listens to any citizens about their problems, the citizens first have to wait through an hour-long presentation by the utilities. We want ratepayers to have the knowledge to decide for themselves if the presentation provides answers – or excuses.

Our training meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. (doors open at 6) at Fisherman’s Hall in Charles Town. We will explain what the investigation has uncovered so far, go over a sample electric bill and show how you can spot the problems you have experienced, and invite meeting participants to identify any new problems that have come up. For instance, there have been reports that Potomac Edison has been contacting some long-time customers and requiring a security deposit, even when the customers have been prompt in their payments.  Or perhaps you're still having problems with too many estimated bills?  Maybe you're one of the customers whose current bills are being over-estimated based on prior year incorrect data?

We will give ratepayers information they can use to prepare to speak at the PSC hearing.

Where:     Fisherman’s Hall
                Corner of S. West and Academy streets
                Charles Town, WV

When:       6:30 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 16th (doors open                 at 6 p.m.)

Sponsors:  Jefferson County NAACP
                The Coalition for Reliable Power

Please bring your most recent electric bill for use in our electric bill interpretation group exercise.

See you then!

Download a meeting flier to share or post

Y'all want to know what I think about the PJM - MD PSC thing?  Yeah, I know, but first we're going to take a little side trip into another, less publicized, decision handed down yesterday.  Why?  Schadenfreude.  And it makes me laugh!

This turned up on a news feed. 

Want to read the rest?  Get a subscription.

Or I'll summarize for you, because I used FirstEnergy's legal whining in this case in my FERC complaint last year.  FirstEnergy lost in that instance too.

The Pennsylvania PUC denied recovery of electricity loss charges they categorized as generation charges.  FirstEnergy insisted they were transmission line loss charges under FERC's jurisdiction, and therefore the PA PUC was forbidden to do anything other than pass them through to customers unscathed because the PUC does not have jurisdiction over transmission charges.

Meanwhile, FirstEnergy was using its other puppet hand to tell FERC that transmission charges of its PATH subsidiary were state jurisdictional and that challengers had no standing to pursue them under FERC's jurisdiction.

So, FirstEnergy lost their argument at FERC.  And then they lost their argument at the PA PUC.  Looks like FirstEnergy is wrong about everything.  Maybe they can take it out of Tony's paycheck... for the next 10 years.

Ha hahahahahahahahahaaaaa!

No win-win here, folks, and it's gonna cost you.  How much?  Let's start with the difference between capacity prices ($195 vs. $167.46) = $27.54 MWD for the SWMAAC zone, plus a monthly credit of $.49 for all customers who have not switched to a competitive provider.  This is what Maryland electric consumers will lose in this "victory for competitive markets."

Consumers all over PJM will also lose the health and environmental benefits of the difference between locally generated natural gas-fired electricity and that generated by antique coal burners in the Ohio Valley and shipped hundreds of miles to point of use.  They'll also lose the cost of any new transmission lines needed to take the place of the eastern Maryland generation that was "competitively" killed by PJM's electricity markets and the incumbent generators that control them.

But, there may be a tiny bit of poetic justice for these generation bullies waiting down the road, when PJM's "competitive markets" and rabid transmission expansion planning force states with renewable portfolio standards to purchase expensive imported "renewables" from the midwest, which is going to cut into these "competitive" generators' market share.  Whom is going to club whom with the Commerce Clause when the time comes?  Reply hazy.  Ask again later.

If you enjoy long, complicated geek-reads, check out the actual decision here.  The court actually did a great job explaining deregulation, PJM, "the grid," and electricity markets.  Too bad the law is what it is, because if you take the time to read this, you'll see how deregulation, regional transmission organizations and electricity markets are a farce that inflates your electric rates.

Maryland's problem in setting up a mechanism to stimulate the development of new in-state generation is that it is a deregulated state, and Maryland's contract relied on PJM's "competitive" markets, which are FERC jurisdictional.  Let's hope Maryland does a better job next time, now that they know the ground rules.

Do the bullies think that Maryland and New Jersey are going to give up and go away with their tails between their legs now and continue to pay the highest electricity prices in the region because PJM's "competitive markets" don't work?  Don't count on it.  My Magic 8 Ball says this saga will continue...

Big coal, big gas, big tobacco, big pharma, big wind, big green... what do they all have in common?  A desire to control your thoughts and actions to increase their own financial gain.

Now big wind has joined with big green to push an agenda they have dubbed "America's Power Plan." 

What's the surest way to tell you're the victim of propaganda?  Use of the word "America" as a shroud to hide financial or political goals and make you think that everyone else is on board with it.  It's deployment of the most classic propaganda devices in an attempt to control you.  Just say no.

"America's" Power Plan has been developed by environmental groups and transmission developers to inform the public what landowners and consumers want in an attempt to influence energy policy.  No actual landowners or consumers were consulted in the creation of this "plan."  "America's" Power Plan doesn't represent the plan of "America."  It's simply a vehicle for environmental group leadership to check a few renewable energy boxes and for transmission developers to make money.  Lots of it.

This farce has been perpetrated by funding from the Energy Foundation, which is a shady front group whose own source of funds is unclear.  What is clear, however, is how much this "foundation" meddles in both foreign and domestic policy in order to meet goals that may not be shared by "America."  They've got plenty of money to give away to groups who agree to do their bidding, including the creators of "America's" Power Plan.

The greenwashers leading the pack here are the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council).  Stop supporting this organization.  It stopped listening to the public a long, long time ago and now merely exists inside its own little political echo chamber where its well-paid employees tell themselves that greenwashing greedy corporate initiatives that may not be in the best interest of "America" is "saving the planet."  After all, their big salaries are paid for by the very energy interests whose initiatives they facilitate with their support and "green" promotion.

And here's NRDC's gushing praise of their own big lie.  NRDC insists that their plan for siting "120 megawatt-miles" (that's enough to almost completely replace all existing transmission) of new transmission at a cost of "$6B per year until 2050" (that's $220 Billion dollars of electric ratepayer debt) will make ranchers and farmers see the light and welcome the destruction of their businesses by new transmission lines.

The siting plan, entitled "Finding a Home for Renewable Energy and Transmission" (aww, sounds like a huggable pound puppy who just wants your love, doesn't it?) pretends that landowners are on board with this "plan."  However, no actual landowners or consumer groups were consulted in its development, despite the plan's claim that:

"Reform must reflect a new approach to siting — one that recognizes the effect wholesale power markets have on transmission planning, and one that meets the needs of landowners, wildlife and society as well as project sponsors and investors."

It seems that they managed to get everyone else to the table to approve this plan, except the landowners, which can only mean that the landowners are the ones getting the shaft here.  Without buy in of affected landowners, "America's" Power Plan fails.

This is not a Landowner or Consumer Plan!

Co-authors and reviewers of this plan include representatives of environmental groups, the benighted Center for Rural Affairs (who has strayed far afield from its original focus on independent farmers, in favor of corporate financial interests), political and business interests, and transmission owners and developers, such as Jimmy Glotfelty from Clean Line Energy Partners.  Ooops... sorry.... did I say a bad word?

Where are the landowners and consumers?  They aren't part of this "America."

I could go on for pages about the stupid contentions, condescending clap trap, and sheer arrogance contained in the siting plan, but instead I'm just going to concentrate on the "plan" to have landowners clamoring to host new transmission infrastructure.

"Additionally, decision-makers must pay special
consideration to private land owners. Private landowners
play an invaluable though often overlooked role in
the siting and construction of both generation and
transmission infrastructure. Particularly in the Eastern
Interconnection, transmission projects are built almost
exclusively on private land. How landowners are treated
throughout this process can determine whether projects
are more rapidly approved and developed or delayed
and even halted."

Here are the plan's six new options for willingly giving up your property for transmission development.  All six of them read like ways for transmission developers to simply swoop in and collect the gold after neighbors have been pitted against each other in a greedy battle to assemble rights-of-way, where the financial wants of the few trump the property rights of the many.  If you find anything in here that you, as a landowner, think is viable, please let us know.  The landowners who've looked at it so far think it's just more unworkable, heavy-handed land theft.  Maybe if the authors had actually consulted some landowners affected by transmission projects when writing their "plan," they would have found that out before publishing this, instead of after.

• Special Purpose Development
Corporations (SPDCs) focus on providing
landowners with another option for
just compensation. The condemning
authority creates an SPDC, allowing
the landowner to choose between two
options. Landowners can either opt
to receive the traditional fair market
value for the parcel or they can elect to
receive shares in the SPDC. The value
of these shares is commensurate with
the fair market value of the parcel the
landowner has committed to the project.
The condemning authority then sells
the SPDC to a transmission developer
at auction. The sale increases the value
of the SPDC, and the landowners’
shares are transferrable on the open
market. Each shareholder is entitled to
project dividends. The result is that the
landowners’ compensation is tied directly
to market value, unlike traditional “just
compensation.” By giving landowners
a stake in the project’s success, things
can move more quickly and fairly. This
framework is applicable to utility-owned
transmission projects; a merchant
developer does not have a mechanism
for recovering equity dilution from
rates and may instead prefer to offer
landowners annual payments tied to
project royalties.

• Landowner Associations refer to groups
of landowners that come together with
a shared interest. These associations
have been particularly successful
for wind development, and are also
suitable for shorter transmission lines.
Each participating landowner is given
a proportional share of ownership in
the association based on the amount
of land they want to make available
for development. As an association,
landowners then approach developers
for projects. Members of the association
that physically host turbines or
transmission infrastructure are given
a premium, but all members of the
association receive a portion of profits.

• Tender Offer Taking enables developers
to test landowner interest in several
corridors by drawing proposed
boundaries for a given project, and
offering an above-market price for all
landowners within the boundary. The
developer then confidentially monitors
acceptance, and goes forward with the
project once a predetermined threshold
is met (applying eminent domain
authority to any remaining holdouts). If
the threshold is not met, the developer
shifts attention to a different corridor.
Tender offer taking is well-suited to large
projects that can be broken into discrete
segments.

• Good Neighbor Payments represent
ongoing payments to landowners that
are near enough to a new project that it
affects them even if it does not require
taking over their land. For example,
wind farm opposition sometimes comes
not from direct landowners but from
neighbors who are affected; thus wind
developers often pay neighbors annually
for noise impact. This concept could be
applied to transmission development
by providing annual payments to
aesthetically affected landowners and
neighbors. In the case of a landowner,
good neighbor payments would be in
addition to any easement negotiation
made. Developers could also pay bonus
payments to farmers who are affected by
infrastructure on the land they cultivate.

• Self-assessment enables landowners
to report the value of their land once
a plan to condemn is announced. The
landowner’s tax liability is then adjusted
to the reported value. The condemning
authority then decides whether to
take the land at the reported price
or look elsewhere. If the developer
chooses to look elsewhere, the
landowner is thereafter prohibited from
transferring his land for less than the
announced value. This solution allows
the landowner to assign a personal
value to the benefit or deterrent of
hosting new infrastructure. A variation
of self-assessment involves an opt-in
mechanism whereby a landowner can
choose to receive a property tax break in
exchange for agreeing to be subjected to
condemnation.

• Annual payments allow landowners
directly impacted by transmission
projects to receive compensation tied
to the amount of power transmitted on
the line. Under this scenario, payments
are distributed each year the project is
in service. Payments can be adjusted
yearly, to account for inflation, and
can be augmented in the event that
the agreed upon right of way is used
for an additional purpose. Annual
payments could provide the landowner
with a greater sense of ownership in
the project, decrease the incidence
of landowner holdouts and ensure
compensation commensurate with the
growing value of land. The Colorado-based
Rocky Mountain Farmers Union
has proposed a version of this concept
for both transmission and wind farm
development.

Anything in that list change your mind about having to operate your business around transmission lines and towers?  Anything in there that makes the taking of private property by eminent domain for the private profit of transmission developers more palatable?  Didn't think so. 

Did you see anything in there about how consumers or regulators have agreed to pay even more for new transmission in order to compensate landowners to their satisfaction? Or about the cost effectiveness of land-based utility scale renewables when landowners are compensated satisfactorily? Nope, me neither.

FAIL, "America," FAIL!

I just can't resist pointing out the plan's recommendation that we "improve interagency, federal-state and interstate coordination."  Right.  This comes on the heels of the environmental groups unsuccessfully filing for injunctions to stop the Susquehanna Roseland transmission project from plowing through the Delaware Water Gap National Recreational Area.  These environmental pietists are the worse abusers of federal and state process to hold up projects that they don't like.  So, at this time, I must say... stuff it, you hypocrites!

The plan also says if cooperation fails, then it's time to threaten states with a process that no longer functions:

"FERC backstop siting authority can play an important
psychological role in encouraging states to coordinate
and lead in transmission planning, making it a useful
siting tool. The best value of backstop siting is not in
its exercise, but in the possibility of its exercise."

Wow... it wasn't too many years ago when these environmental hypocrites were lined up against FERC backstop siting threats.  What a difference a little corporate money makes in environmental priorities.

"America's" Power Plan is just another expensive failure because landowner resistance to new transmission is growing and coalescing into a coordinated, knowledgeable movement that will not be denied.  Time for a new plan.