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

How "Big Wind" Wants to Manage its Opposition

1/10/2014

13 Comments

 
It's no surprise that the Center for Rural Affairs supports lots of new transmission lines across the Midwest.  The CFRA wants to maximize economic development in agricultural areas.  But, are they tossing the baby out with the bathwater?

"Farming" wind by covering prime farmland with wind turbines, and then selling the product to distant urban areas, is big money.  The profit potential is huge.  However, it is not a sustainable practice.  It requires a conscious choice to designate winners and losers.  In order to pull in income for a winning farmer hosting turbines, many other farmers must lose some or all of the current value of their farm operation by allowing the wind farm owner a right-of-way through their factory to ship the wind to the desired market.  This is a non-starter and cannot be remedied through one-time "market value" payoffs or hostile takeovers of productive operations.  Just like any unwanted intrusion into your income stream, many landowners vehemently oppose being burdened by new transmission lines. 

In many instances, a farm's heritage simply isn't for sale at any price.  This presents a big, big problem for the farms and communities who want to profit by hosting turbines, and they just don't want to take "no" for an answer.

In that vein, the CFRA has attempted to find some middle ground in the debate by identifying contentious issues and recommending solutions in a new report, From the Ground up:  Addressing Key Community Concerns in Clean Energy Transmission.  Not a bad premise, however the CFRA went about it in exactly the wrong way.  Instead of communicating openly with transmission opponents and actually listening to their concerns, the CFRA based their report on news stories, and then made assumptions about the thought process and motivation of opponents they had never met. 

I've spent a lot of time over the past 5 years communicating with many of the opponents of the projects CFRA studied, as well as other projects, and I think CFRA got it so wrong that their report comes off as arrogant and out of touch with reality.  It is something to be scoffed at and rejected, and it may only ratchet up the anger, instead of ameliorating it.

CFRA begins with an incorrect premise that transmission must be built.
The nation’s most abundant wind resources reside in the remote regions of the Upper Midwest and Great Plains. Residents of these areas routinely enjoy the benefits of wind production in the form of lease payments, jobs, economic development, and tax revenue. But these same lightly populated communities demand only a small amount of electricity, making it imperative that a new generation of transmission infrastructure be put in place to move this energy from where it’s produced to where it’s needed most.
This is where the failure starts... right at the beginning.

The nation's most abundant wind resources reside offshore, on the east and west coasts and in the Great Lakes.  Coincidentally, this is also close to the population centers.  In addition, communities across the country are increasing their desire to keep their energy dollars at home, not to send them to Midwestern states, or overseas to transmission owners/developers in foreign countries who want to invest in America's infatuation with "big wind."  It's just a non-starter when there is no market for the product.

As technology improves, how we produce and use energy is changing rapidly.  The promise of energy storage changes the equation considerably.  These "lightly populated communities" will soon be able to store wind energy to be used locally. 

Booming distributed generation of small-scale, on-site renewables and more reliable micro-grids are making long distance transmission obsolete.

However, that doesn't provide a profit stream for transmission developers and investors, and local energy prices will be lower than those achievable in urban markets.  What's driving this relentless desire for new transmission is pure and simple greed.

Here's an example of just one of the things CFRA got completely wrong:
Need
Concerns over need are more difficult to address than some other stakeholder issues. The concern over need often relates back to a concern over who will ultimately benefit from the project—is a transmission project needed for this area, or is the area merely a means to connect a generating source to a distant community? Localizing benefits of a transmission line can be a difficult task, especially if the developer is not in need of any materials or services that a community can provide.
Another option to address this is to make clear the benefits of improving the aging transmission infrastructure that runs across the country. Showing how upgraded transmission can affect consumer’s rates and reliability may be a good tact for developers. Although this doesn’t necessarily improve the local economy, it does show stakeholders that they are not taking on a transmission project without any sort of reward.
Concerns over need cause an affected individual to trace the project back to its source.  Who says this is needed and what is their motivation?  Of course, the motivation is always money, and that's where the individual's belief in the project developer or planner's information ends and the opposition begins.  There is no "good tact" for developers at this point.  They have lost all credibility.

CFRA believes that even flimsier need arguments will convince entrenched opposition, but that merely makes the presumption that opponents are a bunch of easily fooled Mayberry rubes, adding insult to injury. 

My advice to transmission developers would be to toss this report in the recycling pile along with the Sunday comics.  It's strictly bush league. 

The CFRA concludes:


In order to improve the transmission system in the Midwest and across the country, it is important that developers and advocates confront the concerns of those affected.
I would recommend that any company attempting this actually find out what the true concerns are by listening the those affected, and not by reading a reporter-filtered version in the newspaper.

My advice to newly-minted transmission opponents?  There's nothing wrong or shameful about your opposition.  Other affected individuals share your thoughts and feelings.  What the transmission developer proposes is not okay, and you don't have to accept it.
13 Comments

Heroes and Zeroes in Kansas

1/7/2014

3 Comments

 
I'm not sure what's gotten into the tea across the pond, but The Guardian has named Kansas Republican Governor Sam Brownback a "Climate Change Hero."
Sam Brownback, Republican Kanas Governor, and lawmakers in a dozen other US states who fought off cynical attacks to repeal state Renewable Portfolio Standards, which have catalysed thousands of wind and solar projects across the country and generated hundreds of thousands of jobs.
But, maybe it's some other Sam Brownback, the one who's the Governor of "Kanas?"  The Sam Brownback who's the Governor of Kansas is no hero, for the climate or the people of Kansas.  Sam Brownback is the "hero" of the corporations who fund his political campaigns, and just because it now happens to be wind energy corporations does not a "hero" make.
hero |ˈhi(ə)rō|
noun (pl. heroes)
1 a person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities: a war hero.
Four years ago, Sam the "Climate Change Hero" said:
The recent disclosure of the manipulation of scientific evidence by climate researchers is exactly the kind of important information that needs to be brought to light. The emails and documents recently disclosed paint an alarming picture of the state of climate research. In the emails that have been disclosed we’ve seen evidence of manipulation, efforts to avoid freedom of act information requests, abuse of the peer review process and a research process that that is driven more by a political agenda than a quest for truth. [Brownback, DeMint, Ensign, Isakson, Vitter, and Wicker, 12/8/09]
Right, it's more about a political agenda than a search for truth.  So, what's the truth?  The truth is that it looks like the hugely profitable land based wind industry has convinced Sam that covering Kansas with wind turbines and transmission lines and selling the electricity produced to "states farther east" would cut his state in on the fortune to be made with "green" branding and "Saudi Arabia of Wind" claims.

For that, Sam has tossed his former campaign financiers in the oil & gas industry under the bus.  Because he's a "hero."  Right.  I'll believe Sam's climate change epiphany after examining his campaign finance reports for 2014.

"Big wind" continues to lie to politicians like Sam, encouraging him to lay waste to his own state so that energy corporations may profit producing electricity there and selling it to other states.  Isn't that what happened in West Virginia more than 100 years ago?  Look at how fine that worked out for the people of West Virginia.

The "truth" will reveal itself in the voting booth later this year.

Now let's move on to the zeroes...

The benighted Kansas Corporation Commission has intervened in the Grain Belt Express "Clean" Line application for negotiated rate authority at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.


Remember, the KCC failed to hire any experts to vet GBE's application for a siting permit in Kansas, instead relying on the testimony of GBE, verified by a couple of in-house electrical engineers opining way outside their areas of expertise.

However, the KCC found funds to hire deep-pocket law firm Andrews Kurth to represent its interests in GBE's application at FERC.
 

And hilarity ensued...


Due to an exceptional amount of pressing business, the KCC inadvertently failed to notice the subject proceeding until after the date for timely intervention had passed.

...the KCC’s failure to file a timely intervention was based upon factors outside of its control.
"Pressing business?"  What state public service commission isn't constantly embroiled in "pressing business?"  An "inadvertent failure to notice the subject proceeding" isn't really "a factor outside [KCC's] control."  But, whatever... it gets funnier....
[KCC] is the regulatory agency that has jurisdiction over the wholesale and retail rates that will be impacted by the proposed formula rate and incentive rate adders filed for approval in this docket.
Layperson Internet Energy Blog Education Moment for the KCC and Andrews Kurth:

There is no formula rate or incentives applied for in this docket!  It's an application for negotiated rate authority filed by a merchant transmission project.  That means that the developer of the project is responsible for all costs of building and operating its project and will recover them directly from customers through rates it is asking FERC for permission to negotiate, NOT FROM RATEPAYERS, in Kansas or elsewhere.  And GBE is not eligible to apply for incentives because it is not part of any coordinated transmission expansion plan, nor planning to be.

What a stupid waste of time and billable hours.

3 Comments

Residential Power Use Expected to Fall Again in 2014:  Utilities Continue Pollyanna Plans

1/4/2014

7 Comments

 
Remember Jonathan Fahey?  He wrote an article in 2011 headlined Shocker: Power demand from US homes is falling that pioneered the idea that even though we're using more electric "gadgets" than ever, power use is dropping.  Well, now he's back with a similar article, Home electricity use in US falling to 2001 levels.
The trend Fahey first reported in 2011 continues, more than 2 years later.

Have utilities gotten any smarter since then?  Partially.  It took them forever to admit that dropping demand wasn't tied to the economy and that a rebound of electric use wasn't just over the horizon.  However, some utilities have simply moved on to other unsound business plans that continue to bank on the same old ideas that are no longer sustainable. 

Now utilities have moved on to transmission investments as their savior.  This is pretty puzzling, considering that long-distance transmission champion AEP concluded a year ago that enormous projects built across multiple states were an impossible dream.
Mr. Akins said he wants to avoid the bruising battles that delayed or doomed big projects in the past, like the 275-mile Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline project from West Virginia to Maryland. AEP and partner FirstEnergy Corp. dropped development plans for the complex project in 2011.

"Sometimes, we were just dreaming" that the companies could get enormous power lines built across multiple states, Mr. Akins said. He said AEP now is focusing on shorter projects blessed by federal regulators that eliminate grid bottlenecks. "It's where you want to put your money," he said.
The transmission investment gravy train has also left the station.  The sheer number of new transmission projects proposed combined with today's ease of online information sharing and social media tools has led to an explosion of knowledgeable, interconnected transmission opposition groups who are combining resources across the country to delay or stop unneeded projects altogether.

Instead of embracing innovation and new technology to make the existing grid smarter, some utilities are intent on merely building more of the same old dumb grid, or actively attempting to stifle innovation by forcing us all into an historic "consumer" position where we must funnel money to incumbent utilities in order to survive.  Ultimately, this plan will also fail, because technology marches relentlessly on. 

How we produce and use electricity is also changing.  Not only is producing our own electricity locally better for our economy, it's also much more reliable.  Hurricane Sandy was one of the biggest wake-up calls we've had recently, and the inevitable Monday morning quarterbacking of that disaster reveals that increasing long distance, aerial transmission from remote generation is simply dangerous.
  Making our grid more reliable isn't about building more transmission.  It's about change:
This includes traditional tactics, such as upgrading power poles and trimming trees near power lines. But it also encompasses newer approaches, such as microgrids and energy storage, which allow operators to quickly reconfigure the system when portions of the grid go down. Implicit to such plans is the need to ensure uninterrupted power to critical sites such as oil and gas refineries, water-treatment plants, and telecommunication networks, as well as gasoline stations, hospitals, and pharmacies.

Some of the nation’s leaders seem receptive to such approaches.
Elected officials, progressive regulators, energy producers, energy consumers, and innovative companies embracing new technology are also increasingly joining forces to move our energy economy forward and away from the dated centralized generation and transmission business plan of the past.  Companies who continue to deny the inevitable will ultimately be the ones left behind in irrelevance.
7 Comments

Is AEP Leading on Ideas or Dragging Around A Huge Anvil?

12/30/2013

7 Comments

 
The Columbus Dispatch and a couple of investment analysts gushed all over AEP CEO Nick Akins for "leading on ideas" yesterday.

What's Nick's idea?  Getting out of the generation business and betting AEP's future on long-distance transmission.

Bad idea.
...a transformation of the company’s structure and a shifting notion of what AEP needs to do to remain relevant in a changing energy landscape.

In doing so, the company is de-emphasizing what was once a crown jewel, the fleet of Ohio power plants, and putting a greater focus on developing an interstate network of power lines.

“The less we have to spend on centralized generation, the better off we are,” he said in a recent interview.

When he says “centralized generation,” he means big power plants. AEP will be closing more plants than it is building.

The company is shifting resources so it can expand its transmission system, made up of the high-voltage power lines that carry electricity across state lines and between metro areas.
Maybe ol' Nick missed the EEI report earlier this year, Disruptive Challenges: Financial Implications and Strategic Responses to a Changing Retail Electric Business.  The report cautioned electric utilities to avoid "that Kodak moment" for investors by embracing new technology and addressing competitive threats.

While getting out of the competitive centralized generation business "addresses" the threat that AEP may lose some of it's golden eggs in an unpredictable market, AEP is not embracing new technology or making itself relevant in a changing energy landscape.  It's simply putting even more of its golden eggs into a business plan that it will help to make obsolete. 

As competitive centralized generation closes, it is being replaced by independently owned distributed generation.  Distributed generation doesn't need new transmission.  Nick won't be collecting any eggs if he kills all the chickens.

A better idea to embrace new technology and establish future relevance was adopted by competitive generation company NRG earlier this year.
...NRG is installing solar panels on rooftops of homes and businesses and in the future will offer natural gas-fired generators to customers to kick in when the sun goes down, Chief Executive Officer David Crane said in an interview.
AEP loves regulated businesses.  It's a guaranteed revenue stream for a bulky, staid, not-particularly-innovative company.
AEP, which was reluctant to split its Ohio operations, has responded by focusing on the delivery business.
Meanwhile, the Ohio power plants are a shrinking asset. Because of environmental rules and the age of some of the plants, the company has announced a series of shutdowns that will occur over the next few years.

Also, AEP is in the process of transferring two plants away from Ohio regulation. The plants, both of which are in West Virginia near the Ohio line, will be regulated in nearby states that allow a utility to sell electricity directly to consumers.

Once the moves are complete, AEP will have 8,668 megawatts of power-plant capacity in the new Ohio power-plant subsidiary, which will be down from 11,652 megawatts today.

Akins says the company is responding to an economic climate in which there is little reason to build power plants in Ohio. The state’s electricity demand has been flat, and the regulatory structure provides no clear way to pay for plant construction.
So, dumping competitive, centralized generation is a smart idea, but increasing investment in long distance transmission to support a shrinking pool of centralized generators is not sustainable.

While AEP is banking on federally regulated interstate transmission to nearly double earnings from transmission activities from 2013 to 2014, AEP seems to have forgotten what happened with its PATH project.  Big, interstate transmission projects with long lead times lead to big failure.  That's because "need" for these projects is constantly shifting, and if opposition can delay them long enough, they become obsolete.  Opposition is growing by leaps and bounds.  AEP ain't seen nothing yet!

It's a risky proposition and I don't think it's a particularly good idea.
Akins says he’s having fun and is eager to see the work of the past two years come to fruition.

“We are now at a point where we can start defining our success,” he said. “Before, we had a huge anvil we were dragging around, whether it be environmental expense or whether it be other things we were dealing with that were reactionary. We’re finally at a point where we can map out the strategy of this company going forward. It is exhilarating.”
We'll be "having fun" too, supporting companies embracing the new technology of distributed generation, and dragging the progress of AEP's transmission projects down like a huge anvil.  Although AEP can ignore growing public discontent, it ultimately cannot be denied.
7 Comments

EUCI Kicks Clean Line Shysters Out of Industry Conference

12/11/2013

5 Comments

 
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful,  committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. --
Margaret Mead
US social anthropologist (1901 - 1978)
It appears that EUCI has knuckled under from citizen pressure and kicked Clean Line's executives off the speakers line up for its 8th Annual Public Participation for Transmission Siting Conference scheduled for January 23-24, 2014 in Houston.  Clean Line is also no longer sponsoring the conference.

The original agenda put together by Clean Line included offensive sessions entitled "Going BANANAS with NIMBYs - Best Practices in Dealing with Community Based Opposition Groups" and "Marketing to Mayberry: Communicating with Rural America."

The new agenda has been "cleansed" of Clean Line influence and the offensive sessions have been renamed "Best Practices in dealing with community based opposition groups" and "Communicating with rural America," dispensing with the offensive and cutsey-poo insults of transmission opposition groups.

But, does this make EUCI's continuing education conference any more useful?  Probably not.  It still more closely resembles a transmission industry echo chamber, where industry blowhards make crap up and feed it to the attendees as a successful example to follow.  The truth is that "the public" continues to laugh at these idiots' attempts to "participate" with us to successfully site their projects.  It's not about "participating" with the public at all... it's about sharing ideas for ways to lie and cheat the public in order to win project approval.

The only way to successfully "participate" with the public is to actually dirty your hands consorting with them, and EUCI isn't about to let THAT happen.  Offhand, I can't think of a more useless conference for the industry.  For the opposition, however, it's a fun opportunity, as protestors at a Missouri EUCI conference found out a couple months ago.  See you there!
5 Comments

Kansas Corp. Commission Chair "Retires" in Cloud of Ignominy

12/9/2013

1 Comment

 
Kansas citizens got rid of a huge threat to their wallets and due process rights today with the "retirement" of Kansas Corporation Commission Chairman Mark Sievers.

Sievers and his overlord, Governor Sam Brownback
, pretended that it was a "retirement" so Sievers could spend more time with his family.  Poor family.

Too bad Sievers didn't retire before stomping on the due process rights of Kansas citizens in order to approve Clean Line Energy Partners' Grain Belt Express transmission siting application.  That might have saved a whole bunch of future time and effort righting Sievers' wrongs.  And it might have prepared the arrogant leadership of Clean Line Energy Partners for the scrutiny of a state regulator not in someone's pocket so they didn't look so perplexed at the Illinois Commerce Commission last week.  They're definitely not in Kansas anymore!

Sievers leaves a tawdry legacy behind.  Some of his stellar moments as Chairman of the KCC include:
  1. Last month, a judge ruled that the panel had violated the Kansas Open Meetings Act by using a process called “pink sheeting” to approve commission orders.  The Commission was fined $500, the highest fine permissible.
    Under that process, staff members would circulate proposed orders to all three commissioners, who would sign the orders to indicate approval rather than voting in an open meeting. The process drew its name from the color of the slips of paper used to obtain commissioner signatures.
  2. In one of the last acts of Sievers’ chairmanship, he attempted to file a statement attached to a Westar Energy rate case decided late last month. Westar had originally proposed to shift tens of millions of dollars in rate costs from its large industrial and commercial customers to residential and small-business ratepayers.
    Sievers objected that the case was settled by Westar, CURB, KCC staff and other parties before the commission got to discuss the division of cost between large and small ratepayers and said the current methods for allocating those costs are deeply flawed.
    The other two commissioners approved the settlement and declined to include Sievers’ statement in the official file of the rate case.
  3. Sievers’ tenure also suffered from the departure under fire of the executive director who had been hired to lead the commission staff shortly after Sievers took over as chairman. Patti Petersen-Klein left the agency in June, shortly after the Topeka Capital-Journal disclosed results of a confidential consultant report on Petersen-Klein’s management of the agency.
    The report said Petersen-Klein ruled the agency under an assumption that its employees were lazy and unreliable and had to be driven relentlessly by management to accomplish anything. That atmosphere led to the departure of numerous longtime staff members and cratered morale for those who stayed.
  4. Sievers also clashed with fellow commissioners Thomas Wright and Shari Feist Albrecht about propriety of the chairman attaching personal statements to formal commission orders.  Oh yes, the Sievers "statement" -- like this work of fiction attached to the Grain Belt Express order.
  5. Rumors that Sievers lives in and is registered to vote in the state of Colorado.  No wonder he routinely kicked Kansans under the bus.
  6. Rumors that the KCC was tasked with providing a smokescreen for the machinations of Governor Sam Brownback so that nothing nasty would stick to ol' Sam.  Check back on that one in 2014.  I think Kansas voters haven't been fooled.
  7. Last summer KCC staff shut down a video conference feed of an open meeting to its Wichita office after an Eagle reporter tried to watch it.
  8. The Citizens’ Utility Ratepayer Board, a small state agency that represents residential and small-business utility customers, was already in the doghouse with KCC Chairman Mark Sievers. He recently said the KCC should investigate whether CURB’s expenses are reasonable - raising concerns that the KCC was trying to control CURB.
  9. Sievers recently proposed rubber stamping any utility rate increases less than 10%.  Sievers said he favored bypassing rate studies and implementing his 10 percent rate threshhold “because it reduces the discretion of advocates and lawyers to engage in unproductive litigation…”
So long, Sievers.  Good riddance to bad rubbish.
1 Comment

New England Governors Sign Energy Agreement

12/8/2013

2 Comments

 
Six New England governors signed an "energy agreement" the other day.  The rest of the world has been trying to figure out what the agreement means ever since.  The governors commit to continue to work together to accomplish a whole bunch of contradictory goals:
  • investments in additional energy efficiency, renewable generation, natural gas pipelines, and electric transmission
  • balance intermittent generation, reduce peak demand, and displace some of the least efficient and most polluting fossil fuel generation
  • meet clean energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals
  • improving the economic competitiveness of our region
  • advance a regional energy infrastructure initiative that diversifies our energy supply portfolio while
    ensuring that the benefits and costs of transmission and pipeline investments are shared appropriately among the New England States
  • respect individual state perspectives, particularly those of host states, as well as the natural  resources, environment, and economy of the States
  • ensure that the citizens and other stakeholders of our region, including NEPOOL, are involved in the process
  • consistent with laws and policies across the region
  • investments in local renewable generation, combined heat and power, and renewable and competitively-priced heating for buildings will support local markets and result in additional cost savings, new jobs and economic opportunities, and
    environmental gains
  • maximize ratepayer savings and system integrity
  • greater integration and utilization of renewable generation
  • development of new natural gas pipeline
    infrastructure
  • maximizing the use of existing transmission infrastructure
  • investment, where appropriate, in new transmission infrastructure
  • inclusion of energy efficiency, and the addition of distributed generation, in load forecasting and transmission planning
  • expand economic development, promote job growth, improve the competitiveness of our industries, enhance system reliability, and protect and increase the quality of life of our citizens
Apparently even New England energy interests don't know what the governors' agreement means, with both Northern Pass and its opposition claiming that the agreement advances their position regarding a controversial and tenacious merchant transmission project.

Investment in local renewables and distributed generation does not mix with "regional" energy infrastructure and investment in new transmission.  If you meet the first goal, you won't need the second.
But Joel Gordes, a West Hartford-based energy consultant, said the regional approach toward addressing energy issues has a downside as well.

“This is a compact region, but each state has its wants and needs that are in conflict at times,” Gordes said. “If this leads to building more transmission lines across New England instead of focusing on other areas that decentralize energy production, like microgrids and solar energy, than I see this as something that weakens our safety net in the aftermath of some of the large storms we’ve seen. Distributed energy projects, like microgrids, would make us more resilient.”
But maybe it's just all about the money?
The goal of the agreement, which was announced jointly late Thursday by the governors, is to reduce energy costs in the region.

The agreement calls for the states to jointly determine how to spend billions of dollars in ratepayer money from all six states to develop additional transmission projects for both natural gas and electricity.
Connecticut, with the second highest electric rates in the region, sees it as a way to reduce electric prices in the state.  But, this would come at the expense of the other states, since Connecticut has a victim mentality about energy:
"...the commitment to an initiative that can support additional transmission lines to bring cleaner electricity into Connecticut is essential to reduce our carbon emissions and help mitigate the devastating impacts of climate change that we have felt so severely here in Connecticut.”
Connecticut has recently continued its moratorium on wind farms, but yet it wants other states to build renewables and export the energy produced to Connecticut?  No wonder their electricity prices are so high.

While Connecticut sees the agreement as a way to import energy it refuses to produce on its own, the sacrificial cow of New Hampshire (which is targeted as the host of Northern Pass to serve Connecticut's power needs) sees it as a step forward to prevent the ruination of its state for the needs of others.
[New Hampshire] Governor Maggie Hassan says the agreement - which she calls a "mission statement" - commits to expanding infrastructure like transmission lines and natural gas pipelines, which would help lower energy costs in the whole region. “But we want to make sure we do that in a way that really honors each state’s needs, and doesn’t disproportionately or inappropriately burden the people of any one state,” said Hassan in a cell phone interview on Friday.

The announcement comes at a time when the governors of Southern New England, with their more aggressive renewable energy goals, are especially concerned with rising energy rates. But some in Northern New England are worried about becoming a thoroughfare for renewable electricity destined for Boston and Hartford.

“I just think it’s a really positive an encouraging development,” said Hassan.
Well, that's about as clear as mud.  I'm thinking this agreement is nothing but a publicity stunt and actually means nothing, except that ratepayers should be prepared to open their wallets once again.

The only thing that seems to be clear here is that New England doesn't want any of this:
2 Comments

Clean Line's Skelly Says Sage Grouse Must be Sacrificed for Clean Energy

12/3/2013

9 Comments

 
Eat more sage grouse!
Scott at Ridiculous RICL blog dug up a circa-2009 video over the weekend that Clean Line Energy Partners' President Michael Skelly probably wishes would disappear.  In it, Skelly says a whole bunch of things he probably wishes he had not, in retrospect.  Too bad, so sad, we've found it now! And we're going to have lots of fun with it!  Here's just one of Skelly's verbal faux pas:
In Wyoming, the industry was surprised when the governor came out and said this area of Wyoming is now off limits to wind energy and it's about 28% of the developable wind resources in Wyoming.  That's a non-trivial amount  This is one of the windiest states in the country, there's lots of projects planned in Wyoming, people are trying to develop transmission lines to Wyoming.  People wrote off millions of dollars of development expenditures when this happened, including my old shop [Horizon Wind Energy].  Now you can make lots of arguments about why the governor made the right decision here.  Some claim that there were more nefarious motives at work because the sage grouse, as many of you know, its a poster species for areas west of the Rockies. 
And then he starts grinning like a lunatic.  Apparently, species extinction of a cool bird is funny to uncool people like Skelly.
There's lots of concerns about sage grouse viability and so there are real issues here.  The question is we're going to have to make some tough choices here... and some of these tough choices... and think about why we're doing this renewables stuff.  We're worried about climate change.  And we're worried about climate change because it might cause a massive species die-off.  It's possible that along the way, we may have to make very tough decisions about which species are going to do well in this massive renewables build-out and which species aren't going to do well, and those are tough decisions that our current legislation... we don't really have a mechanism to sort of figure that out.  That is a real question.
No, the real question is will Skelly's environmental group friends still love him after they hear about his plans for the sage grouse?

And what if there was a way to "do this renewable stuff" that didn't cause us to have to sacrifice people or animals?  It's called distributed generation -- the development of small scale on-site renewables, such as adding solar panels to your own roof. 

Otherwise, the sage grouse gets it!
9 Comments

PJM Makes Filing to Impose Capacity Import Limits

12/3/2013

1 Comment

 
I've been following the story of PJM's new capacity import limit via RTO Insider over the past couple months.  Last Friday, PJM made its filing with FERC to change an agreement and tariff to impose the new limits before the next base residual auction.

It seems there is a B-I-G problem with low capacity prices.  In addition to causing havoc with incumbent generator profits, PJM has come up with other reasons to "fix" its capacity market.

First though, let's look at how PJM's capacity market works.  Capacity is a generator's ability to produce electricity.  This is unrelated to energy actually produced in real time.  Because PJM has to make sure there is enough electricity available to meet peak demand every year, it secures capacity, or the ability to produce electricity, three years in advance.  Generators submit capacity bids in the auction.  PJM stacks the bids by price.  Beginning with the lowest price, bids are accepted until the capacity target is met.  The highest price accepted is the uniform capacity price paid to all generators whose bid cleared.

Now let's move on to imported capacity.  Generators outside PJM have been bidding higher and higher amounts of generation into PJM's auction, often at low prices.  PJM's rules have allowed imported capacity into the auction even though it has no firm transmission path to be used by load in PJM.  This sets up a scenario where PJM has cleared capacity that may never be delivered.  The effect of this is that PJM may not have enough capacity to serve peak load.  It also creates an effect where it can lower capacity prices for other generators in PJM because acceptance of low bids of imported capacity lowers the high bid that sets the capacity price for all generators.

So, on the one hand, it's a reliability problem, but it's also an earnings problem for PJM incumbent generators.  PJM believes that artificially lowered capacity prices created by generation that may never serve PJM load is also causing retirement of existing generators in PJM, as well as preventing new internal generation from being built.  PJM's market is supposed to encourage new generation to develop when capacity prices are high, adding more supply to meet demand.  Instead, it was getting fake bids from outside the region, and that has skewed capacity prices.

Maybe generation from other regions can supply PJM cheaper than existing internal generation, but who wants to rely on generators thousands of miles away to supply their electricity?  The longer electricity has to travel between generator and user, the more unreliable the supply becomes and the more electricity is simply wasted by losses along the way.  It's encouraging that PJM finally acknowledges these simple physics of electric transmission, but the challenge now is to see if this new found realization is going to have any effect on the midwest wind transmission gold rush.

PJM's new rules make an exception for any external generator with firm transmission service that can be controlled by PJM and agrees to PJM's "must offer" requirement.  This still allows external generators like the hated Clean Line Energy to be excepted from the limit.  However, Clean Line only has 700 MW of firm transmission service for one of its lines with a capacity of 3500 MW.  This still doesn't make Clean Line imports any more reliable than other imports though, nor does it provide this merchant transmission company with any of the east coast customers forced to buy renewables at any price that it seeks.

Let's keep an eye on this one and see who intervenes and complains at FERC (Docket No. ER14-503).
1 Comment

Rock Island Clean Line Outsmarted in Iowa

11/21/2013

2 Comments

 
Lots of news coverage this week about public notice meetings in Iowa for the Rock Island Clean Line (RICL).  The Preservation of Rural Iowa Alliance has done a fantastic job getting information to landowners so they are prepared for the power company meetings.

One story I came across featured some whiny comments from RICL's attorneys, complaining that the Alliance was making RICL's progress difficult.
"It is clear that the Alliance will seek to make this process unnecessarily burdensome and overly complicated before the board can even make its initial determination on whether the franchise should be granted," the company's lawyers conclude.
Let's take a look at who is making the process "unnecessarily burdensome and overly complicated," shall we?

Each state has a different process for transmission line permitting.  In Iowa, a hearing must be held if objections are filed, or when a petition involves the taking of property by eminent domain.  The Alliance has helped lots of landowners file objections, therefore a hearing is guaranteed.  Also, Iowa law requires informational meetings for landowners before they can be approached by RICL's land agents.  But, because RICL will stretch across nearly 400 miles of Iowa, eminent domain will most likely be needed to secure easements.  When a company files an application for its project, it must also state whether eminent domain will be sought.  If so, the applicant must provide an "Exhibit E" with specific information on each property it expects to take by eminent domain, to include specific ownership, legal description, a map of the property showing buildings, electric lines, and other features, as well as the names of any tenants on the property.

Clean Line can't be bothered to spend this much time and money on each property it wants to acquire, so they have asked the IUB to bifurcate (separate) the franchise process into two separate proceedings.  First, Clean Line wants the IUB to determine if its project is needed and serves a public purpose.  That way Clean Line can try to keep affected landowners out of that part of the process.  Only after that determination has been made would Clean Line bother to spend the money to provide "Exhibit E" information for eminent domain takings.  Clean Line also states that an affirmative determination granting it the requested franchise would "put Clean Line in a better position" to spend the money.  What they really mean is that it would put them into a better position to threaten landowners and tell them it's a done deal, hoping that would result in less eminent domain takings and less "Exhibit E" material.

Let's take a minute here to talk about Clean Line's "RSVP" for the initial public hearings.  I'm not sure why the IUB let them get away with this, but landowner notice of the project and meetings included a superfluous "RSVP" for the meeting, and a "request for information."  What kind of information does RICL want?  "Exhibit E" info. it would have a hard time gathering on its own, the names of any tenants.  This is the same info. it is whining about having to supply in order to apply for eminent domain.

Much to Clean Line's chagrin, however, the Alliance has some very smart attorneys who have filed a motion to resist the motion to bifurcate.  First of all, they argue that a motion to bifurcate is premature until the actual application for the franchise is filed because it deprives any potential intervenors of due process to object to the bifurcation.  They also note that Clean Line unsuccessfully lobbied for legislation to bifurcate the franchise process in 2011.  What Clean Line was unsuccessful at legislatively, they are now trying to acquire through the IUB.  They also point out how Clean Line intends to use any potential approval of the franchise before eminent domain proceedings to coerce landowners to voluntarily sign easement agreements.

Now, here's where it gets funny.  Clean Line starts to squeal and whine.  First, they want to limit the Alliance's participation in the case.  I'm sure our friends in Kansas, who were denied due process by having their own participation limited by the KCC, will identify with this tactic:
Clean Line does not object to the Alliance's limited intervention at this stage; however, Clean Line reserves the right to request specific limitations be placed on such participation depending upon the participation of other parties who may have the same interest as the Alliance. Such limitations may include but shall not be limited to prohibiting the Alliance from preparing direct testimony, submitting exhibits or other evidence, or conducting cross examination of witnesses. If the Alliance seeks to "advance the mutual arguments of all its members" as stated in its Petition to Intervene, limiting its participation to briefing legal arguments will satisfy the Alliance's goal.
And then Clean Line starts whining about how it got outsmarted by quoting information it harvested from the Alliance's website:
...the motive of the Alliance is clear: to make sure Clean Line does not build this  transmission line. A recent statement
from the Alliance Board President Carolyn Sheridan to the Alliance members concisely details the strategy:
"From the Board President
Think about it: Imagine you're [Rock Island Clean Line ("RICL")] and you have to file all
this information about a parcel of land in a distant location: How much time would it take
you to learn the names and addresses of all persons with an ownership interest in the land?
How much work would it be for you to prepare a map showing the location of all electric
lines and supports within the proposed easement; and the location of and distance to any building w/in 1OOft. of the proposed line? A lot of work. Multiply that by hundreds; and
you have an idea of how important it is to the success of RICL's project that it obtains.
The more parcels upon which RICL has to do all this work, the less likely this project is to
succeed. Every parcel upon which it has to do all this work is one more shovel of dirt on
the grave of this RICL line. Join the opponents of the line. DO NOT sign an easemnts
[sic] with RICL.
Carolyn Sheridan
Board President"

Without bifurcation, it is clear that the Alliance will seek to make this process unnecessarily burdensome and overly complicated before the Board can even make its initial  determination on whether the Franchise should be granted.
Umm... so?  The Alliance is just using existing laws that were put in place to protect Iowa landowners from out-of-state speculators like Clean Line.  If the process is "overly complicated" Clean Line ought to be taking its whining to the Iowa legislature, who made this law.

Clean Line also gives away another one of its strategies:   to financially break the Alliance by requiring them to participate in two separate legal processes, hoping they'll run out money and determination somewhere along the way.

I really don't think Clean Line's strategy is working.  It's only encouraging landowners to dig in even deeper and resist a voluntary easement.  If Clean Line is going to be met with a brick wall in either case, why bother with two different hearings?  That doesn't serve administrative efficiency.

And this about sums up Clean Line's little pity party:
The Alliance seeks to force Clean Line to waste time and resources, and consequently also the time and resources of the IUB, with the hope that Clean Line eventually gives
up on the project.
Well, if Clean Line wants to waste the time and resources of the people of Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri and Indiana, as well as regulatory boards in all these states, adjudicating and opposing its unneeded, speculative projects, I'd say Dr. Karma is making a long overdue house call to Clean Line headquarters!
Give up, Clean Line.  You've been completely outsmarted by the people of Iowa!

See the following newslinks about Clean Line's public meetings in Iowa this week:

Clean Line's Beth Conley tells a BIG LIE in this story:

Landowners Skeptical of Wind Energy Transmission Line

"...other states to the east that have little wind power potential but a strong demand for clean, reliable energy."  First of all, we have a better wind power resource 12 miles off the Atlantic coast, and furthermore, we are not "demanding" this project.

Clean Line Opponents Speak Out

Crowds Grow at Clean Line Public Meetings

Proposed Power Line Leaves Farmers Concerned
The faces and snarky comments from the anchor and reporter in this story are worth watching!


Details on Transmission Line Aired Out

Proposed Power Line Project Sparks Controversy in Northeast Iowa

Property owners sound off on Clean Line plan

2 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.