What better demonstration of the Peter Principle than within the hierarchies of investor owned utilities? The Peter Principle, simply stated: "In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." Bloated behemoth American Electric Power demonstrates its love of the Peter Principle every day, with more levels of unnecessary management than a multi-level marketing scheme.
But American Electric Power isn't alone in this. I've noticed it at every utility and call center I've ever had the pleasure of disagreeing with. The mid-level manager... dumb as a box of rocks! What do we do with dumb people? We promote them off the front line where they tend to embarrass us, and give them a nice corner office where they can direct their incompetence into meaningless managerial tasks.
American Electric Power withdrew their application for cost recovery of their now cancelled Wind Catcher project the other day (although they want the OCC to bless their settlement agreement with Oneta Power -- how does the OCC approve a settlement agreement for a withdrawn proposal?). Also on the docket were a collection of public comments that had been gathered before the proposal tanked. One last look at the battling form letters and other creative ways AEP tried to make its misguided proposal look popular and therefore worthy of approval. Amid the postage-paid postcards and hand-written letters from landowners opposed to the project were two absolute gems signed by AEP/PSO employees in Oklahoma. Why, AEP, why? Was this a company-sanctioned activity? Were employees who voiced their support awarded with days off or a free breakfast? Or are these employees simply trying to find something to do with their time in the corner office? Each letter was hysterically incompetent in its own way and demonstrated the kind of unimaginative thinking characteristic of a bloated hierarchy full of incompetent middle management. This is all on you, AEP.
First let's examine the letter from Debbie Burchett, Administrative Supervisor from Oologah. Oologah is the site of one of AEP's massive coal/gas generation plants. What is an "administrative supervisor"? I have no idea, but she's "well versed in the electrical business on the generation side." I'll assume this means she sits in the corner office and writes letters to regulators with ideas that are strictly her own (but submitted in her official capacity with AEP). And she expects the regulators to call her on her cell phone to get further info (without a period because it's apparently a complete word at AEP) and leave a message and she will happy to return the call and talk to them about her perspective. Yes, I'm sure that would be very helpful to the Oklahoma Corporation Commissioners when they're making a decision on this complicated matter.
Ms. Debbie's advice is full of threat and doom of what will happen if the Commissioners don't approve Wind Catcher. Jobs and projects won't come to Oklahoma! It will hurt the state in electric use! (huh? what?) It will cost consumers higher rates in the future! People say they want renewables but Oklahoma won't approve a project that lowers rates! (Again... where's the logic here?) And then we get the dreaded double negative so bad it makes my head hurt! "l wouldn't understand why you wouldn't do this." And if that isn't convincing enough reason to approve Wind Catcher, "this would not be good if it failed for both the electrical industry and the consumers." Not good, according to Ms. Debbie. Ms. Debbie has been a consumer for 45 years! (How old is Ms. Debbie? I'm hoping she's 45, because it's pretty hard to live without consuming anything. I suspect she's been a consuming burden her entire life.) Well, she's got a leg up on people who have only been consumers for 25 years, or 40 years. An experienced consumer is always the best judge of new regulated projects that depend on a captive customer base for their revenue. Guess what, Ms. Debbie? Regulators like the OCC Commissioners take the place of competition in a regulated environment to make decisions about what's best for captive customers. Bless your heart, Ms. Debbie, you really gave it your best shot here. I hope you enjoyed your corporate trinket.
And now let's move on to Mr. Brett L. Martin, who thinks he's both witty and a master of the English language. His letter is addressed to "Esteemed Ambassadorial staff." Who? Maybe Brett addresses all his inter-office memos to his superiors with this salutation (because you don't get the corner office without a bushel of brown-nosing) but I don't think there are any Ambassadors at the OCC. Feigned toadyism only works in corporate settings, such as at AEP.
Brett is a SCADA Engineering Sr and that apparently makes his intellect and logic on all topics superior. Because he's an Engineer, y'all! Now obviously Brett isn't one of those innovative and creative thinking engineers because his knowledge of topics he didn't learn in engineering school are unimaginative and devoid of logic and understanding. Brett is headed to the corner office in a big, big hurry!
He makes "deductions" about resource adequacy and load projections that are not only completely wrong, his solution depends on an overly-expensive and intermittent resource that intends to ship 70% of the power produced out of Oklahoma.
His theory is that only wind is "green energy." True "green energy" is sustainable energy. Industrial wind is not a sustainable source because it becomes a burden on the land and population. Maybe he meant to say its burden is less than other sources, but that's only true when the infrastructure isn't in Brett's backyard. A completely myopic and boring repetition of meaningless and trendy climate change memes.
He then delves into gas v. wind prices and unknowingly makes a great argument for disapproval. "The forecast for natural gas cost is not a valid comparison unless the OCC wants to gamble on future markets." That's precisely why the Texas PUC denied this project. Thanks, Brett! His solution obviously wasn't cleared by upper management, because he wants to "Ensure accountability for the provided statistics and this point is closed regarding protective assurances." AEP did not want to provide these protections. It couldn't. That would have most likely caused a loss to the company. That's how skewed their gas price forecast was, and they knew it.
Then we get a paragraph about the sky falling if "a negative result is found." There will be massive state revenue losses! (You mean like the ones related to state tax credits for wind?) And many Oklahomans will hold the OCC responsible for any future repercussions! Do you mean you, Brett? Are you the Oklahoman who is going to sue the OCC over possible "what if" situations? I hope your understanding of the regulated legal system is better than your understanding of rates and resource planning. Go for it, Brett! And while you're at it, good luck with that generation shopping thing. It sure looks like you're suggesting if the OCC approved cost recovery for Wind Catcher from PSO's captive customer base that it could later on change its mind and allow customers to opt out and buy their generation from somewhere else. Did you check that idea with management first? I'm pretty sure the company wanted a cost recovery scenario that would be guaranteed... forever.
And let's finish up with Brett's completely wrong-headed ideas about right of way acquisition and drivers for landowner opposition. This is so misguided, so arrogant, so tyrannical, it can only be a revelation of the institutional mindset of a corporation so used to persecution to get what it wants that it is completely devoid of the empathy that makes us human. Karma has a package for Brett and someday it will deliver.
But American Electric Power isn't alone in this. I've noticed it at every utility and call center I've ever had the pleasure of disagreeing with. The mid-level manager... dumb as a box of rocks! What do we do with dumb people? We promote them off the front line where they tend to embarrass us, and give them a nice corner office where they can direct their incompetence into meaningless managerial tasks.
American Electric Power withdrew their application for cost recovery of their now cancelled Wind Catcher project the other day (although they want the OCC to bless their settlement agreement with Oneta Power -- how does the OCC approve a settlement agreement for a withdrawn proposal?). Also on the docket were a collection of public comments that had been gathered before the proposal tanked. One last look at the battling form letters and other creative ways AEP tried to make its misguided proposal look popular and therefore worthy of approval. Amid the postage-paid postcards and hand-written letters from landowners opposed to the project were two absolute gems signed by AEP/PSO employees in Oklahoma. Why, AEP, why? Was this a company-sanctioned activity? Were employees who voiced their support awarded with days off or a free breakfast? Or are these employees simply trying to find something to do with their time in the corner office? Each letter was hysterically incompetent in its own way and demonstrated the kind of unimaginative thinking characteristic of a bloated hierarchy full of incompetent middle management. This is all on you, AEP.
First let's examine the letter from Debbie Burchett, Administrative Supervisor from Oologah. Oologah is the site of one of AEP's massive coal/gas generation plants. What is an "administrative supervisor"? I have no idea, but she's "well versed in the electrical business on the generation side." I'll assume this means she sits in the corner office and writes letters to regulators with ideas that are strictly her own (but submitted in her official capacity with AEP). And she expects the regulators to call her on her cell phone to get further info (without a period because it's apparently a complete word at AEP) and leave a message and she will happy to return the call and talk to them about her perspective. Yes, I'm sure that would be very helpful to the Oklahoma Corporation Commissioners when they're making a decision on this complicated matter.
Ms. Debbie's advice is full of threat and doom of what will happen if the Commissioners don't approve Wind Catcher. Jobs and projects won't come to Oklahoma! It will hurt the state in electric use! (huh? what?) It will cost consumers higher rates in the future! People say they want renewables but Oklahoma won't approve a project that lowers rates! (Again... where's the logic here?) And then we get the dreaded double negative so bad it makes my head hurt! "l wouldn't understand why you wouldn't do this." And if that isn't convincing enough reason to approve Wind Catcher, "this would not be good if it failed for both the electrical industry and the consumers." Not good, according to Ms. Debbie. Ms. Debbie has been a consumer for 45 years! (How old is Ms. Debbie? I'm hoping she's 45, because it's pretty hard to live without consuming anything. I suspect she's been a consuming burden her entire life.) Well, she's got a leg up on people who have only been consumers for 25 years, or 40 years. An experienced consumer is always the best judge of new regulated projects that depend on a captive customer base for their revenue. Guess what, Ms. Debbie? Regulators like the OCC Commissioners take the place of competition in a regulated environment to make decisions about what's best for captive customers. Bless your heart, Ms. Debbie, you really gave it your best shot here. I hope you enjoyed your corporate trinket.
And now let's move on to Mr. Brett L. Martin, who thinks he's both witty and a master of the English language. His letter is addressed to "Esteemed Ambassadorial staff." Who? Maybe Brett addresses all his inter-office memos to his superiors with this salutation (because you don't get the corner office without a bushel of brown-nosing) but I don't think there are any Ambassadors at the OCC. Feigned toadyism only works in corporate settings, such as at AEP.
Brett is a SCADA Engineering Sr and that apparently makes his intellect and logic on all topics superior. Because he's an Engineer, y'all! Now obviously Brett isn't one of those innovative and creative thinking engineers because his knowledge of topics he didn't learn in engineering school are unimaginative and devoid of logic and understanding. Brett is headed to the corner office in a big, big hurry!
He makes "deductions" about resource adequacy and load projections that are not only completely wrong, his solution depends on an overly-expensive and intermittent resource that intends to ship 70% of the power produced out of Oklahoma.
His theory is that only wind is "green energy." True "green energy" is sustainable energy. Industrial wind is not a sustainable source because it becomes a burden on the land and population. Maybe he meant to say its burden is less than other sources, but that's only true when the infrastructure isn't in Brett's backyard. A completely myopic and boring repetition of meaningless and trendy climate change memes.
He then delves into gas v. wind prices and unknowingly makes a great argument for disapproval. "The forecast for natural gas cost is not a valid comparison unless the OCC wants to gamble on future markets." That's precisely why the Texas PUC denied this project. Thanks, Brett! His solution obviously wasn't cleared by upper management, because he wants to "Ensure accountability for the provided statistics and this point is closed regarding protective assurances." AEP did not want to provide these protections. It couldn't. That would have most likely caused a loss to the company. That's how skewed their gas price forecast was, and they knew it.
Then we get a paragraph about the sky falling if "a negative result is found." There will be massive state revenue losses! (You mean like the ones related to state tax credits for wind?) And many Oklahomans will hold the OCC responsible for any future repercussions! Do you mean you, Brett? Are you the Oklahoman who is going to sue the OCC over possible "what if" situations? I hope your understanding of the regulated legal system is better than your understanding of rates and resource planning. Go for it, Brett! And while you're at it, good luck with that generation shopping thing. It sure looks like you're suggesting if the OCC approved cost recovery for Wind Catcher from PSO's captive customer base that it could later on change its mind and allow customers to opt out and buy their generation from somewhere else. Did you check that idea with management first? I'm pretty sure the company wanted a cost recovery scenario that would be guaranteed... forever.
And let's finish up with Brett's completely wrong-headed ideas about right of way acquisition and drivers for landowner opposition. This is so misguided, so arrogant, so tyrannical, it can only be a revelation of the institutional mindset of a corporation so used to persecution to get what it wants that it is completely devoid of the empathy that makes us human. Karma has a package for Brett and someday it will deliver.
In conclusion, the only argument I've noticed that needs addressing, is the Right of Way with landowners. Most of the Transmission route is satisfactorily settled to landowners' liking. There will always exist individuals that aim to capitalize on any efforts to improve a populations quality of living. I understand and readily concur that there are some situations
that need clarification and potential settlements, but this in no way impacts pre-approval of cost recovery. Laws exist by the legislature to ensure both landowners and corporate entity interests are protected regarding Right of Way. It seems arguments are rather one sided lately favoring the landowners. If our nation aimed at 100% satisfaction, we wouldn't even be able to elect governmental officials. With corporate expansion, the same holds true. A majority of Oklahomans approve this project and want our state to lead the nation.
Landowners who oppose transmission are merely being greedy? Is that what you think, Brett? Do you believe they will drop their opposition if enough cash changes hands? Wow, aren't you jaded? Here's the reality you've been sheltered from in your little SCADA world... landowners oppose new transmission because their land isn't for sale at any price! Landowners oppose transmission for a lot of reasons, but one of the most common is attachment to the land, often land that represents the blood, sweat, and tears of their family for generations. There is no amount of money that can compensate for the permanent destruction of a person's home, especially one rich in heritage and memories. Your accusation that landowners who resist new rights of way are merely trying to score a bigger pay day is so deeply offensive, Brett. Where did you get such an awful idea? Was it from your buddies in the land acquisition department who insist they are "working with landowners" to coerce right of way agreements, or did you think it up on your own while passing the trophy case on your way to the cafeteria on numerous occasions? (Ratepayer-funded donuts!)
And can you tell me how many "most" is? You say "most" of the route is settled. I don't think that's true. Most should indicate nearly all, or a vast majority of something. Certainly more than 50%. My experience with landowners affected by Wind Catcher was that "most" of them didn't want to sell. Some initially felt persecuted enough by high-pressure land agents and injunctions that they just gave in. These landowners were not happy to sell a right of way. They were bullied and coerced to do so. And others on the verge of giving up were empowered by other landowners who refused to negotiate, and they subsequently joined the ranks of opposition. Your "most" is a declining population once opposition gets a toehold and begins to spread.
Additionally, your idea that laws adequately compensate landowners is not a view shared by affected landowners. It is one shared by unaffected individuals and transmission owning bullies. A one-time "market value" payment for only land taken doesn't even come close to just compensation for an entire parcel devalued by changed use forever. "Just compensation" attempts to make a landowner whole for one particular point in time. It does not compensate for loss to the entire parcel, nor for future uses that subsequently become impossible. Land unobstructed by involuntary rights of way can be used for any purpose in the future, whether it is for new farming ventures, new businesses, or even future residential development. Adding a utility right of way through the property forecloses all these future possibilities, yet landowners are never compensated for future scenarios. Landowners are also not compensated for their emotional attachment to land, nor the burden of having to look at and live with new infrastructure and its inherent risks every day in perpetuity. "Just compensation" serves the interloper, not the landowner. Any ideas that a landowner merely holds out for higher compensation is nothing short of adding insult to injury.
And there is no voting process for eminent domain. It's a process reserved for the courts and special compensation boards or juries of landowning peers. Your attempt to compare the eminent domain process to democratic elections is an utter failure. The public at large hates eminent domain, for any reason. If a person isn't a self-centered, greedy bastard who thinks he can profit or gain something through the use of eminent domain, if he is someone with common empathy for his fellow man, he will always see himself in the victim role. If the community at large voted on eminent domain takings, they would cease to exist. If eminent domain can be used on our neighbor for one reason, it can be used on us for a different one.
Brett, I pretty much think you may be an absolute jerk. But thanks for that little peek into corporate think. You're an asset to your company and hopefully you'll have that corner office soon.
And can you tell me how many "most" is? You say "most" of the route is settled. I don't think that's true. Most should indicate nearly all, or a vast majority of something. Certainly more than 50%. My experience with landowners affected by Wind Catcher was that "most" of them didn't want to sell. Some initially felt persecuted enough by high-pressure land agents and injunctions that they just gave in. These landowners were not happy to sell a right of way. They were bullied and coerced to do so. And others on the verge of giving up were empowered by other landowners who refused to negotiate, and they subsequently joined the ranks of opposition. Your "most" is a declining population once opposition gets a toehold and begins to spread.
Additionally, your idea that laws adequately compensate landowners is not a view shared by affected landowners. It is one shared by unaffected individuals and transmission owning bullies. A one-time "market value" payment for only land taken doesn't even come close to just compensation for an entire parcel devalued by changed use forever. "Just compensation" attempts to make a landowner whole for one particular point in time. It does not compensate for loss to the entire parcel, nor for future uses that subsequently become impossible. Land unobstructed by involuntary rights of way can be used for any purpose in the future, whether it is for new farming ventures, new businesses, or even future residential development. Adding a utility right of way through the property forecloses all these future possibilities, yet landowners are never compensated for future scenarios. Landowners are also not compensated for their emotional attachment to land, nor the burden of having to look at and live with new infrastructure and its inherent risks every day in perpetuity. "Just compensation" serves the interloper, not the landowner. Any ideas that a landowner merely holds out for higher compensation is nothing short of adding insult to injury.
And there is no voting process for eminent domain. It's a process reserved for the courts and special compensation boards or juries of landowning peers. Your attempt to compare the eminent domain process to democratic elections is an utter failure. The public at large hates eminent domain, for any reason. If a person isn't a self-centered, greedy bastard who thinks he can profit or gain something through the use of eminent domain, if he is someone with common empathy for his fellow man, he will always see himself in the victim role. If the community at large voted on eminent domain takings, they would cease to exist. If eminent domain can be used on our neighbor for one reason, it can be used on us for a different one.
Brett, I pretty much think you may be an absolute jerk. But thanks for that little peek into corporate think. You're an asset to your company and hopefully you'll have that corner office soon.
RSS Feed