What's Transource IEC Going To Look Like?

I would have used the headline "Fun With Photoshop," except I used that one years ago.  Transource, bless it's blackened money-grubbing heart, is still trying to convince the communities that its transmission project will be an asset.  It's not working.  There's pretty much nothing Transource can say or do at this point to ameliorate the wide-spread, entrenched opposition to the project.  Telling further lies that contradict past lies isn't a magic wand.

For some reason, Transource sent out a "Project Update" on Friday that was akin to kicking itself in the ass.  Way to go, Transource!  Among the lies and half-truths were some images depicting what the project would look like if built.  Even though the pictures were incredibly tiny and presented an extremely long range view, they still managed to convey the awfulness of the Transource project.  I've often wondered why transmission companies do this to themselves... why do they send out photoshopped images of what their project would look like?  Do they try to make these images as horrid and frightening as possible?  It wouldn't be logical to create photoshopped images that look worse than reality.  Instead, we can probably discern that these images use all sorts of eye-tricking perspective and shading tricks to make the new lines as unobtrusive as possible.  Reality will probably be worse.  Much worse.  And still, Transource's photo simulations of its proposed project are a trainwreck.

How about this beautiful view?

I'm told that a group of artists was on location painting this stunning vista last week.  I'm sure they won't mind altering their paintings to look like the "after" photo.  Why, you can hardly notice the new power line stretching across the horizon!  (Except you can actually see the shadow of the lines from the "after" photo on the "before" photo.)

Even trying to make the line as light and blurred as possible, it's still beyond awful.  And where are the birds who will roost there and poop all over the crops grown below?  The photoshopper seems to have left some things out.  Also notice how the "after" picture is from farther away and includes a wider view?  These are not "before" and "after" of the same photo.

Here's another.

Lovely barn with a distribution line crossing the view.  I wonder how many photos and angles they had to sort through to find one that looked like that.  Now here's what happens "after."

Look, a whole bunch of new wires that aren't connected to anything!  No towers at all!  Or maybe they're connected to some of those special rusty towers that blend in so well they can't be seen?  They're pretty saggy, too.  I'm betting they're going to be much higher in reality.  And why is the sky in the vicinity of the new lines so much grayer than the rest of the sky?  It's all about that contrast!

And these are the photo simulations Transource wanted you to see!  Reality will be much different, but not in a good way.

Visual simulations are based on the level of design available at this time.  Moderate changes in structure height and location may occur following subsequent engineering and design refinements and minor modification of the alignment.

In other words, they're going to be taller and towers will be visible.  You're not doing yourselves any favors here, Transource.

I've heard that Transource has lots more of these photo-fibbed simulations for its entire route.  Maybe you should ask your friendly neighborhood land agent to show them to you?  Just so he knows why you object and perhaps will quit stopping by...

Barron Shaw from Citizens to Stop Transource took on a whole bunch of the other lies contained in Transource's email update.  You can read the facts here.

I'm only going to touch on a couple more things here, the first of which is Transource's insinuation that its failure to update its project costs before PJM recalculated benefits is the fault of landowners.

Why didn’t Transource have updated costs at the time of PJM’s annual cost / benefit analysis?
Transource is following a planning and engineering process that requires a variety of data. For example, land surveys provide Transource valuable data needed for construction bids. Since winter 2017, the company has been working with landowners to access properties to be able to complete that work. The survey information is one example of information that was part of the bid package provided to potential suppliers.

In other words, Transource says it would have had its costs updated last year if landowners had fully cooperated with surveying, cutting and drilling on their properties for a proposed project that has not been approved.  Working with landowners?  Whaddya mean, Transource?  You were working with lawyers, judges and the courts to force entry onto private property.  You live a rich fantasy life!  The real reason Transource waited until after PJM recalculated the benefits is so that it could estimate its costs at a made-up number that scaled the necessary benefit/cost ratio of 1.25.  Magic math!  Reality is that there is no cost cap for Transource's project.  It can and will spend whatever it wants and when its actual costs don't meet the benefit/cost ratio it will be too late.  Ratepayers will be locked in to paying for it.  The best we can do right now is rely on the expert testimony that has been filed which correctly pegs the Transource project at returning 3 cents for every dollar poured into the project.  Ratepayers lose 97 cents of every dollar they spend on this project.  What an outrage!

Here's another I take issue with:

Landowners are encouraged to work with right-of-way agents now, during the design phase of the project, to best incorporate property owner desires into the final placement of the facilities.

Final placement of the facilities?  You mean in the trash?  Because that's where the idea for this project is going to end up after state regulators fail to approve it.  I'm sure landowners may have other desired locations for the "placement of facilities."  Check your back, Transource!  Doesn't that statement seem a little, well, coercive to you?  Transource tries to make believe that this project will be approved and it's only a matter of where to put it.  No, the issue is whether to build it at all and that's far from being decided.  The way things stand now, it's not looking good for Transource, therefore landowners should continue to resist.  And hey now, didn't Transource say their cost update was delayed by not being able to design the project because of resistant landowners?  And now they have an updated cost, so we'll assume they're done "designing" it.  If there was a magic "design" window, it's already closed.

And then, there's this:

Transource has not filed condemnation on anyone

Except in its last "project update" in September, Transource said this:

The PUC process requires utilities to submit a condemnation filing during the application process. This filing includes property owners with whom the company has not yet secured a signed option to grant an easement agreement. Transource provided written notice and information explaining the process to landowners before filing the report in May.

Transource made a "condemnation filing."  Except they have not filed condemnation on anyone.  Which is it?  Is Transource lying now, or where they lying then?  Or are they simply lying all the time?

Like this:

Regions where IEC is proposed to be built — Franklin County, Pennsylvania, and Washington and Harford counties, Maryland — are located in benefiting power zones, as identified by PJM.

Where's York County?  Isn't something like 12 miles of this proposed project in York County?  That's right... York County will receive no benefit.  That's zero benefit.  Did Transource think nobody would notice their "clever" omission?

And finally, Transource thinks it knows better than Pennsylvania Administrative Law Judges:

Does Pennsylvania Act 45 of 2018 apply to IEC?
Transource PA has been granted utility status by the PA PUC. Act 45 excludes “public utility facilities” from the required approval and has no effect on this project's proceedings.

The judges reviewing this project have already made the determination that Act 45 does apply.  They did it months ago!  And in this scenario, their opinion is the only one that matters.

And speaking of the PUC judges' opinion, take a few steps back when you read the latest "project update."  Why, it reads like a rebuttal to the expert testimony recently filed by the PA Consumer Advocate, doesn't it?  Is this what Transource's rebuttal testimony is going to consist of?  Photoshopped awfulness and carefully worded half-truths?  Good luck with that, Transource.  You've got nothing.