It's been almost 5 years since The Kansas Corporation Commission issued a permit for Grain Belt Express over the objections of landowners.  Maybe a lot of folks have forgotten, since Clean Line has done nothing with its permit since the day it got it.  Maybe it's hanging on the wall in the Firehouse, yellowing and curling around the edges.  After all, it's one of just a few Clean Line ever received (and even fewer it still possesses!).  But landowners in Kansas have not forgotten.

The KCC placed several conditions on the permit it issued to Grain Belt Express:

Because of C. (the first C.) above, GBE has not begun construction in Kansas.  And the 5 year anniversary of GBE's permit mentioned in E. will happen in early November of this year.  Meanwhile, the KCC closed the docket on GBE and opened a new one to receive the required quarterly update filings mentioned in C. part deux.  Landowners have been living under the threat of GBE for the past 5 years.  And now that their freedom is at hand...

Clean Line and the KCC Staff filed this motion (in a closed docket, no less) asking the KCC to approve an "extension" of the expiration date for another 5 years!  Just like it was nothing.  Let's give the landowners another 5 years of hell on earth and not even give them an opportunity to participate in the process.

The KCC was very clear in its 2013 Order.  The permit is good for 5 years, and if GBE wants a longer period, it will have to reapply.  That means file a whole new application with the KCC, new testimony, new witnesses, new public notification, new public participation.  The KCC obviously intended to take a fresh look at GBE if it had not been started at 5 years.  There was no option to grant an extension for another 5 years.  It's clear as a bell!

So what were you trying to accomplish here, Clean Line?  Were you trying to extend your permit the cheapest way possible?  Is that because you no longer have the financial resources for a whole new proceeding?  Clean Line tried mighty hard to make the KCC believe nothing has changed in 5 years.  In fact, Clean Line says its managerial, technical and financial situation remains strong.  Strong?  What about the fact that all the management have started working for other companies, including "chairman" Michael Skelly?  The fact the all the other Clean Line projects have either been sold or abandoned?  The fact that Clean Line sold all its non-transmission assets to ConnectGen (where a bunch of the old Clean Line management managed to float on their golden parachutes)?  Or maybe it's the fact that suddenly Skelly says he became "chairman" of Clean Line in 2018?  Is that because all the other investors have bowed out of the company?  Do tell us where Clean Line is "strong," won't you, Michael Skelly?

I guess Skelly thought nobody would utter a peep and the KCC would just rubber stamp his extension request.

But that didn't happen.  Landowners DO remember.  Once they're attacked and their homes and livelihood are threatened, they're like a pack of marauding elephants, don't you know?  They NEVER forget!

Today, Kansas landowner Matthew Stallbaumer filed a Protest of Clean Line's motion for an extension.  He included an affidavit from fellow landowner John Broxterman detailing what it's been like to live in the shadow of GBE for the past 5 years, and what it's like to face a doubling of his sentence just when his jail term is up.

Stallbaumer says that an extension is not in the public interest, that GBE's managerial, technical and financial position has changed drastically in the past 5 years, that the siting study the KCC approved for the routing of the project is 5 years old.  Stallbaumer asks the KCC to deny Clean Line's motion, and in lieu of that to re-open the docket to allow public notice and participation, and require the filing of an updated siting study and further proof of Clean Line's "strong" position.

You can read Matthew's protest here.

Has 5 years been enough time to cure the institutional problems at the KCC?  Do the present Commissioners follow their own laws and regulations?  Do they allow due process for the public?  We'll soon find out!

Meanwhile, BRAVO, Matthew and John!  Thank you both for stepping up to slay the Clean Line dragon... again.

There's no place like home!

We've been hearing for months that PJM would be re-evaluating the Transource Independence Energy Connection and would be releasing its results at the September Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee meeting yesterday.  But that's not really what PJM did.

The afternoon before the meeting, PJM released its "analysis."  The analysis supposedly found that the project was still providing enough "benefits" to continue, with a cost-benefit ratio of 1.42.  That means for every dollar spent, the project would return $1.42 of "benefit" for PJM consumers.  Never take PJM at face value.  Ask questions, because the devil is in the details.

And that's just what IEC opponents from Maryland and Pennsylvania did yesterday when they attended PJM's TEAC meeting in person.  Patti Hankins, Aimee O'Neill, Dolores Krick and Greg Goss asked pertinent questions and let PJM know that the IEC was a gigantic waste of time and money, and that there were better, cheaper alternatives.

And our heroes from StopTransource weren't the only ones giving IEC the hairy eyeball.  There were plenty of others questioning PJM's re-evaluation process at the meeting, including regulators and other utilities.  And it was slowly revealed during the meeting that PJM did not include much of the necessary data to make its re-evaluation meaningful.  It was a total waste of time and effort and the result was useless.  PJM said it had to "put a stake in the ground" and conduct the re-evaluation at this certain point in time.  However, PJM did not have all the data it needed to perform a meaningful evaluation.  How stupid and wasteful is that?

Here's what's missing from PJM's re-evaluation:

This is absurd, PJM!!!  It's bad enough you didn't use good data to do your stake in the ground analysis, but then you announced your inaccurate results like they actually meant something!  The new cost-benefit ratio of 1.42 means absolutely nothing.  What a colossal waste of time and money!  And whose money is PJM wasting doing stupid stuff like this?  Yours and mine.  PJM has no revenue of its own.  It collects its entire budget from consumers who pay an electric bill in the PJM region.  Every day the IEC farce goes on also costs us money because IEC has received an "incentive" that allows it to apply at the FERC to recover every dollar spent on the project (plus 10.4% interest) from ratepayers even if the project is cancelled.  The more Transource spends, the more it makes!

PJM claims it is hostage to its own process.  Once it orders a market efficiency project, it cannot cancel it unless the cost-benefit ratio falls below 1.25.  PJM claims it has no authority to require cost updates by certain deadlines that synchronize with its stake in the ground re-analysis.  Nor does it spend much effort attempting to verify any cost updates it does receive.  Therefore it appears that a transmission owner can never update its costs, can fudge any cost update it does submit, and effectively prevent PJM from canceling any market efficiency project.

Transource also wants to pretend it's trapped in PJM's Hotel California.  It was ordered, ORDERED, to construct this project and it must continue to do so until PJM cancels it!  However Transource isn't running for the door.  It's barricaded itself in its room and is ordering pink champagne on ice on our tab.

PJM also wanted everyone to note that there are now supposed reliability violations when IEC is removed from the transmission expansion plan.  Oh, c'mon!  This isn't how PJM plans for reliability, and IEC was never selected to solve reliability violations.  If there's a reliability issue, PJM needs to go back to the drawing board and find the best solution, not simply recycle one that now has no other purpose.  Was pretending that IEC is now needed for reliability supposed to scare state regulators into going along with the plan?  You're a day late and a dollar short on that, PJM.  I'm thinking that all this nonsense is simply increasing entrenched opposition at the state level.  Nobody likes to be lied to, especially state regulators.

Somebody needs to step in here and protect consumers from this nonsense.  That role falls on state regulators.  Yes, they're currently involved in a permitting process, but state regulators in the past have rescued consumers from this hell by requiring updated modeling and analysis that uses actual new data.  Until that happens, it looks like its up to the consumers themselves to stay on PJM to demand better analysis and I'm pretty sure they will.

The Transource IEC is nothing but a cost burden right now and the sooner it's cancelled, the less we're going to have to pay for PJM's process failure.

And in the damned if you do and damned if you don't world of Wind Catcher, AEP subsidiaries once again find themselves snared in a trap of their own creation.

This story in TulsaWorld hits the highlights of a battle taking place between PSO and landowners in Creek County, Oklahoma.  PSO finds itself in a big, big hurry to build its Wind Catcher project so it can collect tax credits financed by U.S. taxpayers.  AEP tries to pretend this project was a last minute great deal and there is incredible urgency to it.  Except the hurry is all AEP's creation as well.  AEP wants state regulatory commissions to hurry up and issue an order allowing the company to collect the $4.5B cost of the project from ratepayers in four states, plus interest over 60 years.  And AEP wants landowners to hurry up and let them start building this project before there's any commitment to finish it.  Why should landowners have their property permanently altered for tests and surveys on a project AEP may yet abandon?  AEP has said that without full cost recovery for its project that it will not move forward.  It will not build Wind Catcher if it has to pay for the project itself.  Add to that the fact that there is no transmission permitting and siting in Oklahoma.  A utility must merely be for "public use" to wield the power of eminent domain in Oklahoma. 

In Creek County, PSO believes its Wind Catcher facility is a transmission line for public use and therefore the company possesses eminent domain authority that allows it to perform tests and surveys on pretty much any property in the state, even if the subject property is never used for a transmission route.  Landowners have objected and refused to sign AEP's survey permission forms.  AEP has interpreted a failure to sign a permission form as a refusal to allow surveyors on the property and has filed numerous petitions requesting local district courts issue an injunction preventing the landowner from interfering with surveying and testing.  I think it would be pretty impossible for a judge to order a landowner to sign a permission form.  The most a judge could do is order a landowner not to interfere... which they really weren't doing in the first place.

Guess what, AEP?  Lack of planning on your part does NOT constitute an emergency on the part of landowners.  Your big push to build as much of this project as possible before a state regulatory commission tells you "no" has gotten you into some trouble.  In fact, your whole scheme for Wind Catcher has cornered you into a most impossible Catch-22 situation.

Oklahoma statute allows a utility to request a ruling from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission that it may recover the costs of a proposed generator from ratepayers.  In that spirit, AEP asked the OCC to approve cost recovery of its purchase of a wind farm and a generation tie line.  AEP has insisted over and over at the OCC that its 360-mile electric line is part of its wind farm generator.  It can only be a generator if OCC allows AEP to recover costs in rates.  There is no pre-approval for cost recovery of a transmission line.  Therefore, AEP says the line is part of its generator so it can recover costs.

Oklahoma statute also allows a utility furnishing power to utilize eminent domain authority in order to do so.  But the same statute prohibits the use of eminent domain to build wind turbines on private property.  To get around this, AEP has called its generation tie line a transmission line in its eminent domain petitions.

If it's a transmission line, no cost allocation to ratepayers.

If it's a generation tie line, no eminent domain.

What will it be, AEP?  It can't be both.  Either it's a transmission line subject to eminent domain, or it's a generation tie line subject to pre-approval of cost recovery.

And that's sort of the starring argument in this landowner brief on one of AEP's injunction filings in Creek County.  But there's a lot more to love in this brief because the question of naming AEP's electric line isn't exactly simple.  If it's a transmission line, it's subject to open access under federal regulations.  That means any other electric utility can request service on the line and AEP must supply it, even if that means upsizing the line to serve other customers.  But if it's a generation tie line, it essentially becomes AEP's private transmission line and it can refuse service to other utilities.  This brief likens a generation tie line to a private driveway.  It would not be possible for a property owner to exercise eminent domain on private property to build a driveway for his own private use.

You're caught, AEP, caught in a trap of your own making.  Who is responsible for not thinking this through?  It's so simple, I can't believe AEP brain-farted this badly.

What AEP didn't count on was smart landowners capable of fighting back.  Perhaps AEP thought filing for injunctions against landowners would scare landowners and make them give in.  In some instances, it looks like that was the case.  Except a higher number of landowners refused to knuckle under and sign the permission form.  This group has attempted to represent themselves in district courts, with varying levels of success.

-And "here" apparently is the doorstep of a lawyer who isn't fooled by AEP's bluster and scare tactics.  Not only that, this smart landowner hired GableGotwals' Graydon D. Luthey, Jr. to represent him in Creek County District Court.  Mr. Luthey is the lawyer who reduced AEP's witness to a puddle of stuttering bad grammar during recent cross examination at the OCC.  Mr. Luthey is one heck of a lawyer.  Bravo!

And that's what happens when AEP draws a line on a map for a new electric line route.  It's sort of like tossing dice, or dealing cards.  Will AEP route its line through the property of someone it wishes it hadn't?  Someone with the expertise and knowledge to fight back?  It happens nearly every time.

And that's how bad transmission (or generation?) line proposals die.

AEP didn't think this whole thing through.  Wind Catcher cannot be built as proposed.

In a letter to the PJM Board of Managers last week, Transource opposition groups Citizens to Stop Transource, Stop Transource Franklin County, and Stop Transource Power Lines MD requested that PJM withdraw Transource's Independence Energy Connection from PJM's Regional Transmission Expansion Plan within the next month.

The opposition groups state that congestion savings have fallen, project costs have increased, electrical load in the target beneficiary area has decreased, overall congestion costs have been reduced 65%, use of existing rights-of-way is feasible, endangered species surveys have not been completed, and other utilities have done no work to complete their portions of the project.  It's a damning list of compelling reasons to halt the project before it incurs more costs that ratepayers will ultimately have to pay.

The groups say

The opportunity to "fail gracefully" also allows Transource to continue to spend money packing its construction work in progress account upon which it will receive a 10.4% return until reimbursed in full by ratepayers.  Continued spending on a project that will most likely never be constructed is irresponsible on PJM's part.  It's imperative to take a "time out" here to re-examine this project in depth.

In the past, PJM has allowed, and even eagerly supported, transmission projects that once placed in its RTEP are never revisited.  This blindly thoughtless ride on the process train has cost PJM ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars in their electric bills for projects that have never been constructed.  Ratepayers pay a hefty penalty for PJM's lack of planning expertise, and who's to blame?  PJM, of course!  The opposition groups concluded:

PJM, as a profit-neutral utility cartel, has no assets of its own at risk.  PJM's entire budget is financed by electric ratepayers in the region through rates added to customer bills.  It costs PJM nothing to continue to order and support projects that have a very low chance of being approved and built, and with federal abandonment guarantees granted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, owners of these projects actually profit from proposing and trying to permit projects that stand little chance of success.  PJM is unharmed.  Transmission owners are unharmed.  Consumers shoulder all risk for these projects, although they have no part in determining their necessity or reviewing their risk profiles in the first place.  The words "fiduciary duty" come to mind here. 

Simply put, as an impartial regional transmission planner for benefit of electric customers in the region, PJM accepts a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the consumers who benefit from its actions.  PJM is failing here.  While sticking to a risky plan to cure supposed reliability violations may have some basis, when a doubtful project's only purpose is to save ratepayers money, continuing pursuit in the face of imminent failure can only be called reckless.  The only guarantee here is that the Transource IEC project is going to cost ratepayers money.  Benefits are a gamble, costs are a certainty.

Based on my years of experience assessing the probability of transmission proposals actually being approved and built as ordered, I find that the chances of the Transource IEC project being approved and built on time and on budget hovering near zero.  If PJM chooses to ignore the opponents and proceed on its merry way with the IEC, it deserves all the public scrutiny and anger it receives.  It's time to turn our attention to PJM and demand more accountability to ensure that the organization created for our sole benefit performs as intended.

There will be some celebrating going on in New Jersey tonight after the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities adopted the recommendation of one of its administrative law judges and denied the transmission application of JCP&L this morning.  JCP&L, a FirstEnergy affiliate, had filed an application to build an insane transmission proposal inside a commuter rail right-of-way and just feet from thousands of homes.  It called its project the Monmouth County Reliability Project.  As if it was ever about "reliability."

Although one news outlet called today's decision "stunning" and claimed "State boards often approve such requests from utility companies. Friday's unanimous rejection by the New Jersey BPU was stunning to many who follow energy markets and the energy industry," it's not at all surprising to transmission opposition leaders.

Today's victory is the just result of hard work and determination by Residents Against Giant Electric (RAGE).  RAGE completely owns and deserves this victory!  I'm not sure when I've ever seen a citizens group work so hard and so cohesively toward a common goal.  They are an inspiration to transmission opponents everywhere!  Although they'll never get back the two years and half a million dollars they spent in pursuit of their goal, they achieved something invaluable -- a sense of community and the knowledge that a small group of committed individuals can change the world.  The next generation who watched their parents wage this battle will grow into adulthood with the knowledge that they can win if they stand up and fight.

Today's rejection of JCP&L's plan is not only a defeat for FirstEnergy, but also a rejection of PJM Interconnection's planning process.  PJM insisted the project was needed, and even provided witnesses to support it.  JCP&L continually hid behind PJM and used PJM's claims of need like a shield to deflect criticism.  Perhaps that's why the industry might be so "stunned."  Does the industry believe if they can coerce PJM to work a transmission project into its regional transmission expansion plan that will ensure the approval of state utility regulators?  It doesn't.  Not even.  The only and final judge of whether a transmission proposal gets built is the state utility regulator, not PJM.  The days of state utility regulators following meekly in PJM's footsteps are over.  PJM has been wrong, dead wrong, about numerous transmission proposals that found their way into its regional plan.  MCRP is just another to add to the growing list.  And you know how that old story goes about the boy who cried "wolf?"  At what point will PJM's credibility about transmission planning tank completely?  The more unneeded transmission projects PJM orders and continues to support, even in the face of better alternatives, the more damage it does to its credibility.  Pull yourself out of the gutter, PJM, and start doing your job impartially and with the best interests of electric consumers in mind, instead of the financial interests of your utility members.

Bravo to the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities for being brave enough to agree that, yes, the emperor is naked.  PJM is a paper tiger.  PJM's endorsement of a transmission project is not proof of its necessity.  The BPU is a shining example for other state regulatory commissions that may be faced with other PJM-ordered projects that are unnecessarily costly and damaging to the citizens they serve.

The citizens saved the day in New Jersey.  They didn't wait for someone else to act, they didn't hope that someone else would represent their interests, they didn't bank on someone else providing the funds necessary to wage this war.  In this case, the citizens found that the someone who could stop this project resided within each one of them.  Congratulations, RAGE!

AEP announced the addition of several parties to its proposed settlement agreement in Oklahoma last week.  The sycophantic trade press and other outlets duly reported this as regulatory progress.  Lots of smoke and mirrors for something of relatively little value.  It doesn't matter how many minor parties sign up to receive something of value to them when the major party who will pay for the project continues to oppose the settlement.

In the regulatory world, any party with an interest in the proceedings may become a party to the case.  If some of these interests are purely selfish, it doesn't matter.  All sorts of entities intervene in a regulatory proceeding in order to try to score a piece of the pie.  Such was the case in Oklahoma when AEP filed its audacious plan to buy the country's biggest wind farm and build and own the world's biggest "generation tie line."  The project fundamentally changes the nature of wind and other generation projects in Oklahoma and the gen tie line makes other transmission to export renewables obsolete.  So, it's no surprise that a bunch of companies with interests in building generation and transmission in the state intervened in the case.  They intervened because AEP's plan interferes with their own plans.  If AEP builds its project, all these other companies may have to abandon some of their own plans.  But what if they can intervene and negotiate with AEP to preserve some of their own plans and still make money?  Everyone makes money, everyone's happy, right?

Except someone has to pay for all these companies to make their money.  AEP suggests its customers in Oklahoma will pay for its project.  If AEP adds guarantees that the intervening companies will also make money from their own projects, then that only adds to the cost burden for AEP's customers.  And that's exactly what happened last week.

Intervening party Oneta Power received a power purchase agreement for 300MW of gas-fired generation, plus a commitment that AEP will issue an RFP for additional gas generation in the near future.  Now maybe purchasing gas generation would be cheaper for Oklahoma consumers, but this purchase is in addition to, not instead of, AEP's purchase of a wind farm.  It increases consumer costs, not reduces them.  AEP says it was going to purchase this power anyhow, but that plan was originally tanked and replaced by Wind Catcher.  Now all of a sudden, AEP needs both.  If that doesn't smack of buying off a party with someone else's money, I'm not sure what does.  AEP says that this agreement is "in the best interests" of its customers because it allows them to build Wind Catcher.  It has no benefit of its own.

Other recent settling parties received similar goodie bags that also provide no benefit to AEP customers, such as agreements not to infringe upon the retail sales territory of another company, and to allow others the opportunity to build future additions to AEP's transmission system around the wind farm.  None of that saves AEP customers any money.  The customers are still hit with the full cost of the wind farm and transmission line.

And there are plenty more parties who probably want their own piece of the pie before this is done.

It doesn't matter how many pieces of pie AEP serves up to these parties if the parties representing AEP customers don't belly up to the buffet.  The OK Attorney General and Public Utility Division of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission are the only parties to the case who could even remotely be said to represent the interests of AEP customers, and they're not budging.  These parties have made their position quite clear when they filed their own settlement agreement containing terms they believe will protect consumers.  AEP could agree to these conditions and settle the case, then go on to build its project.  However, AEP has refused to do so.  Instead it has gone around serving pie to all the other intervenors with selfish intent.  Perhaps AEP thinks that if it gathers enough parties and generates enough smoke and mirrors that the public will believe they will benefit from the project and that will give the OCC Commissioners enough "cover" to approve the project against the "best interests" of AEP ratepayers in the state.

So why won't AEP agree to the Attorney General's settlement terms?  Because they actually provide protections to AEP's customers who will pay for the project.  AEP says its project will provide benefits to customers, but when the guarantee that it will do so is inked out in black and white on a legal agreement, AEP won't sign it.  This can only mean that AEP's promises of customer benefit are fake.  If providing the promised benefits interferes with AEP's profit, then there is no real benefit and the project should be cancelled or denied.

AEP has asked the Oklahoma Corporation Commission to approve its recovery of costs for Wind Catcher from its customers.  The OCC can do this at any time.  But if the benefits determined by the OCC in any approval don't happen, then the OCC is fully responsible for making a bad decision.  And they must know it would be a bad decision because they haven't done it.

But the project can still be approved without the OCC Commissioners taking responsibility for making a bad decision if a unanimous settlement is presented for approval.  In a settlement, all the parties with an interest in the case have agreed on how to dispose of it through negotiation.  Everyone gets something, and the applicant achieves its goal.  Nobody could blame the OCC since the parties agreed that the settlement was in their own best interests.  It sure seems like the OCC Commissioners are waiting for a settlement so they don't have to take responsibility for making a big mistake.

And AEP is trying mighty hard to come up with a settlement, but not hard enough to stand behind its own promises of customer benefit.  A contested settlement, where one or more parties do not join the majority and continue to oppose, is unlikely in this instance.  Approval of a contested settlement would be categorized as a bad decision that sticks to the OCC Commissioners.  It's all about who the contesting parties are and why they are contesting.  If a minor party, like Clean Line Energy Partners for instance, contested the settlement because AEP refused to buy its failed Plains & Eastern transmission project route, a contested settlement may be reasonable.  However, if the Attorney General  contests in the best interests of ratepayers, that's a whole different animal.  In order to approve that kind of contested settlement, the OCC Commissioners would take it upon themselves to determine the best interests of the ratepayers against the better judgment of the Attorney General, and they would own every bit of fall out when AEP's promised benefits don't materialize.

Pretending that buying support from self-interested parties is progress is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

And speaking of smoke, be sure not to miss this news story out of Bixby, Oklahoma last week.  Bixby officials asked AEP to make a presentation about its project, and they went, like lambs to the slaughter.  AEP sent its governmental schmoozer, some project rep, and Tim Gaul, its corporate siting guy.  Some of you veteran transmission opponents may recognize that name.  Gaul has shown up as the siting guy on many AEP transmission projects in the past, although he used to work for transmission siting contractor Louis Berger before he went through the transmission revolving door and earned himself a plum position at AEP.  Gaul has been the guy who decided to place a transmission line in your back yard, although public accountability has been rare.  Watch as an unnamed landowner gets in Gaul's face and berates him while pointing a finger.  It gives me the warm fuzzies!  The look on Gaul's face... hahahaha!  Bravo, unnamed landowner, bravo!  You spoke for a lot of people who never had such an opportunity!

At the end of the evening, Bixby officials voted to send written opposition to the project to the OCC.  The people of Bixby have spoken.  There's no purer truth in the transmission business than this...

It was both inspiring and heart wrenching listening to Franklin County residents testify in opposition to the Transource Independence Energy Connection during four PUC public hearings this week.  More than 100 people showed up at the first hearing on Tuesday afternoon, and many of them testified under oath.

Resident after resident stepped up to the microphone to tell the judges how this project would affect them.  We heard about how this project would burden farmland, oftentimes land that has been in the family since the 1800's.  Farmland sometimes serves as a farmer's retirement plan and much of a farmer's wealth is tied up in his land.  A new transmission line across it not only devalues it, but can make it worthless for future uses.  How many people in No. Va., D.C., and Baltimore do you suppose are offering up a part of their retirement savings in order to make power a few cents cheaper each month?  But yet they ask these hardworking farmers to take that kind of hit.

We also heard from a developer who owns a master planned community in Franklin whose beautiful views, property value, and economic well-being will be forever marred by the presence of this transmission line through the valley.

One of my favorites was a professor of economics from a local university who couldn't find any economic benefit for Franklin County, and quoted some absolutely hysterical lines from Paul McGlynn's testimony that made absolutely no sense.

Katie Hess from South Mountain Partnership approached with maps, studies, and other publicly published exhibits and testified at length about how the project would impact farmland, economics of the region, and the environment.  She also shared that she approached Transource early on in the process in an attempt to develop a partnership of sorts to help site the line to have the least impacts.  Transource dismissed and rebuffed her efforts.  I guess they're now reaping what they sowed.  At the end, Transource's attorney objected to her exhibits as "heresay."  Overruled!

The president of the Franklin County Area Development Corporation testified that Transource's claimed economic benefits to Franklin County were biased and perhaps exaggerated.  Based on his many years of experience developing the economy of Franklin County, he said Transource has failed to quantify the benefits and articulate the need for this project.  He also had an amusing Transource story to tell... that the company assumed he would automatically support the project and sing its praises.  However, he is adamantly opposed.  He is the first local economic development professional I have seen to reject a transmission proposal.  I greatly admire his honesty and professionalism on behalf of the people of Franklin County!

And, of course, a union shill showed up.  Funny that... the first person signed up to speak was Bernie Kephart.  Except he wasn't there.  How did his name get on the list?  Did he sign up remotely?  Or did someone else sign his name, hoping he would show up?  Bad form, Transource.  Extremely bad form.  Don't junk up speaker lists with names of people who aren't even present.  And the one union guy who did speak told everyone they wouldn't even notice the power line after it was built.  He got a roar of laughter so powerful even he was laughing as he slunk away from the microphone.  Pretty ridiculous!

Attendance was also high at the three subsequent hearings, with about 100 speakers voicing opposition to the project, and many more filling the venue to support the opposition.  The only ones voicing support for the project were a few union plants and a farmer/transmission construction company owner from another part of the state who says he does $30M of business yearly.  Ya know, Transource, you did a lousy job drumming up fake advocacy for your project.

But who needs advocacy when you have liars like Todd Burns schmoozing up the media?  He actually said PJM "identified a deficiency in the grid."  No, it didn't.  It identified a price differential between the cost of electricity in Pennsylvania and the cost of electricity in Washington, DC.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with the grid.  It is not "deficient."  We don't need to "reinforce the grid."  Liar, liar, pants on fire!

It's time for Transource to pack up all its lies, its exaggerations, its fake claims of benefit, its totally false pretense of "working with the community," its injunctions and abusive, lying land agents and take the whole kit and kaboodle back to Columbus, Ohio.  That's not the way the good people of Franklin County live their lives.  You're not fooling anyone, Transource.  Nobody at all.

I'm pretty sure the PUC administrative law judges left Franklin County with plenty of truth, however.  The citizens came out strong and spoke from their hearts.  That's a big win in the regulatory world!

The Pennsylvania Utility Commission is holding public hearings on the Transource Independence Energy Connection proposal to build two transmission lines on entirely new right-of-way in York and Franklin Counties. 

The first day of hearings occurred last week in York County, where many citizens spoke out in opposition to the project.  The citizen opposition was bolstered by comments from local elected representatives.

Indeed, Rep. Phillips-Hill!  Why is this company proposing a transmission line on new right-of-way when existing infrastructure through the community is only half-utilized?  Can we blame the company, PJM Interconnection, or federal energy planning procedures?  All of the above!  The Feds encouraged competitive transmission projects, where companies compete to build the best project at a bargain price.  And PJM ran a competitive transmission contest to see who could propose a project that alleviated a congestion concern from 2014.  And PJM selected Transource, a new entrant without any existing assets in the geographic area.  And Transource can only build new assets because it doesn't own any existing ones that could be upgraded or rebuilt to economically alleviate the constraint with minimal intrusion on local landowners.  All three of these entities have since conspired to continue to push this outdated idea, even though better alternatives have been recognized.  What good is competition when it costs communities and ratepayers more than upgrading existing assets?  It's nothing more than an exercise in trying to force a solution that is no longer economical because a project looked good on paper once upon a time.  And it's proof that PJM's competitive process does not work on economic projects because the entire exercise takes too long and is subject to public input.  PJM's "market efficiency" competitive transmission planning process is an abject failure that should be abandoned in favor of better, cheaper, less invasive ideas.

I considered the name of this project recently, and the irony is laughable.  "Independence?"  Making Washington, DC, Northern Virginia, and Baltimore dependent upon electrical generators in Pennsylvania rather than generating electricity locally is "independence?"  Independence for whom?  There's nothing "independent" in a transmission project that serves as nothing more than an intrusive leech, sucking resources out of one state to serve a more economically prosperous and politically connected geographic region at the expense of one not so well positioned.  That the economic prosperity of the big cities is proposed to gain at the expense of the economic prosperity of small Pennsylvania communities is wrong, just wrong.

It's up to the Pennsylvania Utility Commission to protect Pennsylvanians, not toss them under the bus in order to provide benefits for citizens of other states.  And you need to tell them so!  The second York public hearing is scheduled to take place today, beginning at 1:00 and 6:00 at the Airville Volunteer Fire Department.

Two additional public hearings will take place next week in Franklin County.

Please come out and support your community, whether it is giving oral comment, submitting written comment, or simply showing your opposition from the audience.  This may be your only opportunity to have your say, please don't miss it!

See you there!

And just like that, the U.S. Department of Energy is no longer "participating" in the Plains & Eastern Clean Line.  The DOE announced today:

A link to the actual termination agreement has been lost somewhere in the halls of DOE.  It is suspected that an energy industry lobbyist found it lying around and is holding it hostage.

UPDATE:  Look what finally turned up... it's the termination agreement.  And what a beautiful thing it is!  Of course, it's written in legalese but there are a couple of interesting things in here.

1.  Clean Line will continue to pay all DOE's expenses related to this whole debacle.  DOE has a bunch of money it's holding to cover expenses, called an Advance Funding Account.  This account has existed all along and is standard operating procedure for government participation in transmission company proposals.  Now it's time for the DOE to get all its expenses together and cash out.  Anything remaining in the account one year from now will be refunded directly to Clean Line's bank account as listed in the agreement.  Aren't we all instructed time and again not to make our bank information public or give it to someone who doesn't need it?  I guess these folks missed that instruction.

2.  "None of the Clean Line Parties, any of their affiliates nor any of their respective representatives may issue any press release or make any other public statement directly or indirectly relating to DOE’s participation in the Project, this Agreement, and DOE’s involvement in the transaction contemplated thereby without DOE’s prior written consent (other than information that is generally available to the public and background or summary information of a general nature)."  I guess this will prevent Clean Line from making crap up and telling the media how to think about DOE's participation in the project.  Because making crap up in order to feed Skelly's insatiable ego seems to be the knee jerk reaction here.  I guess DOE knows who they're dealing with by now.

And that's all folks -- the DOE "participation" in the Plains & Eastern Clean Line has ended.  No more threats of federal eminent domain.  Any future iterations of this or any other project must be approved by the states.  In Arkansas, the law prevents the Public Service Commission from ever approving and permitting a merchant transmission project such as Clean Line.  Plains and Eastern is officially dead and the DOE's use of Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act is a gigantic failure, a colossal waste of time and money.

Meanwhile, it's time to celebrate!

Congratulations, RAGE!  You did it!

Residents Against Giant Electric (RAGE) formed several years ago to fight FirstEnergy affiliate Jersey Central Power & Light's insane plan to construct a 10-mile, 230kV transmission line in a narrow commuter railroad right of way abutting dense residential development in Monmouth County.  As the judge recognized in her decision handed down yesterday, "RAGE took up the predominant oar in mounting the opposition to the MCRP, understandably, in light of the fact that the Project is in the back yards of its members."  This victory is yours, RAGErs!  The citizens group was incredibly well-organized and managed and its members worked incredibly hard toward denial.  The effort put forth was nothing less than stellar, but effort alone cannot always guarantee victory.  RAGE also worked an incredible strategic game and left no stone unturned, no task undone, and no decision left to chance.  They worked this case in an aggressive, take no prisoners fashion.  They assured their own victory.  Bravo, RAGE, well done!

JCP&L's response to having their ass handed to them whined:

Clearly, the judge did not feel that the regional grid operator and "industry experts" were credible.  Is that going to be JCP&L's thing on exceptions to the BPU?  That the judge who spent hours and hours evaluating testimony and exhibits failed to recognize the superiority of utility arguments?  That the BPU should disregard her "in the trenches" view of the case and substitute their own judgment of whether or not JCP&L met their burden?  That is truly unlikely.  Judge Cookson was very thorough, carefully evaluated the evidence, and made a reasoned decision.  JCP&L couldn't even point to an error she made, it simply whined that it didn't win.

PJM was not credible.  RAGE presented evidence that JCP&L had begun working on this project, and its preferred route, months before PJM even found a "problem" for it to fix.

PJM and its utility members suffer from a serious case of chicken/egg.  This isn't the first time a utility came up with a solution for a problem that PJM had not identified and then used PJM's planning process as a "vehicle" to advance a utility plan by finding a "problem" for it to fix.

Judge Cookson also recognized that failure to kowtow to PJM as an omnipotent grid planning oracle who must be obeyed isn't really a big deal at all.

Bravo!  This is the first time a state has recognized that denial of a PJM transmission proposal won't make the lights go out.  Such a simple thing, buried under mounds of rhetoric and projections of doom and gloom.

New Jersey can be a shining example in recognizing that states have the ultimate say in whether or not a RTO planned transmission project is constructed.  Instead of cowering and simply accepting regional grid plans as beyond question, states can say "no."  A regional grid authority was never intended to be the final arbiter of transmission plans.  If it were, there would be no purpose to state transmission permitting authority.  States need to stop acting like a rubber stamp and assert their authority under the law.

The judge also questioned the veracity of every RTO and utility's favorite word, "robust."  Personally, I hate that word.  It means nothing.

Let that term go back to the world of salad dressings.

Now let's talk about those "industry experts" JCP&L wants us to believe.  Because I knew the outcome of this Order before I read it, I didn't have to skip to the ordering paragraphs first.  I was able to start at the beginning and read through the synopsis of the evidence before getting to the judge's conclusions.  There was some pretty ominous foreshadowing in the way the judge presented her statement of the evidence.  And once I got to the findings, there were no surprises.  As far as JCP&L's "expert," who found no effect on property values, the judge opined:

The utilities need to quit using this guy.  It sure appears that he put little effort into his testimony, but yet he most likely billed the utility thousands for his "work."  Because utilities believe their expert's opinions are beyond question, apparently some of the "experts" believe likewise.  JCP&L should ask for its money back.  Of course, it's not really JCP&L's money... they paid this guy with funds they will recover from ratepayers.

While the judge did not make a finding on the EMF issue, I got the distinct impression that maybe she believed that the industry has influenced science and that "experts" like Dr. Bailey make a tidy living being utility "experts" and making the same denials over and over.  Perhaps Bailey made a grave error by trying to make the opponent's witness look like a quack.  The judge mentioned that she didn't find him "eccentric" at all.  All those delicious ad hominem utility arguments tossed out to avoid any real debate of the EMF issue... wasted!

The best expert witness overall was clearly RAGE electrical engineer Jeffrey Palermo.  It's obvious that he developed an early rapport with the judge that the other engineering witnesses just couldn't touch.  The technical aspects of electric transmission are extremely difficult for laypeople.  Utility witnesses are usually more about complicating things with unfamiliar words and technical terms in an effort to make the judge give up and simply just trust his opinion because they can't put everything together to devise their own.  From reading this decision, I surmise that Palermo approached it differently and was able to explain the technicalities in a way the judge could understand and equip her to make an informed decision on the technical merits of "need."  He also presented a workable alternative that could be much cheaper and less invasive to the community.  And he clearly explained this alternative to the judge, who adopted it as a possible future solution.  Well done!

JCP&L needs to take a look at its own failed regulatory strategy at this point.  It didn't work on this judge.  She saw right through it all.

Any transmission opposition group that seeks to have a transmission regulatory application denied has to show up and play ball.  RAGE played hard, but more importantly it played smart.  It gave the judge the tools to deny this application.

But the regulatory process isn't the only game transmission opponents need to play.  Public opinion and politics also play a huge role in driving a denial.  RAGE rocked this game as well.  In her summary of the public hearings, the judge remarked:

And where did those 92% favorable form letters come from?  The judge elaborated:  "Those backing the MCRP primarily based that support on reliability and economic concerns, and were primarily from businesses not in the five impacted municipalities on a form letter prepared by the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce for its members."

The utility popularity contest was a flop in this instance.  Regulatory public comment hearings are intended to give voice to the community.  The utility's opportunity to make its opinions known comes during the hearing process.  But yet utilities consistently attempt to intrude in the public's opportunity by coercing supportive statements from entities who care little about the project.  It's strictly a numbers game to the utility -- how  many supportive comments can they coerce, and how "important" are the supporters?  RAGE completely drowned these shills out by showing up in record numbers and making honest, heartfelt, personal testimony opposing the project.  Perhaps JCP&L had a hand in its own defeat here by enraging the community to counteract JCP&L's underhanded efforts to set up its numbers game.  Utility efforts to coerce supportive comments from the community is a tactic that has backfired on more than one occasion and it needs to be jettisoned from the utility bag of tricks.

RAGE's victory should be celebrated and admired.  They not only accomplished their goal, but they provided an example that will be studied over and over by transmission opponents on other projects (and dare I say utilities, if they ever pull their heads out of their own behinds long enough to recognize they have a serious problem with opposition groups).

Well done, RAGE!  You changed the world!