ATC works hard to silence its critics. Besides hiring police to keep dissenters out of its meetings, the company seeks to discourage ordinary citizens from taking part in the Public Service Commission's review process.

When ATC first proposed building a 138-kilovolt line in Waunakee, 92 Dane County residents signed up as "intervenors." This allowed them a more intimate role in the approval process, rather than simply speaking at the PSC's public hearings.

ATC reacted quickly. First it challenged the citizens' right to intervene. The company noted that many did not live anywhere near the Waunakee line and were simply concerned about other projects in Dane County. ATC also sought to deny some public funding for the Sierra Club and Citizens for Responsible Energy. (The PSC funds public and nonprofit groups that intervene, so they can hire attorneys and experts to advise them.)

These approaches failed, so ATC took it up a notch. Most of the citizens argued that conservation, not building new power lines, is the key to meeting Dane County's energy needs. So ATC sent the individual intervenors a 16-page interrogatory, drilling them on their personal energy use. The questions included, "How many light fixtures are located on your current property, and of these, how many are currently fitted with fluorescent light bulbs?"

ATC also demanded the intervenors' addresses for the past five years, the square footage of each residence, and all of their monthly electric bills. For residents whose property the Waunakee line would directly cross, ATC also wanted a home appraisal, tax assessment or purchase agreement documenting the price paid for the home.

Attorney Frank Jablonski, representing Citizens for Responsible Energy, calls ATC's questions "unnecessary and possibly abusive." He says a neighborhood group that tried to intervene was treated similarly, with ATC demanding the names of all its members. "It's absolutely outrageous intimidation by an entity that is completely out of control."

But the tactic worked. Scores of residents, including Ann Emerson, withdrew as intervenors. "I finally bowed out because it was so overwhelming," she says.

“This is a work in progress,” [Judge Newmark] said. “Really the first time we’ve had this many parties.”

Approval of a request for intervention makes the requester a “party” to the proceeding. A Commission proceeding is a formal legal action, and becoming a party to that action confers certain rights and expectations. For example, party status confers the rights to: (1) acquire evidence from other parties; (2) offer expert testimony; (3) cross-examine expert witnesses; and (4) present a written argument.

 “We are perplexed by the Judge’s idea that a not-for-profit organization could represent the detailed interests of numerous, unique, households-- not to mention those of six municipal governments with elected leadership,” observed Keith Ashley Wright, President of SOUL.

Both in principle and in practice, SOUL is unable to represent the land-based concerns raised by the private and municipal intervenors. The state’s requirement of multiple transmission route options makes it impossible for any organization to represent one landowner’s interests without creating conflicts with other landowners. Only nine of the requesting intervenors are SOUL members. The SOUL board restricted its intervention efforts to demonstrating the cost and environmental effectiveness of Non-Transmission Alternatives. The organization is not seeking funding from the state to pay for the required experts.

TDI, from the very beginning, took important community, environmental and aesthetic considerations into account when designing and siting the NECPL. TDI carefully chose underground technology specifically to minimize impacts on the people, viewshed and environment of Vermont. We recognized that the additional expense related to underground construction for NECPL was worth the alleviation of a multitude of genuine community and environmental concerns, and that the cost of any project can’t only be measured in dollars.

Farming is hard. And the farming of orchard crops is arguably the most difficult. Every time it rains during the period of April through July, my apples are at risk from disease, requiring frequent and expensive protective chemicals. We have experienced two major exotic pests in just the last 6 years, with Brown  Marmorated Stink Bug, Spotted Wing Drosophila, and a third pest, The Spotted Lanternfly, which has spread to the next county will arrive next year if it is not here already. Most of the apple varieties we produce on the farm are worth little more now than they were 30 years ago, while labor, chemicals, and insurance, our three biggest expenses, have increased significantly in that time. The labor supply for the hard fieldwork is almost non-existent, and our crew size shrinks each year. My wife and I work an average of 12 hours a day, six days a week, from mid-March through November each year. We do not have a summer vacation.
Still, there is something intrinsically good about farming that is difficult to describe to those who have not experienced it. Maybe it is the challenge of overcoming all the adversity. Perhaps it is the knowledge that thousands, hundreds of thousands of people, have been nourished through our efforts. Or maybe it is a pride that our orchard is an important destination for thousands of people each year who would otherwise not be able to teach their kids where food comes from. Whatever the reason, in the sincere words of Washington, “I'd rather spend a day on my farm than be emperor of the world.”

It should come as no surprise that many customers who seek out family farms to buy fruit and vegetables are concerned with their health, and the health of their families. A large proportion of the population has concerns regarding the health effects of high voltage lines. Put simply, it doesn't matter what I think about the health effects of high voltage lines, if my customers believe that they are dangerous, then their presence will cost me money, either from people refusing to pick near them, or because they don't want food that is grown near them.

We use permanently sited irrigation in many of our fields, including the field that lies under the proposed power line. There are not only concerns about damage during construction, but concern that after construction is complete, an accident in the field could cause water under high pressure to jet into the line.

...a leak in the irrigation system presented a danger to those working under the lines. In this case, a break in the irrigation line under pressure was projected to fly 100 feet in the air, causing any person that came into contact with the system to suffer an electrical shock.

On August 9, 2017 Transource held an open house at Norrisville Elementary School. I arrived between 30 minutes and an hour after the event began. As I walked in from the parking lot, I was immediately recognized by a citizen who took me by the arm and asked if it was true that the Shaws were negotiating with Transource. I was confused, and said we had not even spoken to Transource. She told me that Transource had been telling people that “the Shaws are onboard” and that we were negotiating during the meeting. I asked her to take me to the person who told her that. On the way into the building, I was recognized by Transource’s Public Affairs person, Mary Urban (whom I had never met in person). She tried to welcome me, but we continued together into the event and met the Transource representative who had been spreading the rumor. He confessed to stating that he believed we were negotiating. I told him in no uncertain terms that my family was not negotiating and that he must stop spreading rumors  about me and my family. I admit to raising my voice. He was ushered out of the room by other Transource people.

In an editorial published in local papers on 9/21/18, PJM Vice President of Planning Steve Herling stated the core justification of the IEC: “After all, it would not be fair for customers in one area to consistently pay higher prices than others do simply because the system's design prevented some customers from accessing the lowest-cost electricity.” The implication of this statement is that all customers are entitled to the lowest-cost electricity possible. There is no assertion here that there is any law, regulation, constitutional guarantee, or even a policy that would indicate that there is something wrong with the status quo. Instead, he says, “it would not be fair.” This project is predicated solely on the assumption of an entitlement that is documented nowhere.

I believe that proximity to generating facilities should matter. People who live near generators should pay less for electricity. These are the people who tolerate the noise, the emissions, the visual impacts, and the other deleterious effects of large generating facilities. These are the people who absorbed the capital charges for existing facilities in their rates over the years. There is as little logic in Mr. Herling's statement as there is legal responsibility to approve a market efficiency project... none.

Large-scale transmission intended solely to decrease Locational Marginal Price (LMP) has the adverse effect of discouraging investment in generation capacity in the destination market. Maryland imports 47% of their electricity, and Washington DC imports 100%. For each megawatt that is imported into the  state, the decreasing price provides less incentive for generators to make an  investment in the state.

Environmentalists are starting to use the same legal tactics they use to halt the construction of oil and natural gas pipelines against clean energy projects like wind farms, cutting into consumer choices for clean energy.

In Oklahoma, legal fights have slowed the rollout of critical transmission lines and wind farms that could power other parts of the United States with emissions-free electricity. Wind Catcher — a 2-gigawatt, 300,000-acre wind farm planned for the Oklahoma panhandle — had to be scrapped after oil and gas opponents began to campaign against it, stiffening the spines of property owners in the path of the mega-wind farm’s transmission lines and making the project too tortuous and risky for investors. 

Similarly, in Iowa, the legislature banned the use of eminent domain for high-voltage transmission lines carrying wind energy across the state into Illinois. The state government would have used eminent domain to obtain rights of way from reluctant property owners in order to build these lines.

C. Prior to commencing construction of the direct current component of the Grain Belt Project in Kansas, Grain Belt Express will obtain the state or federal siting approvals required by law to begin construction on the entirety of the direct current portion of the Grain Belt Project outside the state of Kansas. For the avoidance of doubt, transmission line siting approvals from the Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana state utility commissions shall be sufficient to satisfy this condition.
D. This Order is conditional upon the cost of the Project and any AC Collector System owned by Grain Belt Express not being recovered through the SPP cost allocation process or from Kansas ratepayers.
E. Grain Belt Express is allowed five years from the date of the Commission's Order to begin construction of the project in Kansas or otherwise be required to reapply.
C. (again!) The Commission requires the Applicant to submit quarterly reports detailing the progress and costs of the project and a final report once construction is complete.

PSO succeeded in obtaining injunctions in other counties against pro se landowners without the resources or ability to question PSO's contradictory characterization of the Gen-Tie as both a transmission line (for eminent domain purposes) and not a transmission line (for Commission preapproval purposes). That duplicity should stop here.

While we understand that PJM feels a responsibility to Transource to allow them to fail gracefully at the state level after a protracted review, the facts demand that PJM cancel this project immediately. Millions of taxpayer dollars are being spent to review this project in two states, and landowners are fighting the project with their own attorneys.

The merits of this project are dwindling, the costs of the project increasing, and the timeline is slipping. By now PJM is certainly aware that there is little chance of approval. Until now, landowners have considered Transource to be their opponent, but unless PJM soon exercises its right to withdraw the project, we will hold PJM responsible. PJM will become the target of our media outreach, our legislative efforts, and potentially, our legal efforts as we hold PJM responsible for the tremendous costs incurred by landowners who will ultimately emerge victorious. Further PJM support of this project will be viewed as an abuse of process.

A fiduciary duty is the highest standard of care.  The person who has a fiduciary duty is called the fiduciary, and the person to whom he owes the duty, is typically referred to as the principal or the beneficiary. If an individual breaches the fiduciary duties, he or she would need to account for the ill-gotten profit. His or her beneficiaries are entitled to damages, even if they suffered no harm.