As if transmission towers falling over in downbursts isn't bad enough, badly designed and maintained transmission lines have been fingered in a Utah wildfire that gobbled up 52 homes and killed one.

"A Utah wildfire that destroyed 52 homes and left one man dead was caused by arcing between power transmission lines that were built too closely together and sent a surge to the ground that ignited dry grass, a fire investigator said Wednesday.
The central Utah Wood Hollow Fire began June 23 and wasn't fully contained for 10 days, costing nearly $4 million to fight, according to state officials. Officials said 160 structures total were destroyed.
The 75-square-mile blaze began when winds caused two sets of high-voltage power lines to either touch or swing close enough to each other to create a surge than swept down the poles into dry brush, said Deputy Utah Fire Marshal Troy Mills.
Rocky Mountain Power, which owns the lines, said a thief stripped protective cooper wire from its poles that may have prevented the surge.
"The investigation into the Wood Hollow fire is a top priority for Rocky Mountain Power. We want to understand exactly what happened," the company said in a statement Wednesday. "We are in the process of doing our own detailed technical analysis in addition to cooperating with fire investigators. There are aspects of this investigation that have yet to be fully analyzed."
Mills, however, insisted that even with the copper wire in place, the surge would have easily overwhelmed the protections.
"That is the cause of the fire. There's some things where you've got to take a stand. It is what it is," Mills said.
Some residents of destroyed homes in the area say they're considering a lawsuit against the utility."

Well, there goes the utilities "best practice" of creating transmission corridors with multiple parallel lines, such as PATH's little fantasy of a 138kv line parallel to a 500kv line parallel to a 765kv line, along with their love of steel lattice transmission towers.

Rocky Mountain Power's only defense seems to be to blame it on some phantom vandals who made off with protective wire.  Why wasn't the power company inspecting and maintaining their equipment on a regular basis?

Why aren't power companies performing required maintenance?  Maybe because it cuts into their bottom line and their first responsibility seems to be to their stockholders, not to the consumers they are supposed to serve.

Back in 2005, Congress decided that not enough investment was being made in the transmission system, and this lack of investment was subsequently causing a decline in electric reliability.  They ordered FERC to concoct rules to provide for transmission investment incentives.  One of FERC's qualifications for incentives is based on the project's "challenges or risks," with the thought being that by making transmission investment less risky, it would become more attractive and result in increased investment.

What is the "risk" in building transmission?  The greatest risk is faced by new transmission projects that require new rights-of-way and new corridors through virgin territory, which will always be met with opposition from affected landowners and communities.  Replacement or upgrading of existing transmission faces much less risk and opposition, and should always be considered first before planning new builds.  However, industry continually fails to follow the path of least resistance because transmission incentives have made building and owning new assets a corporate profit-center in itself.  Investor owned utilities choose to take on riskier projects because they reap bigger financial rewards.  In addition, FERC has redirected all responsibility for financial risk from investors and transmission owners to consumers.

FERC defines risk this way:  "the challenges or risks faced by a project, e.g., siting, long lead times, regulatory and political risks, and financing challenges."  FERC attempts to financially reward investors and transmission owners for undertaking this risk, which has the effect of rewarding them for finding ways to overcome the risk.  Instead of removing risk, FERC attempts to financially compensate for it, and that increases consumers' ultimate cost of electricity.

The methods the industry has developed to overcome risk do not work and actually serve to increase the risk of successful opposition and the cost of the project.  Opposition fuels the siting, political, regulatory, long lead time (delay) and financial (cost allocation) risks.  The more opposition a project garners, the riskier and costlier it becomes.  A more costly project increases profit for investors and transmission owners.  They have no incentive to reduce risk.  As a result, we've reached a standoff where nothing of any substance is ever going to get built, even projects that are needed and economical.

The crux of this problem lies with transmission planning and siting "best practices" that rely on dishonesty, subversion of due process and dissemination of propaganda as a means to control "the public."  These self-defeating practices actually fuel more public anger, delay, political unpopularity and opposition entrenchment.  The solution is to change the transmission planning and siting processes undertaken by project owners, and to some extent by regulators, in order to prevent opposition and incite the support of the public as an equal partner in accomplishing a common goal.

The only way to accomplish this sea change is to throw everything the industry currently thinks they know about successful siting strategies out the window and start fresh with new perspectives.  The solutions have been right under the noses (and barking at the heels!) of transmission owners for quite a while, but they refuse to take the mental leap that would enable them to learn from experience.  Like a stubborn animal, transmission owners just keep butting their head into the same, old brick wall, and expecting different results.  It will never happen with the current "us vs. them" mindset that gives transmission owners a wholly unwarranted feeling of intellectual superiority over project opposition that allows them to incorrectly conclude that opposition can, or should, be dispersed through bullying, trickery or bribery tactics.  There is a complete lack of trust from square one when the root of a project lies in corporate or investor profit.

If you're a regular blog reader here, you might have seen an earlier post that featured the work of a couple of Brits who are nothing short of brilliant.  Patrick Devine-Wright and Matthew Cotton from the University of Exeter have continued their excellent research into the phenomenon of opposition to high-voltage electric transmission siting and, once again, they come to apt and stunning (to the industry, not to us opponents) conclusions.  What makes these guys so brilliant is that they spend time with the opposition and approach the problem honestly in search of a mutually acceptable solution.

Putting pylons into place: a UK case study of public beliefs about the impacts of electricity transmission-line-siting is the result of their work with a group of transmission line opponents.  I think it would be interesting to see their conclusions if they studied a successful opposition group, such as the tri-state PATH opposition, and the ways in which we manipulated, out-smarted and out-maneuvered PATH at every turn, but that's not particularly germane here, although there would undoubtedly be quite a lot of laughter and not a few pints of Raging Bitch ale consumed in the process...

The study comes to the conclusion that the industry and regulators are approaching the problem all wrong in the very beginning.  Transmission planning decisions are currently made at a level that is quite mysterious to the average citizen and subsequently presented to them as a front-loaded fait accompli where the community's only input is framed in an inaccurate "NIMBY" context that reduces their input to a choice between two evils that utilizes a "divide and conquer" methodology. The tone is dismissive and arrogant, whether intended or not. This approach breeds immediate mistrust of a self-interested "authority," and forces them into the hopeless position of attempting to justify and defend a previous decision, instead of a true community consultation process.  Trust, once lost, can never be regained. 

Once the industry has so kindly gathered affected individuals with common cause for these community exhibitions (referred to by PATH opponents as "dog & pony shows") opposition breeds and gathers steam.  The opposition groups satisfy the public's search for a trust-worthy, open and inclusive source of information and a plan for action that empowers and encourages the David vs. Goliath battle that will ensue.  The industry doesn't stand a chance here and have, in fact, already lost the battle at the first engagement.

By broadly painting any opposition with the selfish "NIMBY" brush, the industry is simply lying to themselves and ensuring their own defeat.  What the researchers found was that opposition is intellectually capable of, and indeed demands, a thorough discussion and debate of alternatives.  However, this discussion and debate has already taken place at a higher planning level where the interests of the public have been represented by disconnected and uninformed regulators and government-funded consumer advocates who are out of touch with the real world they supposedly represent.  The only mutually satisfactory conclusion at this point is an acceptable alternative (such as the Mt. Storm - Doubs rebuild in the case of the PATH Project).

Current industry "best practices" lack procedural fairness, effective consultation with affected individuals and consideration of acceptable alternatives.  Until that is remedied, transmission will continue to be "risky" and unduly costly and the stalemate will continue.

The Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission filed a complaint against FirstEnergy subsidiary West Penn Power last week related to their investigation of a 2009 incident in which a Pennsylvania woman was killed by a falling power line.

West Penn Power has repeatedly refused to provide internal investigation reports and information to the PUC for use in their own investigation.  Read PA PUC's complaint here.

The PUC is seeking to fine FirstEnergy $86,000, with additional fines of $1,000 per day accruing until FE coughs up the requested information.  They also ask that FE not be permitted to recover the fines from ratepayers.

FE is saying the same stupid stuff they always say... we're evaluating the complaint and will respond appropriately or some such nonsense.

The PUC complaint is an entirely separate matter from the lawsuit filed by the family of the woman killed by the falling power line.

Read the letter from the family's attorney to the PUC that details the improper training on splices Allegheny linemen received.  The letter states:  "Allegheny Power's witnesses continue to confirm the company's failure to follow the manufacturer's instructions and its own internal standards for splice installation, and there is obviously a grave concern for the safety of those living in Allegheny Power's service area because of its practices."

Allegheny Power, now FirstEnergy, just doesn't care how many of their power lines fail, fall and electrocute people. It's all about protecting themselves legally, who cares about public safety?  This is why corporations should never be considered "people."  People could never behave in such a vile fashion.

Remember all the fun we had last year with AEP's "Principles of Business Conduct"? 

Well, now it's FirstEnergy's turn to sing, dance and make us laugh with their improbable "Code of Business Conduct."

According to FirstEnergy CEO Anthony "Tony" Alexander,

"Maintaining high ethical standards builds trust with our customers, shareholders, fellow employees, and the communities we serve.  Our Code of Business Conduct communicates the fundamentals of ethical behavior in the workplace and provides important guidelines to ensure we maintain our high standards."

FirstEnergy?  Ethical?

I'm not going to analyze the whole thing this time -- I've got better things to do, but here's a real whopper from Tony the Trickster.

"Corporate Records – Ensure you accurately record all financial transactions in a timely manner in accordance with prescribed accounting principles. Make full, fair, accurate, timely and understandable disclosure of financial and nonfinancial information as required by law and regulation. Never knowingly record false or misleading information on any Company record, report, or document, including those reports and documents submitted to any government agency, including but not limited to the Securities and Exchange Commission."

Their Q & A section is a laugh a minute!

Q: Why do I need a Code of Business Conduct since honesty is common sense?
A: We all must maintain the highest standards of honesty and integrity. Even honest individuals are sometimes not sure of what is appropriate business conduct since not everyone shares the same perspective and values. The Code of Business Conduct provides guidelines for appropriate business conduct and a formal method of establishing accountability for noncompliance.

Does this mean that Mr. Burns and Tony the Trickster are short on common sense?

This one is my favorite:

Q: What are some warning signs that actual or contemplated business activities may be contrary to the Code of Business Conduct?
A: If you hear any of the following types of statements, there could* be a problem:
• "Shred those documents immediately."
• "No one will ever be the wiser."
• "This sounds too good to be true."
• "I know it's not totally above board, but it's the only way to get the results we need."
• "Everybody does it."
• "It never happened. Right?"
• "OK, but just this once."
• "I don't care how you do it, just make it happen within the deadline."
• "A little white lie won't hurt anything."

*This means that you may hear these statements regularly at FirstEnergy, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem.  After all, where do you think they got these quotes from if not from their daily business interactions?

According to this "information" hand out from Allegheny Energy created, managed and funded (with YOUR monthly electric bill) astroturf front group, The Marylanders for Reliable Power, the "rolling blackouts" were to begin in Maryland in 2011.  This was because "Maryland is running out of electricity!"

Now here we are on the other side in 2012 and none of Allegheny Energy's cries of "wolf" have come true.  There never was any wolf, just an investor-owned utility who set out to make a bunch of money.

And they did it in a duplicitous fashion.

If Allegheny Energy had publicly owned all their fear-mongering, ridiculous claims of predicted future "rolling blackouts" and "frequent and extended loss of power in less than three years," while applying for approval of their for profit endeavor, they would have been in a lot of regulatory hot water.  So, they created "... a coalition of businesses and organizations working to ensure that Maryland's future electricity needs are met through conservation, additional generation of electricity from traditional and renewable energy sources, and improvement of transmission capacity," so that blame for the lies and unnecessary public panic would be pinned on some phantasmic, "grassroots" group completely lacking in verisimilitude.

And they used millions of dollars of ratepayer funding to perpetrate their consumer fraud.

But, it looks like the Sierra Club's experts and the citizen opponents were right way back in 2008... dropping demand, conservation and demand side management obviated any "need" for Allegheny Energy's great transmission rip-off.  There have been no "rolling blackouts," Maryland has not "run out of electricity," and no shortages are predicted for the near future.  In fact, Dominion has recently shut down their Mt. Storm-Doubs 500kV transmission line, one of two major 500kV lines transporting dirty coal-fired electricity to east coast load centers, while they rebuild it to increase its capacity, but no current electricity crisis in Maryland has resulted.

However, electric customers are never going to get their millions back.  That money is gone for good, into the pockets of perfidious public relations companies, charlatan former public service commissioners and other paid "experts" who parroted Allegheny Energy's lies in exchange for personal gain, industry and trade groups such as Chambers of Commerce and the WV Coal Association that joined in perpetrating Allegheny Energy's "grassroots" fraud and helped them spin it, and into the pockets of lobbyists like WV Democratic Party Chairman Larry Puccio, whose support is for sale to the highest bidder.

The claims of "rolling blackouts" were nothing but a lie.

FirstEnergy made the Top Ten!

The top ten POWER PLANT TOXIC AIR POLLUTERS LIST, that is.

FirstEnergy's Bruce Mansfield Power Plant (the one that created the Little Blue Run Poison Pond -- now more poisonous than ever!) came in at Number 9 on The Environmental Integrity Project's AMERICA’S TOP POWER PLANT TOXIC AIR POLLUTERS report for 2011 for emissions of Arsenic, Chromium, Lead, and Mercury.

Congratulations, FirstEnergy.

P.S.  Three-eyed fish and asthmatic kids think you suck.