StopPATH WV Blog

Call for Comments: Ask FERC to Deny Valley Link's Request for Financial Incentives

3/29/2025

Regional grid operator PJM Interconnection has recently selected a new 260-mile high-voltage transmission line. The project will stretch across 14 West Virginia counties (including Jefferson) on a new 200-foot wide easement that would be taken from landowners using eminent domain.

The utilities behind this project, FirstEnergy, American Electric Power and Dominion, have created a new shell company to own the projects. That company is calling itself Valley Link Transmission LLC.

Valley Link has recently filed a request for a rate template, financial incentives, and an 11.4% rate of return with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). While FERC has no permitting authority for the transmission line, it does have authority over its rates, which end up in our electric bills.

You can file a comment at FERC asking that they reject Valley Link’s request for more financial incentives and to adjust its rate template so it is just and reasonable. See sample comment letter that you can download below. You are encouraged to edit and personalize it. Please add your name, address, phone, email, and the date to your finished comment.

Filing your comment

You can upload it directly to FERC Online yourself. You will need to create an account and then follow the instructions.

If you’re having trouble navigating FERC’s online system to file your comment, forward your comment to [email protected] via email and she will upload your comments to FERC in a consolidated filing of comments.

If you’d rather mail your comment, send to the address in the sample letter. Take note that letters sent via U.S. mail take a long time to be processed.

FERC has set a comment and intervention deadline of April 4. However, FERC will not be deciding on this matter until at least May 14, so if you are not intervening feel free to continue to send your comments until mid-May.

Thanks for speaking out! It’s all about the money for these companies, and all their spending ends up in our electric bills!

ferc_incentives_letter.pdf
File Size:	64 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

2 Comments

Valley Link Transmission Files for Incentives and Formula Rate at FERC

3/18/2025

0 Comments

On Friday, Valley Link Transmission filed at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for approval of a formula rate to collect their costs from ratepayers, along with a request to set a Return on Equity (ROE) and additional financial incentives. They're wasting no time trying to ram their transmission projects through and make a ton of money doing it.

Applying for CPCN/CCNs from the Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia state commissions is a threshold step for Valley Link during the pre-construction phase, because obtaining CPCN/CCNs will improve Valley Link’s ability to secure the needed land rights to support the Project Portfolio. Because the PJM Board only recently approved the Valley Link Portfolio Project on February 26, 2025, Valley Link has not yet initiated the CPCN/CCN process. Valley Link faces significant time pressure to initiate the CPCN/CCN process within the next few months because CPCN/CCN proceedings in these states can be lengthy.

That's right, Valley Link wants to file its state permitting applications within the next few months, even though we've been waiting 18 months for FirstEnergy to take any interest whatsoever in building their section of the 500kV MARL project in Jefferson County. They're in an awful hurry on Valley Link and landowners and communities are going to be mowed down if they can't keep up.

"Valley Link is committed to collaborating with residents, local governments and other stakeholders in the project communities at every stage of the process."

Well, except this stage. Valley Link doesn't want you to "collaborate" on their request for FERC incentives or in their rate process. All the more reason to do it!

Your first task? Valley Link's 1500 page rate/incentive filing. Go ahead, take a look. I hope you understand FERCish. You don't? Fortunately, I do so here's a summary of the important points included in this filing. You are encouraged to intervene and/or file a comment on this proceeding. Deadline to do so is April 4.

Valley Link is a 765kV transmission project proposed to connect the John Amos coal-fired power station in Putnam County, WV to Loudoun County's "data center alley." It will cross 14 counties in West Virginia on its way, including Jefferson. It will require a new 200-foot wide right-of-way for its entire length. In Jefferson County it is proposed to expand the existing transmission line corridor through the southern part of the county and add a third transmission line to the existing configuration that is surrounded by hundreds of existing homes, schools, businesses, parks, historic resources and even our national parks!

Valley Link's filing asks FERC to grant financial incentives to the project and set up the rate it will use to collect its costs from captive electric customers across the PJM region.

First, let's examine the incentives Valley Link has requested. In order to qualify for incentives, the transmission line must be the product of a fair and open transmission planning process. Competition is an important and required part of this process so that consumer costs may be reduced through competitive cost concessions. Except there were no such concessions for Valley Link. They not only bid their projects in at full price, they also did not include any cost caps. Consumers will pay whatever it costs to build these projects, even though the initial "competitive" bid may have been much lower. The sky's the limit! The idea of competitive transmission is that it allows incumbents and non-incumbents to compete on a level playing field to construct the most cost-effective project. Incumbents hate it because they'd rather not compete at all, and instead be awarded all new transmission in their territory at whatever price they want to charge. For years after FERC's Order 1000 required competitive transmission windows, incumbents simply declined to participate in region-wide competitive planning, preferring instead to concentrate on smaller projects in their own territory. PJM's 2022 Window 3 competitive planning process actually allowed several non-incumbent companies to offer cost caps and financial concessions that actually saved ratepayers money, and those projects were selected, much to the chagrin of the incumbents. But they weren't about to be fooled again, so they created an incumbent cartel and agreed not to compete with each other so that none of them had to make any financial concessions. If they didn't compete with each other, they could create ostensibly "joint" projects that shut out all competitors and took control of PJM's Planning Process. And that's how we got Valley Link's $3B project portfolio, with no limit on how much these projects might eventually cost. Who does that? PJM ought to be ashamed of itself! Valley Link Transmission was not the result of a fair, open and competitive planning process.

Financial incentives for transmission must be rationally tailored to a project's risks and challenges. "Rational" has long ago left the incentives building... it's nothing but a free buffet where utilities gorge themselves on ratepayer cash. That's right, ratepayers fund all these financial "extras" that encourage transmission developers to build "much needed" projects. Except if you attended any of the PJM meetings, you know that these developers are beating each other down to get awarded these projects. And that's precisely because they want to gorge on the unnecessary incentives. Even if FERC stopped offering these incentives tomorrow, these companies would *still* be falling all over themselves to build new projects. Incentives are a give away that is not needed to encourage new transmission.

These are the individual incentives Valley Link has requested, with a brief explanation of each:

Recovery of 100% of prudently incurred costs in the event that all or part of the Project Portfolio must be abandoned for reasons outside the control of Valley Link (“Abandoned Plant Incentive”)

This means that Valley Link is guaranteed to be able to collect ALL its prudent project costs from ratepayers if the project is cancelled. Essentially, ratepayers are providing insurance for the project's success. If it fails, then the utilities can't lose. Only ratepayers can lose. In the case of the failed Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) project, ratepayers ended up spending more than $250M on a cancelled project that never put a shovel to the ground. This is outrageous! Utilities must have some skin in the game and accept some of the risk that they are being rewarded for through incentives.

Inclusion of 100% of construction work in progress (“CWIP”) in rate base during the development and construction of the Project Portfolio (“CWIP Incentive”)

This means that Valley Link will be able to collect a return (interest) on the amount of money it has spent to construct the project while it is building the project. It begins collecting money from ratepayers as soon as FERC approves the incentive, although the project may not actually be built and serving ratepayers for many years. It makes ratepayers responsible for paying for projects that are not being used, and haven't even been finished yet. Ratepayers are being used as the utility's "bank" to pay the companies while they are building.

Recovery of pre-commercial costs through establishment of a regulatory asset that will include all expenses, including expenses incurred prior to the filing of this application, that are incurred prior to the time costs first flow through to Valley Link customers under the PJM Tariff, including authorization to accrue monthly carrying charges (“Pre-Commercial Incentive”)

This means that Valley Link can put all its costs from its first idea to make a "joint project" through the time its formula rate is approved into a regulatory asset and collect them from customers in the future. It's a way to retroactively open the money spigots so that ratepayers pay Valley Link's costs to compete at PJM as well as their costs to create their fake shell company, and ask for incentives and a formula rate. It makes sure that the utility never has to spend a dime of its own money on this project.

Inclusion of a 50 basis point return on equity (“ROE”) adder for Valley Link’s participation as a new member in a Regional Transmission Organization (“RTO”) (“RTO Participation Adder”).

This means that Valley Link's Return on Equity (ROE) will be raised one half of one percent because its "joint venture" will be a separate new member of PJM. Keep in mind that each one of these three joint venture companies (FirstEnergy, Dominion, and Transource) is an existing member of PJM and collecting their own RTO Participation Adder. But because they formed a new fake shell company, they can pretend to be "new" and collect again. This is also outrageous. It's not a new entity, and it would only encourage utilities to keep creating new shell companies in order to receive financial reward.

Valley Link says it needs incentives to reduce "risk" for its project. What risk is that? Valley Link speaks out of both sides of its mouth. First they say this: "Valley Link Transmission’s joint venture structure allows the Participants to combine their diverse experience and knowledge to successfully develop projects of significant size and scope, while sharing the risks of such projects. The geographic and financial scale of new competitive transmission projects sought by PJM in the RTEP process in recent years lends itself to this structure to adequately manage the risks associated with infrastructure projects of this scale." Somehow the joint non-competitive project was able to "manage risk" but yet on the other hand, the project is just so risky that it needs a bunch of financial incentives. "Valley Link will
face significant permitting, siting, construction, procurement, and financial risks that present challenges to developing and constructing the Project Portfolio." So, which is it? Is Valley Link risky or not? It can't be both!

Of course, Valley Link plans to lower its risk that you're going to go all torches and pitchforks on them by "collaborating" with you. Of course, that "collaborating" doesn't mean they will make any adjustments to their plan or anything like that... they just want to pretend they're considering your ideas while they laugh at you behind your back.

Valley Link is committed to collaborating with residents, local governments and other stakeholders in the project communities at every stage of the process. Community engagement is crucial for making informed decisions that reduce or prevent potential impacts while delivering for the public essential infrastructure necessary to address large-scale reliability needs that the PJM grid faces both in the short term and for years to come.

Valley Link also requests three identical new formula rates, one for each of its state-specific sub-companies (it's like Russian nesting dolls). A formula rate is a set of calculations that devise a yearly revenue requirement for each company. It includes O&M, A&G, taxes, and return (interest) on capital expenses that are paid for over the project's useful life (approximately 40 years) as these assets slowly depreciate because we pay for them. I've long since given up trying to explain formula rates to people who don't understand them, but let's just say it's extremely complicated. If you don't believe me, take a look at the proposed formula rates in the filing. I will sum it up by sharing that we pay for transmission much the same way we pay for a home using a 30 year mortgage. While the bank loans us the cash to purchase the home, we will pay much more than we ever borrowed over that 30 years because the interest is calculated monthly. We slowly pay the bank back, and they earn a huge profit over 30 years. It works the same way with transmission, except the utility is "the bank" and the transmission line is our house that we have to pay for over 40 years, with interest calculated every year on the remaining unpaid balance.

And speaking of interest... Valley Link has requested a base ROE of 10.9%. But they're not stopping there... they are also requesting .5% for their new membership in PJM (see above). Total Return on Equity for this project is proposed at 11.4%. That means Valley Link would earn 11.4% on the unpaid project balance every year for 40 years. Do you earn 11.4% on your investments? Probably not. Transmission ROEs are already incredibly generous.

The important thing to think about with the formula rate is transparency so that we can check the utility's math from time to time to make sure they are doing it correctly. Valley Link's formula rate is not transparent and leaves certain terms undefined. That's probably because of this. However, lack of transparency is not just and reasonable and FERC cannot approve a formula rate that is not just and reasonable.

And I think I'll stop there. If you have any additional questions after reading the filing, I'd be happy to help.

So, let's sum it up:

FERC should not grant transmission incentives to Valley Link because Valley Link was not part of a transparent and competitive transmission planning process.

FERC should not grant the costly transmission abandonment incentive to Valley Link because the project has not been found needed by any state where the public may actually participate in the decision making.

FERC should not grant the CWIP in Ratebase incentive because that starts the money flowing out of ratepayer pockets before any state has approved it.

FERC should not grant the RTO Participation incentive to Valley Link because it is a shell company managed by incumbent utilities that have already been granted this incentive. The "joint venture" is a charade.

FERC must ensure that Valley Link's formula rate is transparent and allows any person to participate in annual updates, seek information, and file challenges.

And keep this in mind when you file your comments at FERC. (File on Docket No. ER25-1633). FERC Chairman Mark Christie had this to say about the cancelled PATH project just over a year ago. (Begin at minute 13:48 and watch for about 5 minutes until he's finished). Attention must be paid! Valley Link is a second attempt to build the PATH project, but it also presents FERC with a second chance to correct all the things Christie said they got wrong with the original project.

0 Comments

Shady Surveys = Skewed Stories

3/18/2025

0 Comments

Sometimes the special interests get a little carried away with themselves, especially when the young folks who work there think they're saving the world. The progressive left is still trying to find a way to make transmission lines "less bad" for landowners so that they will happily accept them.

NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN!

I was recently contacted by a gal representing shady far left groups who think paying bribes to community members unaffected by new transmission projects is going to be the solution to transmission opposition. Save your effort. It doesn't work. And... as if I would help

The World Resources Institute
and
Data for Progress

with anything at all.

And it went like this:

On behalf of research teams at Data for Progress and World Resources Institute, I’m reaching out to ask if you would be willing to participate in a 30-min or 45-min confidential recorded interview to answer questions about your experiences with community engagement and transmission infrastructure projects. The opportunity to learn from your expertise with the PATH project would be a particularly valuable contribution to our research.

We are inviting advocates both for and against transmission projects, policymakers, developers, community organizations, and other key stakeholders to these discussions. In the interview, we hope to learn about your familiarity with and views of community engagement efforts around transmission development, including what you view as working well or as areas for improvement.
These interviews are part of a larger research project designed to examine barriers and opportunities for transmission deployment, including a specific focus on community engagement and understanding the role that community benefits (and tools like community benefits agreements) could potentially play in addressing some of these challenges, or if not, what their shortcomings are. We plan to synthesize what we learn from these interviews into a report which will also include evidence from case studies, focus groups, and survey data.

We would be grateful for the opportunity to include valuable insights from your unique expertise in our research. Your interview responses will be confidential and nothing you say will be attributed to you or your organization. Please reach out if you have any questions about the interview format.

If you’d like to participate in this interview, please let us know, and we would be delighted to set up a 30-min or 45-min Zoom discussion in the next few weeks.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Does this deserve a response? Not really, but I wanted to have a little fun.

I’m not sure how I can help you with your project. How many actual transmission opponents are you interviewing? The fact of the matter is that once a transmission project is sited on private property, the impacted property owner will oppose it. It doesn’t matter how many “benefits” the government or the transmission owner want to shower on others in the community who are NOT impacted. For instance, if a transmission line is sited in my back yard and I will have to live with it in perpetuity, it doesn’t matter much to me if somebody wants to fund a new park across town, or in an adjacent community that is not impacted at all. Community “benefits” are nothing more than a bribe to buy the advocacy of unaffected persons. It doesn’t make the landowner whole. “Benefits” to people who are not impacted do nothing to change opposition and only create arguments and bad feelings in local communities. I wouldn’t throw my neighbor under the bus for my own personal gain, and I hope you wouldn’t either.

Maybe you should change your polling questions to ask people if they support a transmission line ACROSS THEIR OWN PROPERTY that will use eminent domain to take the land if the landowner refuses. Or if a landowner is willing to sacrifice his home for the “benefit” of people who are sacrificing nothing for the effort.

The only opinions that matter here are the ones of impacted persons.

Have a great day!

P.S. Transmission opponents are unlikely to give away our strategy to dark money transmission advocacy groups.

Perky young gal was undeterred.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I completely understand if you do not wish to participate in this research project. Thank you for sharing your perspective. I respect the time you spent writing this reply and wanted to provide more context to you about this work.

As an independent non-profit research organization, we hope to present a balanced view of challenges and shortcomings when it comes to how companies have approached transmission development, as well as opportunities to ensure that landowners have a meaningful say in these projects, including when that means organizing to stop them or to improve the conditions under which they do get built. We are representing a variety of perspectives across nearly 100 participants in our interview and focus group research, and have invited transmission opponents to participate in these interviews ranging from directly impacted landowners to county commissioners that have spoken out against projects. Our research included focus groups with rural landowners to understand their views on the important questions that you raise -- such as how they would feel about transmission infrastructure being built across their own property and their views on the use of eminent domain. You make valid points we've also heard during our research about the perceptions of benefits and their limitations, which will inform the analysis in our report.

In case it is of interest to you, we are also conducting 15-20 minute anonymous surveys as part of this project. We'd welcome your response if you would want to participate in this in lieu of an interview, but we also respect your decision to decline participation in the project.

Once again, I wanted to thank you for your time and the care you put into your reply. Have a wonderful weekend!

Their research included focus groups with rural landowners to understand their views on the important questions that I raised -- such as how they would feel about transmission infrastructure being built across their own property and their views on the use of eminent domain?

How many actual rural landowners went willingly to a focus group held by these far left groups? How much were they paid, and were they told the truth about who was paying for the focus group and how their participation would be used? I doubt it. It never is with focus groups. If there's so much lying going on at these groups, who could trust the results? The ones who paid for the focus group want to use the knowledge gained to skew public opinion.

Right. With another biased "report" that promises throwing money at the transmission problem will solve it. This problem can never be solved until transmission is properly buried on existing transportation rights of way and landowners are not victimized over and over again.

Do these groups know Biden isn't President any longer and they are not running the federal government anymore? Who are they going to convince with their bogus reports?

Nobody.

I suggest they redirect their grant money toward other important social dilemmas, like finding out why environmentalists are burning their Teslas and buying gas guzzlers. Well, if they have any grant money left that is... ;-)

0 Comments

Here's Why Grain Belt Express Must Be DOGEd

3/11/2025

1 Comment

Although DOGE isn't officially a word that refers to cutting the fat out of government yet, I'm turning it into a verb. DOGEd: verb - to eliminate from government spending programs. Example - Grain Belt Express has been DOGEd.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey wrote a letter last week asking the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to investigate the U.S. Department of Energy conditional loan guarantee for Grain Belt Express in the amount of $4.9B.

“In the waning, chaotic days of the Biden Administration — when the former president’s mental decline had grown to such a severe state that we now know he was not actually running his own White House and often signed documents without even knowing what they contained — left-wing bureaucrats seized the opportunity to advance their radical ‘green agenda,'” said Attorney General Bailey. “In the shadows of this confusion, far-left deep staters advanced a $4.9 billion green energy federal loan guarantee boondoggle to bankroll the Grain Belt Express (GBE), one of the most egregious abuses of taxpayer dollars in recent memory.”

Grain Belt Express isn't even eligible for the loan guarantee in the first place! From my recent comments on GBE's draft environmental impact statement:

The first paragraph of the Executive Summary states that in order to qualify for a loan, the project must be eligible under Section 1703 of Title XVII (the Clean Energy Financing Program), which defines eligible projects as those that, “avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases [GHGs]; and employ new or significantly improved technologies as compared to commercial technologies in service in the United States at the time the guarantee is issued” (Public Law [P.L.] 109-58, Section 1703(a)).
The DEIS makes this presumption: “The Project could also help reduce overall GHG emissions by allowing new renewable energy projects to access the electric grid, potentially leading to the replacement of existing fossil-fuel power plants, while providing additional power to expanding renewable energy markets.” (Table 3.1.1). Coulda, woulda, shoulda. This is a wish list that is not backed up by facts. The DEIS does not name or study the projects that could use Grain Belt Express to access the electric grid and the DEIS determines they are not reasonably foreseeable actions and therefore are not included in the cumulative effects analysis. (Sec. 4.3.2.2).

Here’s the bottom line. Without signed legal contracts with generators, it cannot be presumed that Grain Belt Express will transmit renewable energy from wind or solar generators. Under its Negotiated Rate Authority from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Grain Belt Express may negotiate contracts with customers who will pay the company to use its transmission capacity, either generators or load serving entities.
Grain Belt Express has not made a compliance filing demonstrating to FERC that is has signed contracts with any generators, in Kansas or elsewhere, therefore any generator may negotiate a future contract, including those that use fossil fuels. It is just as likely that a new or existing gas- or coal-fired generator may sign a contract as a new solar or wind generator. Grain Belt Express may not discriminate against generation types when negotiating contracts and cannot evaluate connection requests using generation source as a factor. All sources of generation must be allowed to negotiate contracts under open access transmission rules.
Because potential generators have not signed contracts with Grain Belt Express, it simply cannot be determined that Grain Belt Express will reduce greenhouse gases as required to qualify for the loan. Furthermore, without signed contracts with generators, Grain Belt Express is just a transmission line. Transmission lines, by themselves, do not reduce greenhouse gases. A transmission line that is not connected to a generation source is just like an extension cord that isn’t plugged into anything. Grain Belt Express does not reduce greenhouse gases and therefore it is not eligible for the proposed loan.

And then let's think about GBE's merchant transmission status a bit, shall we? Merchant transmission is a speculative, supplemental transmission project that is not needed by consumers for any reliability, economic, or public policy purpose. No regulator or grid planner has ordered the building of GBE. Therefore, its owners are speculating that it might become useful in the future. Because there is no need for GBE, it must fund itself. Transmission that is actually determined to be NEEDED is paid for by captive consumers, however GBE isn't needed and must be fully funded by private investors. Those private investors speculate that voluntary customers for GBE will materialize at some point in the future and provide enough revenue to pay for the transmission line and create a profit for the investors. If there are no future customers, then the cost of speculating on GBE becomes the responsibility of the investors who willingly took on the risk of building a project with no customers.

Why is the federal government backstopping this investment risk for private investors to the tune of $4.9B? Merchant transmission projects can only put risk on their investors, not captive electric consumers, therefore why are the captive American taxpayers suddenly shouldering the risk of this project? It's too risky for any captive group, whether it's electric consumers or taxpayers, and that explains why it is a speculative venture of voluntary investors. If it doesn't provide any benefits for consumers, then it's not our responsibility to pay for it. It's strictly a for-profit speculation for private investors.

As we know, the U.S. Department of Energy hasn't done such a great job vetting speculative ventures in the past. One of the most famous may be Solyndra, who presented fake contracts to back up its DOE loan and then couldn't produce any revenue to repay. The taxpayers ended up giving Solyndra $500M in monopoly money to build a factory that never produced a single thing.

News Flash!!! Grain Belt Express does not have enough signed contracts to make its project financially viable. The DOE should not be gambling on this historically unsuccessful project to the tune of $4.9B!

And why did the DOE Loans Program Office give GBE a "conditional" approval right after the November election? Obviously GBE had not completed the required steps to be out right approved, so why was "conditional" approval necessary? And why is that even a thing in the first place? It's either approved, or it's not. Conditional approval doesn't mean a thing, especially when applied in a baldly political context. Grain Belt Express is not ready for a taxpayer backed loan and its prospects for repaying are slim to none.

Grain Belt Express must be DOGEd.

1 Comment

How DO You Get Power For New Data Centers?

3/7/2025

1 Comment

Yesterday, the Jefferson County Commission passed a Resolution that nobody seemed to understand, maybe not even the Commissioners themselves.

jefferson_first_resolution.pdf
File Size:	266 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

I made public comment at the Commission meeting yesterday morning, completely oblivious to the Jefferson County First Resolution that was added to the packet after it was originally posted on Monday. Unfortunately, nobody involved in the power line battle saw it ahead of time and I left the meeting for other adventures before it was discussed. My bad. It sure would have been nice if the Commissioners had been more upfront about their Resolution that will impact hundreds of county residents. Even when asked before the meeting what the mysteriously-named Resolution was about, a Commissioner professed ignorance.

I addressed the Commissioners yesterday morning before the meeting specifically because I had heard a rumor being spread by state legislators that Jefferson County had no power over the transmission lines and that there was federal authority to approve it if West Virginia rejected it. It seems this untrue rumor came from Del. Linville, who misspoke about the transmission lines at the February 20 meeting.

Jefferson County has enormous power over the fate of the transmission lines, although it has no direct permitting authority. Jefferson County's power comes from its ability to influence the future decision about the power lines from the West Virginia Public Service Commission. The County Commission speaks with a louder voice and can advocate for the county and its people as a whole. We need and appreciate their support!

THERE IS NO FEDERAL BACKSTOP ON PERMITTING FOR THESE LINES! I told the Commission that yesterday. No wonder I got such odd looks. I do understand the prohibition of having direct dialogue with a public commenter so I can't fault them for not saying anything. However, you'd think that if they were doing something great for the citizens of the County who will be personally impacted by the transmission lines, they would have wanted to spread the word so we could be there to cheer them on. It's sad that we can't have that relationship. We're on the same page, but we're not reading from the same book. I have been working in both the state and federal transmission planning and permitting realm for nearly two decades now. I have a wealth of experience and knowledge that I can share with you until your eyes roll back in your head and your brain shuts down. It is incredibly complicated with a lot of moving parts that need to be fully understood before decisions are made.

Transmission siting and permitting is completely under state jurisdiction, except in the event that a line is sited in a designated National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor (NIETC). A NIETC was proposed for Jefferson County (and other parts of the tri-state area) last year, however, that potential corridor was ABANDONED by the DOE in December 2024. There is currently NO NIETC, and therefore no federal authority over the two proposed transmission lines in Jefferson County. There is no other federal mechanism to usurp the jurisdiction of the West Virginia Public Service Commission. The two transmission lines will live or die by the decision of the West Virginia Public Service Commission, which is a process where Jefferson County (and its citizens) can participate to influence the outcome.

This morning, we woke up to this.

The County Commission discussed their Resolution and unanimously supported its passage. Unfortunately, the story doesn't say where the Resolution was sent. It's not a bad Resolution, until it gets to the end where Jefferson County appears to give up and beg for a transmission owner lobbyist to simply whisper the magic words... "this transmission line will attract data centers to Jefferson County", even though that's not true at all.

How DO data centers get power? Data centers use enormous amounts of power, equalling the power load of small cities in some instances. When a county has attracted a data center customer (more on that later), the customer will request power service from the local distribution utility. In our case, it's Potomac Edison. The customer estimates how much power it will need, often beginning with a baseline amount that ramps up over time as the data center is built out. Potomac Edison considers this request and determines if it can serve the load from its local system. If not, it gets added to Potomac Edison's future load forecast that is subsequently relayed to PJM Interconnection for planning purposes. If the local utility cannot meet load requests, then it asks PJM to add it to its planning. Remember, PJM's only tool is transmission. It cannot order new generation, which is perhaps the better solution to large new load requests. PJM uses these local load forecasts to create a regional load forecast. Once PJM has its regional load forecast, it plugs that into its transmission planning and determines how much new transmission might be needed to meet the load requests (because it can't order new generation). PJM opens a competitive transmission window to solve load (think RFP) and selects the transmission projects that it believes will meet the load.

This is a multi-year, multi-tiered process. The two transmission lines through Jefferson County are the product of load forecasts and planning that occurred in 2022 and 2024. The load that was forecast for PJM in those years is slated to occur in Loudoun and Prince William Counties, Virginia. It's not for load requests from Jefferson County. The power that these transmission lines will export is already spoken for by load requests that were made in earlier years by new data centers locating in Virginia. Just because a new line will travel through Jefferson County doesn't mean it will serve new growth here.

Attracting data centers to your locality is about much more than welcoming new transmission extension cords designed to serve data centers in other states. It's about offering the data center companies incentives to locate here and providing the infrastructure they may need. Just as crucial as a local supply of electricity, data centers need a fiber connection. When Frederick County, Maryland, wanted to attract new data centers to a local campus, they arranged for a fiber backbone connected to Virginia's data center alley. Jefferson County doesn't have this kind of infrastructure. Data centers also need a vast supply of water for cooling. If Jefferson County is going to allow a California company to come in here and pump and sell our water supply to outsiders, we won't have enough left for data centers. Frederick County located its data center campus at the site of a former aluminum smelter. Aluminum smelters use a lot of power (but nothing approaching data center proportions) so the site already had a 230kV transmission connection and substation. Frederick County is using the existing lines to power its campus, not building new ones. Frederick County maintains that its data center campus is not the reason for new transmission lines. However, it is curious that both the new transmission lines proposed through Jefferson County land at substations in Frederick County before routing south along the river to make connections in Virginia's data center alley.

If Jefferson County wants to have data centers here, it needs to create a realistic plan, not just throw wide the doors for transmission extension cords for data centers in other states and hope that data centers develop through osmosis.

However, Jefferson County should also spend a great deal of time investigating how data centers have changed other communities that initially welcomed them for economic development purposes. People are migrating here to live precisely because Jefferson County doesn't have data centers. Citizens in Virginia hate living with them and can't wait to get out of the hellscape they have created under the guise of economic development. Jefferson County is the peaceful, rural environment that has disappeared from Northern Virginia. A good and affordable place to buy a home and raise a family. Jefferson County needs to be very careful and deliberate with planning for new data centers so it doesn't turn itself into Loudoun County West. Attracting data centers is something the West Virginia legislature should be studying as well. State incentives are needed to attract data centers, not just local economic development efforts.

Does Jefferson County currently have any interest from companies wanting to locate new data centers here? Have those companies developed their plans enough to make a request for service from Potomac Edison? Or is this Resolution simply a blind expression of hope? If so, it is unlikely to get to the right place.

1 Comment

Landowners Come Last

3/1/2025

0 Comments

Transmission companies use the same playbook every time. By now, I know it by heart.

Projects are planned by the regional grid operator that many people don't even know exists. Although the process is open to "stakeholders," those stakeholders have no idea that such an organization is planning a new transmission project that is going to cross their land and, perhaps, take their home. Once approved by the grid operator, the utilities conduct secret meetings and grease the right palms. They engage with your state agencies and elected officials to convince them that the project is a good idea. It's all one big, happy party... SECRET happy party. Your elected officials and your state agencies don't engage you or send notice. They leave that up to the utility, and the utility doesn't want you to know until it's so far into the routing process that you can't have any real impact on where it goes. You're supposed to remain dumb and happy until the last minute. Then the utility springs it on you as a fait accompli and conducts a farcical public information and notification process. At this point, they hope you're out of options and that you will jump into action to push the project off yourself and onto your neighbor. That's the first reaction of the vast majority of people, until someone finally figures out it's not about where it goes, it's about whether it goes.

But, until you finally receive notice, you should know that the utility has been very busy consulting with everyone except the landowner who would be forced to host the transmission line on his property. And don't you know it, NextEra has been very busy trying to schmooze a path for its portion of the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link (MARL). This presentation recently surfaced, although it's been common knowledge to a bunch of people who were hiding it from you for months.

marl_schmooze.pdf
File Size:	4634 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

Perhaps your most important take away from this little peek into what's been going on behind your back is this slide. Click to download the above file to see a larger version.

This is the roadmap of NextEra's routing process. The red box is where "we" are. It's a point called "Engage Counties and KEY STAKEHOLDER With Preliminary Route." Right... KEY STAKEHOLDER... but that doesn't include the most important KEY of all... the landowners who will be asked to host this project. When are impacted landowners notified? Three turns away at "Open Houses", which is nearly the last pit stop on this highway to hell. By that time, everyone else that won't see it from their house has been consulted about the route and brought on board. Landowners come last on this journey.

Landowners are presented with a couple of routing options and are expected to spend all their time fighting each other over where it goes, instead of joining forces against the real enemy. And they call this "community consultation"... when the decision has already been made.

DAD - Decide, Announce, Defend. DAD is a top-down, minimally participatory method of public management. You're sheep and they are the sheepdogs. This never works on a smart, engaged public because the last "D" never ends. People won't give up when their very home is on the line. And when the utilities are put on the defensive, they say and do the stupidest things, most of them dishonest. Nobody is buying it. We all know how to smell a rat. Propaganda is a useless waste of money.

So, what else is in that power point? Well, there's a full map of the MARL project, including FirstEnergy's portion. NextEra has been pretending that the eastern part of the project doesn't exist and that their project simply ends in Frederick County, Virginia.

But it's clearly shown on a map that the end of NextEra's MARL is simply the HANDOFF POINT. That's where their transmission line connects directly to FirstEnergy's transmission line.

We're all in this together, folks! Landowners and communities impacted by NextEra's MARL are in the same boat as landowners impacted by FirstEnergy's MARL. Neither one of these line sections can happen without the other. Kill one, kill them both.

Here's what the landowners impacted by NextEra's MARL are facing:

Landowners on FirstEnergy's portion are facing the tear down of an existing 138-kV transmission line, expansion of the existing easement at least 100 feet, and the building of a new 500kV line with a 138kV circuit on the same new towers.

Pay attention, people! It's coming! Although the most FirstEnergy has done is threaten to "survey" its existing easements on its part of this project, you should also know that they are working behind the scenes, much like NextEra, to schmooze KEY STAKEHOLDERS to accept the project before you even realize that they've decided on a route across your property. The announcement will come later, with Open Houses of our own. By that time, the route is set in stone. Be prepared to fight!

0 Comments

U.S. Department of Energy's Spectacular Public Engagement Failure

2/22/2025

1 Comment

As you probably know, Grain Belt Express has applied for a $4.9B loan of taxpayer funds from the DOE. As part of DOE's evaluation of GBE's loan application, the DOE must perform an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to inform the public about the environmental impacts of granting this loan to build the project. However, before the required EIS was completed, DOE granted GBE a "conditional" approval in the waning days of the Biden administration. We're just going through the motions now!

In early 2023, the DOE opened the EIS process by engaging the public in what's known as Scoping. The task was to get public input on what should be studied. As part of this task, DOE was required to notify the public and impacted communities about the study and gather their input. DOE did some public relations and sent out mailers to impacted individuals. After the comment period closed, DOE put those comments together in a report.

And then DOE ignored that report and prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Grain Belt Express that was announced on January 17, 2025, just days before Trump took office. The DOE set a very short 45-day comment period for the public to submit their comments and/or corrections on that 400+ page report. And then they didn't bother do to any public relations with the media or notify the interested persons who had commented in the scoping phase. It would have been real easy to send a press release to local media outlets and/or mail a notification to all the people who commented the first time. DOE already had their names and addresses. But DOE chose not to do that. It is only through grassroots connections that word of GBE's DEIS spread to impacted communities.

DOE has tried to check the "public engagement" box by holding limited meetings across the project area, along with two online webinars. Disaster!

There were only 4 in person meetings scheduled across the project area, 2 in Kansas and 2 in Missouri. Any impacted person would have had to travel up to 2 hours in the dead of winter, battling bad weather the whole way, to attend. Only a handful of people braved Mother Nature to attend.

The 2 online meetings were held last week, and what a clown show they were!

Many people had trouble accessing the Microsoft Teams platform on which the meetings were conducted. Who did DOE think it was dealing with here? Teenage computer geniuses? The actual audience was composed of older citizens, including many farmers, who have trouble with computers in general on a good day. Those who managed to connect (I counted 50 something in the meeting I attended, and probably half of those were DOE and GBE employees) were further flummoxed by bad internet connections and technical issues, which made participation impossible.... including me. I must be ready for the retirement home, or maybe DOE's platform wasn't compatible with Macs.

The meeting began with an explanation that if you had a question, you should submit it using the Q&A feature on the tool panel. Problem! I did not have that feature!

We were told that if we wanted to make a public comment, we should raise our virtual hand. Got that, at least!

Next DOE made us sit through a pre-recorded video presentation that probably ran about 20 minutes. Then they opened the meeting to public comment. Wait! I'm still wanting to submit a question! So, I raised my hand. When called on, I explained I did not have the Q&A tool but wanted to ask some questions. They allowed me to proceed... well at least until I asked a question they did not want to answer.

First, I asked if DOE had determined how many contracts (dollar amount) GBE must have in place to guarantee repayment of the loan. No, they have not. But then there was some blather that such consideration was not part of the EIS. I informed them that the EIS talked about "offtake and interconnection" agreements in several places, but they still refused to answer. Next, I asked them if it was DOE's finding in this report that GBE avoids or reduces or sequesters air pollutants and greenhouse gases, and if so, please explain how GBE, which is, by itself, nothing more than a giant extension cord not connected to anything, accomplishes this goal. The loan is based on GBE accomplishing this.

That's when they pulled the plug and told me that since other people were reporting that they were able to see and use the Q&A function (who are these people? DOE and GBE employees?) that they wouldn't answer my question. I was instructed to email my questions. And then they turned off my microphone. I did try to email them after the meeting, but have received no response.

Public engagement failure #1.

Next, a gentleman from the Missouri Attorney General's office made a fabulous comment regarding GBE's actions in Missouri and chastising DOE for the way it has carried out this process. He was the only one I heard who successfully used DOE's platform to participate.

Next, GBE called on someone named Karen, who had raised her hand. Except they couldn't hear her. She could not connect to make her comment. Then DOE moved on to the next raised hand, someone with the screen name "Me." Me also could not make the platform work to make his comment. DOE spent an uncomfortable 10 minutes or more toggling between Karen and Me trying to get some audio to work. Send in the clowns!!! Finally one of the two was able to connect and asked a question about the project's route in Callaway County. He admitted he had meanwhile submitted the question to the Q&A, so they skipped over him and called for more comments. Crickets. After a few more minutes of awkwardness, DOE thought it might re-run the 20 minute video presentation "for anyone just now joining us." Way to fill the second hour of your unsuccessful virtual meeting, DOE!

By this time, my patience had long since absconded, so I checked out. I have no idea if anyone ever managed to answer any questions I couldn't see, or connect to make a verbal public comment.

DOE promised to post a recording of these webinars online, but I haven't seen them yet. When (if) they show up, they are evidence of DOE's complete and utter failure at public engagement.

Why is the DOE still being allowed to operate under its secretive, partisan, public engagement sham developed under the Biden administration? Hello? Elon? Chainsaw needed here!

And here's something odd... check out the "transcript" of the February virtual meetings. Go all the way to the end for the comments of Jigar Shah, who introduces himself as the Director of the Loan Programs Office, and then proceeds to cheerlead for government backed loans for experimental projects for a couple minutes. Sorry, Jigar, but you've been FIRED! I don't remember his comments from the video, so it looks like he got cut and not replaced with comments from the current Director. Speaks volumes, doesn't it?

Comments on GBE's EIS are still due March 3. Get writing! See instructions under How To Provide Comments tab at the top.

1 Comment

GBE's Loan Is Frozen... Or is it?

2/6/2025

2 Comments

The trade press is gushing about the possibility that freezes on DOE activity could derail energy projects. We could only be so lucky! The money DOE was so eager to give away after the election is yours!

The corporate media is intent on trying to find a way to grease the giveaways so that they are not thoroughly examined by the new administration.

This piece in Utility Dive talks about a lot of transmission projects that are now threatened, but conveniently avoids mention of Grain Belt Express, perhaps the most egregious of the conditional loan guarantees. Utility Dive says:

Recipients of low-interest LPO loans “incur lower financing costs for their qualifying infrastructure projects than if they had used commercial capital markets [and] will pass along the savings to customers”

Apparently LPO is oblivious to the fact that Grain Belt Express is a merchant transmission project... or maybe it simply doesn't understand what that means. Any savings from low-cost government financing doesn't get passed along to GBE's customers, it goes in Michael Polsky's pocket!

A merchant transmission project is a speculative, supplemental transmission project. It isn't needed for reliability, economic or public policy purposes and therefore it has no captive customers at existing utilities. A merchant's speculation comes from its bet that if it builds a transmission project, it will be so valuable that customers will volunteer to pay for it in the form of capacity contracts. That contract is like a toll to use the transmission line, much like you pay tolls for private highways. The price that customers would be willing to voluntarily pay for GBE's transmission capacity is dependent upon the market -- what do other transmission options cost? How much additional transmission would be necessary to actually get the energy to load? GBE's contracts don't include energy. Any transmission customer would have to purchase that separately from a generator near one of GBE's three converter stations. The cost of the energy also figures into the market price of GBE's transmission. The amount a voluntary customer would pay for capacity on GBE is set by the market, not the cost to build and operate GBE.

A low-cost government loan may lower the cost of the transmission project, but it cannot change the market price of transmission. Since GBE's profit comes from the difference between what it costs to build GBE and what customers will pay to use it, lower financing costs will simply lower the cost to build and increase GBE's profits. GBE is interested in building the cheapest project possible in order to increase its profits. That's where the money is made. So, I ask, what is the benefit to the citizens from this taxpayer loan? There isn't any.

But yet LPO is still on a crash course to get GBE's Environmental Impact Statement completed ASAP. After all, this guy has to keep to his little schedule...

,Senator Hawley recently sent another letter to new Secretary of Energy Chris Wright asking why the DOE is proceeding with this loan when the Acting Secretary clearly paused all projects.

And about that Draft EIS... time is running short to get your comments in! Find something within the report that you'd like to address and have at it!

I found it interesting that DOE doesn't seem to understand what merchant transmission is, as well as its discussion of the non-existent generators in Western Kansas. DOE speaks with forked tongue!

Meanwhile, GBE has filed a bunch of condemnation suits in Missouri. How did GBE get so far over its skis? According to the information provided in the Draft EIS, GBE doesn't have any customers except for the Missouri municipalities that agreed to buy less than 5% of the project's capacity. Obviously that tiny revenue stream will not be enough to make the project economically viable. And what is our government thinking providing a loan to a company without enough contracted revenue to repay the loan? Is this some kind of taxpayer-funded charity for one of the richest Democratic campaign donors in the country? Quick, someone call in the DOGE!! The Grain Belt Express is the second costliest "conditionally approved" project on LPO's list. We could save $5B (that's BILLION) by denying GBE's taxpayer funded loan guarantee.

But you know what's really galling? GBE's biggest fan telling landowners to just give up and sign easements.

Although it may seem profitable for landowners to reject offers and hold out for 150% compensation, going to court may be costly and not worth the risk, said James Owen, director of Renew Missouri, a local clean energy nonprofit organization.
“I do not believe it is going to be in anyone’s best interest to challenge this in court,” he said. “They’re going to have to pay attorney fees on that. It’s going to be dragged out."

Owen is literally the LAST person a landowner should turn to for legal advice. Who thought he made a credible source for landowners? He should shut up and sit down because my experience has been that landowners find him to lack character. And that's being nice (which is more than he deserves). Don't need to slum in the mud with Owned.

And let's end with this little blast from the past:

No customers, no project.

2 Comments

Grain Belt Express Revelations

1/19/2025

0 Comments

Grain Belt Express made several revelations last week at a Kansas legislative committee meeting. It was quite apparent that GBE realized that the NIETCs severely damaged its reputation and project prospects in Kansas (and any other state where Invenergy is trying to build transmission). Your complete opposition and swift action on the proposed NIETCs gave GBE a real black eye. GBE is now rightfully terrified that the welcome mat is going to be yanked out from under them in Kansas. With such a massive uprising of the people, GBE's golden reputation in Kansas may be waning. YOU can do it again. You know how, and you've got the numbers! The world is your oyster, transmission opponents!

So, GBE showed up at a recent meeting of the Joint Committee on Energy and Water at the Kansas legislature and made an obsequious presentation about the failed NIETCs and how great its project will be for Kansas. You still love them, don't you, Kansas? Kansas? Hello? Somebody needs a hug!

Remember how Invenergy has been claiming (in multiple states) that its transmission projects had NOTHING to do with the NIETCs and that Invenergy did not request them? I have been pushing back against that for months because it is a big, fat lie. Of course Invenergy submitted requests for NIETCs for all the transmission projects it is developing. DOE asked for suggestions of where to make corridors. They didn't have a crystal ball. Invenergy DID request these corridors that so upset and horrified thousands of landowners across the Midwest. Invenergy admits it at minute 12:00 of its presentation. Listen carefully.

When DOE first opened this program, we initially submitted applications for all projects in Invenergy's transmission portfolio to be considered.

Right, like I've been saying... Invenergy requested these NIETCs. Later on, Patrick whines that DOE didn't provide adequate notification and landowners got quite ticked off when they found out. Invenergy was a huge fan of hiding its NIETC requests from landowners, until they got caught. Then Invenergy first requested that its corridor be narrowed to half a mile, and in November it says it asked DOE to remove the corridor in its entirety. Let's see... that's about the time you all got cranked up about the corridors. Invenergy knew it was beat and threw in the towel. You did this! Congratulations! You have the power!

And one more thing before I get onto the real revelation DOE and GBE is trying to hide from you now...

While Patrick Witty gave the presentation and began answering questions, he made the fatal mistake of calling Brad Pnazek up to the podium to answer a question. The bombastic Brad took over and it was quite a while before Patrick was able to wrest the microphone away from him at the request of a legislator. It might not have mattered if our friend Brad wasn't a prevaricator of the highest order. Remember when Brad "misspoke" at a DOE EIS webinar to say that GBE wasn't necessarily a merchant transmission project and had not yet decided how its project would be structured? Once again, Brad did not disappoint. I'm going to be frank with you... Brad has a penchant for making crap up if he thinks it will help his position. Even when the lie actually matters little, Brad can't help himself.

Brad told the committee that while GBE pays 110% of fair market value, other utilities only pay 90% of fair market value for their easements. C'mon, Brad, this lie doesn't even make sense! All utilities are required by law to pay 100% of fair market value for the easements they want. He followed that lie by saying that while GBE is only going to use eminent domain on around 4% of the easements needed, other utilities use eminent domain for 20% of the easements needed. This is ANOTHER made up fact. Utilities usually take less than 5% of the land they need using eminent domain. A transmission line that attempted to take 20% would be a public relations disaster of epic proportions (sort of like requesting NIETCs, right, Brad?).

Gotta wonder about Brad. Is he someone's relative or a political favor? I understand that the Peter Principle elevates employees to their level of incompetence, but it's not just incompetence here. Brad just can't help making crap up if he thinks it would sound good (in his own head). Take note! He's a ticking time bomb. Deploy as necessary.

Now let's get to the most important and urgent revelation...

The DOE has published the Draft EIS for Grain Belt Express and set a 45-day comment period.

That's right, Patrick just casually dropped that in his presentation and the press (and everyone but me apparently) missed it.

As you may recall, Grain Belt Express has applied for a $4.9B loan guarantee (of taxpayer money) from the U.S. Department of Energy. As part of its intent to grant that loan, the DOE is required by federal law to perform an Environmental Impact Statement on the project so that its environmental effects can be made public and taken into consideration when deciding to grant the loan. Of course, you may also recall that the DOE granted a "conditional" approval of GBE's loan in its panicked, mad dash for the exit after President Trump was re-elected. DOE has been madly pumping out the taxpayer dollars to its favored companies and projects ever since November. GBE's "conditional" approval is contingent upon the completion of the EIS. So does this mean that the EIS is merely a pre-determined exercise at this point, where the report is written to bolster the already granted approval? Why even bother?

An EIS has several steps that the federal government usually drags out for years. The first step is Scoping, where DOE shows the project to the public and asks them what it should study. The DOE engages in the widest notification it can to make sure impacted communities can be engaged to make comment. The DOE held public "workshop" meetings and accepted a boatload of public comment back in 2023. Then DOE published a Scoping Report to share what they learned.

And since then... crickets. DOE did nothing with GBE's EIS for two years. Guess they thought they had all the time in the world... and then the real world intruded. Now it's apparently a rush-rush, hurry up emergency. DOE has set the MINIMUM time frame it can get away with to accept comments on its Draft EIS. You have only 45-days to comment from the date the notice was published in the Federal Register. You read the Federal Register every day, don't you? You don't? Of course you don't! So, how is that public notice? Sure, it's available to the public, if you know where to look and your crystal ball lets you know it's there. Where's all the notice to the public? Last time, DOE did media and sent notices to landowners. DOE has a list of people who commented on the scoping in their possession. Where's the notice? There isn't any. Isn't that where GBE and DOE got in trouble on the NIETCs? Lack of public notice is a serious issue. How can you tell when your government is trying to pull one over on you? Lack of public notification of its actions. DOE has become a very shady agency during the past four years. Isn't it time to clean house? At any rate, your deadline to comment is March 3, 2025.

The EIS is over 400 pages, and has numerous appendices. You're supposed to read, digest, and comment on all this in less than 45 days, because the clock has already started ticking. Ask your Senators and Representatives to demand that DOE not start its 45-day clock until it has notified all impacted communities, landowners and the people who commented on scoping. It's going to take more than 45-days to notify everyone and by that time the comment period is over. This deadline and lack of public notification is ABSURD! An extension must be demanded.

And just like the NIETCs, lack of DOE notification doesn't prevent grassroots notification. Spread the word! Let everyone know about the Draft EIS and the upcoming public meetings where people can get more information and make oral comments. The meeting schedule is here.

There are ONLY 2 meetings being held across the state of Kansas. How far are you expected to drive in the dead of winter to attend one? 100 miles? 200 miles? 300 miles or more? There's also just 2 meetings for Missouri! Let your elected officials know that this is an inadequate number of meetings!

And here's something else DOE "forgot" to tell you... you can request your own personal copy of the EIS, whether electronic or on paper. Each paper copy DOE has to send out costs GBE several hundred dollars. Request your paper copy by emailing:
[email protected]
Please also read the Federal Register Notice to scan for other information that DOE didn't include on its EIS page.

Also take note that the EIS is a public recitation of the environmental impacts of GBE, it not a pass-fail test that promises no impacts. The federal government is required to make the environmental impacts of its action public and allow the public to comment on them. If you notice things that DOE missed in their report, let them know. If you think their conclusions are wrong, let them know. If you think DOE didn't adequately study alternatives, let them know. And, most of all, let the DOE know that you demand they select the "no action" alternative that means they don't grant the loan.

This is going to be a lot of work, but don't give up. Remember how your participation in group action cancelled the NIETCs. You activated your elected officials and their involvement was crucial to your success. Like the shampoo bottle says... lather, rinse, repeat.

0 Comments

Invenergy Asks To Dismiss Illinois Landowner Suit

1/14/2025

0 Comments

As you may be aware, a group of Illinois landowners appealed a recent decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to somehow "continue" Grain Belt's Negotiated Rate Authority at the same time it granted completely new authority. Of course, FERC can't do these completely opposite things at the same time. The basis for Invenergy's intervention in the case and request to dismiss the case is that the Illinois landowners have no standing to bring the case because they have no interest in the outcome.

20241213_motion_gbx_to_dismiss_petition.pdf
File Size:	301 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

The landowners responded to Grain Belt's weak motion, asking, "What's it to ya?" Only Paul Neilan could write a brief with that phrase in it! His response was engaging and spelled out exactly why the Illinois landowners had an interest to bring this case. When GBE applied for its Illinois permit, it told the ICC that it had negotiated rate authority from FERC. The ICC based their approval on that fact, along with others. If it turns out that GBE did NOT have negotiated rate authority at that time, then that is grounds to have the approval thrown out and GBE would have to reapply. Of course, GBE's bespoke legislation that allowed it to apply for a permit in the first place has expired. Therefore, GBE would have to get new legislation passed in Illinois that allowed them to apply again. Because what FERC did in the Order under review tried to say GBE had "continuing" negotiated rate authority when FERC also claimed to have reviewed GBE's request anew, what happens in the FERC case is pivotal to what happens in Illinois. Even a dense person could see that the Illinois landowners have standing. You can read a copy of the landowner's brilliant response here:

20250110_response_petitioners_to_gbx_mtd.pdf
File Size:	964 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

GBE and FERC are caught between a rock and a hard place, claiming that FERC never needed to approve the sale of GBE from Clean Line to Invenergy under Sec. 203 of the Federal Power Act. If that's true, then why didn't Invenergy notify FERC when it bought the project?

Neilan writes extensively about GBE's attempt to belittle Illinois landowners by calling them "A group of citizens who roam the country in search of governmental wrongdoing." How disrespectful can you get?

GBX's Motion states that building an interstate transmission line across their properties does not constitute any “invasion of a legally protected interest.” (GBX Motion at 15). As GBX sees things, Petitioners’ objections to GBX’s likely condemnation actions, its subjection of Petitioners to forced sales of their lands, and its construction of its transmission line across their farms and properties are "purely academic concerns." (GBX Motion at 19).

GBX wants this Court to ignore the Illinois landowners' objections to GBX's entry on their lands because Petitioners’ objections are nothing more than "...general...moral, ideological or policy objection[s] to a particular [FERC] action" (GBX Motion at 15).

GBX’s contempt for the property rights of Petitioners would be bad enough if it stopped there. But having hit rock bottom, GBX begins to dig. After omitting any mention of its need for eminent domain power and belittling Petitioners’ interest in avoiding forced sales of their properties, GBX tells this Court that Petitioners are a group of “…citizens who … roam the country in search of governmental wrongdoing." (GBX Motion at 3).

But it was GBX, not Petitioners, who lobbied the Illinois General Assembly for custom-tailored legislative changes to provide a glide path for its transmission line project. (Petitioners’ Initial Brief, at 21).

It was GBX, not Petitioners, who inserted in its custom-tailored legislation a route through the nine Illinois counties in which Petitioners’ farms and properties are located. (Petitioners’ Initial Brief at 22).

And it was GBX, not Petitioners, who sent minatory letters to Petitioners stating that, if they didn’t sell their property to GBX voluntarily, GBX would file an eminent domain lawsuit against them to take their property anyway. See Exhibit B to this Response.

So GBX is partly correct: there is one party to this appeal who has been roaming across the country looking to pick legal fights with strangers. But it’s not Petitioners.

FERC’s unlawful order makes possible GBX’s exercise of the power of eminent domain against Petitioners. GBX’s plan to take Petitioners’ lands involuntarily and to build its high voltage transmission line across their properties presents precisely the kind of particularized injury that affects Petitioners in a concrete and personal way required for standing. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 424 (2021).

Someone is respecting landowners and their rights, and it's not GBE or FERC. Let's hope the DC Circuit Court of Appeals can set things right again!

0 Comments

<<Previous

Call for Comments: Ask FERC to Deny Valley Link's Request for Financial Incentives

Valley Link Transmission Files for Incentives and Formula Rate at FERC

Shady Surveys = Skewed Stories

Here's Why Grain Belt Express Must Be DOGEd

How DO You Get Power For New Data Centers?

Landowners Come Last

U.S. Department of Energy's Spectacular Public Engagement Failure

GBE's Loan Is Frozen... Or is it?

Grain Belt Express Revelations

Invenergy Asks To Dismiss Illinois Landowner Suit

About the Author

About
StopPATH Blog

Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
Email me

Archives

Categories

About the Author

AboutStopPATH Blog

Archives

Categories

About
StopPATH Blog