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

A FirstEnergy Lullaby

10/9/2013

0 Comments

 
“We’re still just reviewing (the order),” MonPower spokesman Todd Meyers said. “Our legal department has been spending all night and even today as we speak looking at it.”
Go to sleep, go to sleep, go to sleep crooked lawyer
Lay thee down now and rest, may thy slumber be stressed
Lullaby and good night, Tony the Trickster's delight
May devils haunt your dreams, and disturb you with their screams
They will guard thee at rest, thou shalt wake up depressed
Go to sleep, go to sleep, go to sleep greedy shyster....

Your work here is done.

0 Comments

WV PSC's PYMWYMI Harrison Transfer Conditions

10/8/2013

1 Comment

 
FirstEnergy has been preternaturally verklempt about its "victory" in the Harrison Power Station transfer case at the West Virginia Public Service Commission.

Reporters have been hard pressed to get much more than the usual "we are reviewing the decision and will respond appropriately" line.  However, congratulations are due to the rather clueless reporters at WDTV, who inspired Toad to say something different, but equally clueless.
"Once we review this agreement will are hoping that it will lead to a decrease in rates for customers right off the bat with a reduction of about a $1.50 to the average residential customer." said Todd Meyers, First Energy Spokesman.
Right, Toad, but that "decrease" is only a temporary result of taking the entire credit for the sale of Pleasants in the first year.  Once that $25M credit has been used to reduce rates, it's gone for good, and so is the rate "decrease." 

So, what is FirstEnergy so afraid of in the PSC's favorable Order?  The PSC has allowed the sale and twisted itself in legal knots to do it.  What's not to like?

It's the "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is" conditions the PSC added to the transaction.  FirstEnergy's evil henchmen and their bean counting lap dogs are busy running the numbers and scheming up ways to manipulate the conditions so that they don't end up losing any money in the deal.

FirstEnergy told the PSC that the transaction would not damage the credit or financial position of Mon Power & Potomac Edison.  FirstEnergy also told the PSC that recovery of the acquisition adjustment ($589M of funny money added to the value of Harrison at the Allegheny Energy/FirstEnergy merger) was proper under FERC regulations.  They promised the PSC that Harrison would be able to sell excess generation not needed by Mon Power & Potomac Edison at a hefty profit, which would flow back to benefit the West Virginia ratepayers.

The PSC wants FirstEnergy to "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is," therefore, the PSC added the following conditions to its approval of the transaction:
1. First Energy and Mon Power must agree through written verified statements filed in the record in this case within ten days of the date of this Order that they understand and agree that if First Energy does not make additional equity investment in Mon Power to cover the decline in equity caused by the write-off of the $332 million (pre-tax) Acquisition Adjustment, Mon Power must agree not to pay, and First Energy must agree that it will not receive, any dividends from Mon Power until the equity to total capital ratio of Mon Power returns to forty-five percent.

FirstEnergy is going to have to cover that $332M write-off with an equity contribution to Mon Power, or else they're going to have to forgo any dividends from the company until the write-off amount is restored to Mon Power's capital ratio.  Obviously, the PSC didn't agree with FirstEnergy's contention that the transaction wouldn't damage Mon Power's credit ratings.  Poor ratings costs ratepayers money through increased credit costs.  The PSC wants FirstEnergy to Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is.  Ut-oh!  How is FirstEnergy going to agree to this now, then plan to violate it later?  What creative bookkeeping or legal nonsense are they going to commit?
2.    First Energy, AE Supply, Mon Power and Potomac Edison must agree through written verified statements filed in the record in this case within ten days of the date of this Order that they understand and agree to allow the initial $257 million Acquisition Adjustment to be subject to adjustment through a refund from First Energy or AE Supply if the FERC determines that purchase price paid by Mon Power exceeds the fair market valuation of Harrison. If the FERC makes such a determination, the portion of the $257 million Acquisition Adjustment that exceeds fair market value will be returned to Mon Power by either First Energy or AE Supply, and the refund will be credited to the Acquisition Adjustment account.
I find this one most puzzling.  Is FERC going to come motoring into West Virginia just to evaluate the purchase price?  Is there a pending FERC case that's not mentioned in the Order?  Is there a case that needs to be filed?  By whom?  FERC does not allow the recovery of acquisition adjustments.  But, of course, that's not what the condition says.  But, obviously, the PSC was not satisfied with FirstEnergy's insistence that recovery of acquisition adjustments is allowed by FERC as part of purchase price, so the PSC wants FirstEnergy to Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is.
3.  First Energy, Mon Power and Potomac Edison must agree through verified written statements filed in the record in this case within ten days of the date of this Order that they understand and agree that the return on, and return of, the $257 million Acquisition Adjustment will be allowed in base rates only to the extent that fifty percent of the net margins from off-system transactions from the additional Harrison capacity acquired by Mon Power will support that return. The full return requirement will be allowed each year subject to prospective adjustment based on a review of the achieved net margins from off-system sales in relation to the amount of return requirement built into the initial surcharge, and thereafter base rates. During the initial Surcharge true-up period, and thereafter when the return component on the Acquisition Adjustment is built into base rates, we will consider fifty percent of net margins on off-system sales attributable to the additional Harrison capacity as available for return on, and of, the remaining balance of the $257 million Acquisition Adjustment authorized in this case. This will not affect the ENEC calculations. If the monthly accumulation of return requirements previously built into the initial surcharge and thereafter base rates of MPPE between base rate cases exceed the allowable amount based on the achieved net margins on off-system sales, a prospective adjustment credit will be embedded in prospective base rates, If the monthly accumulation of return requirements previously built into the initial surcharge or base rate of MP/PE between base rate cases is less than the allowable amount based on the achieved net margins of off-system sales, no prospective adjustment will be made to base rates. Each base rate case will reset the balance of the net return components to allowable amount on the achieved net margins of off-system sales to zero.
This one looks really confusing, but it's not.  FirstEnergy is only allowed to recover the remaining $257M acquisition adjustment, along with interest on same, if the amount recovered is no greater than 50% of the profit margin from Harrison power sales to other utilities during the same period of time.  This means that FirstEnergy must "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is" and make the sale of Harrison's excess generation as profitable as possible.  This is going to be a real problem for FirstEnergy.  After all, PJM's energy market prices are depressed... that's why FirstEnergy wanted to "sell" Harrison into West Virginia's regulated system in the first place!  The evil empire is undoubtedly sitting around the poker table, wreathed in a cloud of cigar smoke, devising new and different ways to manipulate PJM's markets.

In addition, the PSC has taken exception to FirstEnergy's proposed Revised Affiliate Agreements. 
The Commission will not authorize Mon Power and Potomac Edison to enter into the Revised Agreement at this time because of concerns regarding certain aspects of the Revised Agreement, including (i) operation of public utility generation and market-regulated plants of First Energy by FE GenCo, (ii) separation of responsibilities for economic dispatch, market offers, and planned outages between utility regulated plants with captive customers and market-regulated plants, (iii) whether provision of generation services by FE GenCo will be provided at cost or at higher market-based price if that exceeds the FE GenCo costs of operating the Mon Power generation plants, and (iv) liabilities that FE GenCo may have if there are claims or damages related to the Mon Power plants resulting from operating decisions made by FE GenCo,
The agreements allow FirstEnergy's unregulated generation affiliate to "manage" Harrison.  In this way, FirstEnergy can continue to stick it to the union workers who keep the plant running, and there's not a thing the PSC can do because it does not regulate FE GenCo.  The PSC also has corporate separation concerns about FirstEnergy manipulating energy markets.  Welcome to the club, fellas! (not that we actually expect you two to DO anything about it if that occurs)  The PSC has ordered a separate proceeding to deal with these agreements.  In the meantime, Harrison will continue to operate under existing agreements.
So, now you know why Toad is huddled under his desk, sucking his thumb, and waiting to be reprogrammed.

Be careful of the lies you spin, FirstEnergy, you might just have to live with them.
1 Comment

WV PSC Approves Harrison Settlement

10/7/2013

0 Comments

 
WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

Unconfirmed Albert and Still Expired McKinney have bailed out Ohio-based FirstEnergy at YOUR expense.
0 Comments

Kansas Landowners Fighting For Their Heritage Against Regulators and Texas Wind Speculators

10/6/2013

0 Comments

 
This is Thomas Stallbaumer.  He and his ancestors have been stewards of this land in Nemeha County, Kansas,  since 1854.  He plans to eventually hand the care of this land over to his children, who plan to hand it to their children in turn. This picture was taken by his daughter, Kayla, as he gazed over land that has been virtually unchanged since his grandfather built a home here more than 150 years ago.
But now a company from Texas wants to build a high voltage transmission line less than a thousand feet from Stallbaumer's property.  This is what he will be looking at in the future while relaxing on his swing, if Clean Line Energy Partners gets its way.
That's hardly a fair reward for a lifetime of hard work and dedication to the preservation of this land.  The electricity to be carried by the proposed transmission towers is being touted as "clean" renewable energy for "eastern states."  Next time you easterners flip the switch to waste some of your "clean" energy from Kansas wind farms, remember Thomas Stallbaumer, sitting on his swing and wondering why Kansas regulators and Clean Line Energy Partners don't know the difference between energy that is merely renewable, and energy that is sustainable.

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

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

These cheerful people are the Kansas Corporation Commissioners who will be presiding over an evidentiary hearing this week, where Clean Line Energy Partners will be spinning a web of lies and justifications for its project, and asking these people to silence the objections of Thomas Stallbaumer, and other landowners just like him all across Kansas.
In 2011, the KCC approved the power of eminent domain for a project that had no customers, proclaiming it "needed."  The Commission bought Clean Line's illogical contentions without performing even perfunctory examination of their validity.  None of the Kansans who would eventually be expected to sacrifice for this project were notified or allowed to participate in that hearing.

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

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

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

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

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

Citizens' Groups Host Potomac Edison Customer Meeting Oct. 16

10/2/2013

3 Comments

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

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

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

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

Two meetings, you say? Why is that necessary?

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

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

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

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

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

Sponsors:  Jefferson County NAACP
                The Coalition for Reliable Power

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

See you then!

Download a meeting flier to share or post

3 Comments

FirstEnergy Loses $230M in Court

10/2/2013

0 Comments

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

This turned up on a news feed. 
FirstEnergy Corp. was handed a loss in federal court on Monday after a judge agreed to dismiss a complaint alleging that a Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission decision preventing the company from charging customers for $230 million worth of electricity lost during transmission ran afoul of federal law.

U.S. District Court Judge James Gardner dismissed the complaint — which challenged a 2010 PUC decision that found that so-called line losses were properly characterized as a cost of power generation that could not be recouped through additional transmission...

Want to read the rest?  Get a subscription.

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

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

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

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

Ha hahahahahahahahahaaaaa!
0 Comments

Consumers Lose in PJM "Victory for Competitive Markets"

10/2/2013

1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Comment

"America's" Power Plan Greenwashes Transmission Profits - No Actual "Americans" Involved

10/1/2013

0 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not a Landowner or Consumer Plan!


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


0 Comments

Koolaid & Quaaludes - WV PSC Schedules Mass Public Consumption of FirstEnergy Billing Bungle Propaganda

9/30/2013

6 Comments

 
The anticipated WV PSC Order scheduling public comment hearings on the Potomac Edison/Mon Power Billing Bungle case was issued today.  Mark your calendars as follows:
October 23, 2013 - 5:30 p.m.
Location:  Shepherd University, Frank Ctr., Shepherdstown, WV
October 24, 2013 - 9:30 a.m.
Location:  Shepherd University, Frank Ctr., Shepherdstown, WV

October 24, 2013 - 5:30 p.m.
Location:  West Chester Village, Stafford Room, Fairmont, WV
October 25, 2013 - 9:30 a.m.
Location:  West Chester Village, Stafford Room, Fairmont, WV

But... despite being promoted as public comment hearings, the PSC has ordered FirstEnergy to pump you full of koolaid and quaaludes before allowing you to speak:
...the Commission directs FirstEnergy to provide a representative that will make a presentation at each hearing, lasting approximately one hour. The presentation should, at a minimum, discuss (i) the circumstances that gave rise to the current customer meter reading and billing problems, (ii) how the merger and severe storms in 2012 affected customer meter reading and billing, (iii) changes implemented to improve customer meter reading and billing, (iv) planned changes to improve customer meter reading and billing and (v) services available to customers continuing to experience meter reading and billing problems.

FirstEnergy should arrange for its representative(s) to have access to customer records at each hearing to the extent possible and be available to speak with customers individually after the completion of public comment.
So, you must first drink the koolaid (listen to a FirstEnergy public relations spokesflack make excuses and tell you that you don't have a valid complaint for at least one hour), and then swallow the quaaludes (talk one-on-one with a FirstEnergy representative to remove any lingering doubts about how you deserved to be treated like that).  If you still have something to complain about after your dose of FirstEnergy "happy," then you can make a public comment (but the PSC and FirstEnergy bet that you won't!).

Fortunately, several citizen/consumer organizations will be distributing special enrapturement resistance tools called "education" and "citizen action" at a community meeting BEFORE the PSC and FirstEnergy's magical mesmerizing road show.

Mark your calendars to attend a Jefferson County community meeting on the evening of Wednesday, October 16.  More information will be coming before the end of the week, so check back here soon!
6 Comments

Clean Line Energy Partners Continues to Deny Opposition

9/27/2013

0 Comments

 
Dear Jerry,

I understand that your show helps people who are denying their problems by allowing others to confront them. 

I would like to propose that you invite Clean Line Energy Partners to be a guest on your show.  This could be really big, maybe even bigger than your "I Married A Horse" episode.

Clean Line Energy Partners, owners of the Grain Belt Express, Rock Island Clean Line, Plains & Eastern Clean Line and other HVDC transmission projects totaling thousands of line miles, have stated that:

"Successful project development requires substantial and widespread participation from a diverse group of entities and stakeholders.  Clean Line strives to establish and maintain close relationships with landowners, communities, local and state officials, customers and suppliers and deeply values stakeholder input and involvement."

However, when the rubber meets the road, Clean Line has recently resorted to having landowners physically dragged out of public meetings in their own communities.  They have had legal tantrums insisting that affected landowners be banned from participating in permitting cases.  They have been caught offering money and other consideration in exchange for supportive public testimony.  In short, Clean Line has been behaving like an immature bully.

Sincerely,

Thousands of Landowners and Ratepayers All Over the U.S.A.


0 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    About the Author

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

    About
    StopPATH Blog

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

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


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

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

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories

    All
    $$$$$$
    2023 PJM Transmission
    Aep Vs Firstenergy
    Arkansas
    Best Practices
    Best Practices
    Big Winds Big Lie
    Can Of Worms
    Carolinas
    Citizen Action
    Colorado
    Corporate Propaganda
    Data Centers
    Democracy Failures
    DOE Failure
    Emf
    Eminent Domain
    Events
    Ferc Action
    FERC Incentives Part Deux
    Ferc Transmission Noi
    Firstenergy Failure
    Good Ideas
    Illinois
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Land Agents
    Legislative Action
    Marketing To Mayberry
    MARL
    Missouri
    Mtstorm Doubs Rebuild
    Mtstormdoubs Rebuild
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    Newslinks
    NIETC
    Opinion
    Path Alternatives
    Path Failures
    Path Intimidation Attempts
    Pay To Play
    Potomac Edison Investigation
    Power Company Propaganda
    Psc Failure
    Rates
    Regulatory Capture
    Skelly Fail
    The Pjm Cartel
    Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes
    Transource
    Valley Link Transmission
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.