Category:

Federal Transmission Permitting Is a Bad Idea

3/7/2018

The Republican Party’s current infrastructure spending bill is missing one item: a provision establishing federal siting authority for electric transmission lines. Oddly, this idea has few champions in Congress and only tepid support from environmental groups.

That's because its an awful idea that nobody supports. Congress doesn't support it. And do you know why that is? Because states and citizens oppose it.

While natural gas is limited by its geographic sourcing, electricity generation can take place anywhere. The days of coal mine mouth electric generation plants and long distance transmission lines are over. It's much more efficient to move fuel to generation plants located closer to load. And it's much easier to move fuel than it is to build electric transmission lines.

We don't need federal authority for transmission lines.

Problematically, the best locations for wind and solar power plants are far from population centers—in the windy central plains or the sunny southwestern deserts.

That's absolutely not true. The "best locations" for wind plants are offshore, conveniently located within just a few miles of the largest population centers. The "best locations" for solar are right on your own roof, where source and sink align to create the most reliable system.

More than ever, consumers want green power.

Also not true. When consumers were given an opportunity to purchase renewable energy transmission capacity from the Midwest, there were no takers. Whether it was a matter of price (new transmission will produce a cost to consumers in the billions of dollars), or a matter of favoring local resources, or both, consumers rejected Clean Line Energy Partner's plans for new transmission. Consumers who say they want "clean" energy in a random survey are never given complete information about how much this "clean" energy is going to cost, and when the rubber hits the road, consumers vote with their wallets. Any consumer truly dedicated to a "need" for clean power can make it happen at home. We don't need big utilities and expensive new infrastructure to make it happen.

Conservatives claim that federal transmission siting authority would threaten state sovereignty or landowner property rights, but those claims ring hollow. Why are those values worth protecting against transmission lines but not against natural gas pipelines?

Those claims don't ring hollow to the affected landowners, and those are the only parties who matter in this instance. Landowners, frankly, don't give a shit if some policy wonk in the big city thinks their legislators' protection of private property rights sounds hypocritical. Those policy wonks won't be voting in the next local election, but the landowners will.

Why is it that these liberal wind bags demand that you abandon your own beliefs if you don't support theirs? "Okay, so you're against transmission lines, therefore you must also be concerned about my issue." No, we're not. Attempts to reframe the argument to paint opposition as hypocritical serve no one and are just a waste of time. But while we're on the subject of hypocritical arguments, that's where your environmental groups come in. They attempt to use landowners to serve their environmental goals by latching onto non-environmental arguments, such as eminent domain. And then they get caught supporting eminent domain for electric transmission lines, but not for gas lines. And then the people start to feel used.

Dude, your argument is crap. Federal permitting and siting for electric transmission has been attempted many times over the years and it has consistently failed. Elected officials know it can't happen. That's why they don't support it.

Duh.

Never going to happen.

1 Comment

Transource "Respects" Landowners by Filing for Court Order to Trespass and Damage Property

3/1/2018

3 Comments

Transource Urges Court to Deny Due Process for Landowners

Transource has sunk to new lows this week. Hard to believe they could go any lower, right?

Transource filed petitions in Pennsylvania and Maryland courts asking the court to order landowners along its proposed route to permit entry for "surveying," including "geotechnical surveys (including soundings and drillings for testing soil and bedrock)," and "civil surveys (including trimming or cutting vegetation necessary for survey purposes)." That's right, in addition to all the other things it wants to do to private property, Transource wants to clear cut your trees and bring large equipment across your place so that it may drill into your bedrock. And guess what you're going to get for this intrusion? A promise that Transource will give you money to repair the damage they do. You believe them, don't you?

I couldn't think of a more certain way to demonstrate to landowners how little they matter and how much this company disrespects them than this statement in a court filing:

Defendants will suffer no damage as a consequence of granting immediate possession, because any damage to the land will be remedied by the payment of money, per the statute.

Money can't put 100 year old trees back where Grandpa planted them. And it probably can't fix compacted and mixed soil, not really. And if your horse steps into a random drill hole and breaks a leg, maybe you can buy a new one with your free Transource horse voucher. It's just a possession, right? It's almost as useful as getting a free $10 meal voucher for having to spend 11 hours at an airport waiting for a cancelled flight to be rescheduled.

So what's the problem here? The problem is that Transource has no legal authority to enter private property to "survey," and landowners have refused to voluntarily give permission to enter. Transource is in a big, giant hurry to get its project built. In fact, they're in such a hurry that they can't seem to wait for the state public utility commissions to find their project necessary and they want to pretty much "move forward" on building their project ahead of state approval.

Transource spokespuppet Abby Foster tried to pretend it's just a few landowners holding up progress:

Transource appreciates that many landowners have granted them access to conduct surveys, Foster said.

"Transource and its representatives are committed to treating landowners and their properties with respect," Foster said. "While reaching a voluntary agreement with property owners is a high priority, it is imperative for Transource to continue through the phases of the project as the company seeks regulatory approvals. The approval of this filing will allow Transource to proceed with field work for those landowners who have not yet granted the company access.”

How many landowners have granted them access on the proposed Eastern right of way? Well, Transource's application says there are 38 owners in York County. The media says filings were made against 36 landowners. Two out of 38 is "many?" No, it's not. If it was only a few landowners, Transource could go around them and wouldn't need to file these desperate, reaching petitions.

It is not "imperative" for Transource to continue through the phases of its project before it has been determined needed by the state utility commissions. Just because Transource and PJM signed an agreement setting pretty impossible deadlines is not reason enough to trespass upon private property, damage it, and then take away any due process for landowners to object.

Transource says:

Transource PA will not be able to begin construction in time to allow the Project to be completed to meet the in-service date set by PJM. If Transource PA misses the PJM-mandated in-service date, the public will suffer irreparable harm in the form of continued electric gridlock, and delay or ultimate failure of the project. Furthermore, Transource P A will suffer irreparable harm as Transource Energy has invested considerable time and money in attempting to obtain access rights to the route.

In fact, Transource PA has invested more than $6.0 million to date in siting, design and engineering. The foregoing harms would also result if Transource PA's access is obstructed by Landowners, or other unauthorized and untrained third parties who are present on the Property in the vicinity of the work corridor at the invitation of Landowners

Suffer? The public will suffer? How about those landowners whose property you've commandeered? I mean, it sure sounds like you want to take over the place and make sure no "untrained parties" are allowed to use their properties while you are surveying. Hey, guess what? I read Transource's attachment on how to survey for bog turtles. Complete instructions included. Maybe landowners can do their own surveys? Seems simple enough. Either you see one or you don't. And, by the way, can you define "electric gridlock" and list the actual harms that will be experienced by the public because of it? You make it sound like people are going to drop dead if you're not allowed to trespass on private property.

And as far as your whining about how much money you've "invested?" You act like this is your own money, Transource, and if you don't complete the project you'll lose your "investment." That's absolutely not true! Transource is guaranteed to recover its prudent "investment" in the project, plus 10.4% interest, even if the project is cancelled. If the project is delayed and/or cancelled, Transource won't be harmed at all. Transource will be made whole (plus 10.4% for its trouble) by electric ratepayers across the PJM region. No harm to Transource.

But you know what's most galling of all? Transource's attempt to prevent due process for affected landowners in Maryland.

Accordingly, this Court may issue an Order, granting this petition and authorizing Transource MD to enter onto the Subject Property to conduct surveys, and obtain information in connection with the acquisition and project, without the need for a hearing prior to the issuance of the Order.

Not only is Transource's legal pondering in its petitions unsound, but they want a judge to wave his magic wand and grant them the right to trespass without the landowner being able to question the company's facts and legal conclusions. Only a lawyer who knows his work is shockingly wrong would insist that no other parties be allowed to participate and expose him for the corporate shyster that he is.

This just can't happen.

This is a train wreck waiting to happen. You can't bully your way onto private property with the intention of destroying it just because you *want* to build something on it, maybe, later on, if you get actual permission. Seems to me that cutting vegetation and drilling ARE construction. Construction without a permit.

Tick tock, Transource!

3 Comments

Quit Wasting My Money, PJM!

2/27/2018

2 Comments

Dear PJM Interconnection,

Stop wasting my money on the Transource Independence Energy Connection!

I know it's hard to admit when you've screwed up (and PJM screws up A LOT!), but with the abandonment incentive granted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission it also means that your screw up is costing me money. Real money. Dollars and cents added to my electric bill that provide absolutely no benefit to me. Because Transource was guaranteed the ability to file to collect all its sunk costs in the event the IEC is abandoned, it doesn't cost Transource anything to continue this farce. In fact, the longer they continue, the more money they can stuff into their capital cost accounts, and then apply to be paid back over 5 or 10 years with an 10.4% interest rate. They're also in a hurry to do it now because their debt to equity ratio will change in 2020 and later investments won't be quite as lucrative. As well, any capital costs over $210M will only earn at 9.9%. It's a spending free-for-all right now as Transource tries to spend as much as possible, as quickly as possible. Transource predicts it will spend $5.2M of capital in 2018, even though it doesn't plan to even stick a shovel in the ground until 2019. That's nearly half a million dollars of pure profit this year! Transource also estimates that it will spend another $1.6M on operations and maintenance in 2018. The only thing that can stop this out-of-control spending of my money is the cancellation of the IEC.

And we all know that's where we're headed with this thing, right PJM? The "bats" that you saw as the only impediment on your "constructability report" are revolting!

They've formed StopTransource bat groups.

They've roosted at the Pennsylvania PUC (Docket Nos. A-2017-2640195 and A-2017-2640200) and the Maryland PSC. Some of them have even acquired representation by bat lawyers.

They've gotten the support of their bat legislators. Pennsylvania Representative Kristin Phillips Hill writes,

The PUC should question if the applicant has fully evaluated the use of existing transmission lines in Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection (PJM's) regional planning process before proposing a new line, which will be constructed parallel to three established high-voltage transmission power lines operating in York County. Since the intention of the applicant is to relieve congestion on the energy-grid, why not utilize transmission lines that are not operating at
full capacity? I strongly encourage the Administrative Law Judge to modify this application to use these existing transmission lines, thereby minimizing the impact of this project on the community and preserved open space, as well as protecting private landowners from being subject to the oppressive use of eminent domain actions when other utility-owned infrastructure
is available.

Why, PJM, why? Why are you trying to build a new transmission line with my money when there are parallel lines with available capacity? Why?

I'm not buying your story that the existing lines aren't big enough to build your project. They're brand new and are only half-utilized. In addition, there's an existing corridor that's de-energized. With all this at your disposal, PJM, why did you select a project built on greenfield right of way? Is it because, Transource, as a new entry to your market (well, sorta, heh, heh, heh, AEP has been a member since, like 2002, right?) doesn't own any existing right of way or assets and therefore cannot upgrade something it doesn't own? How does that save consumers money? I thought saving consumers money was the whole purpose of this project? Or is it now more about actually getting your first competitive market efficiency project built, and not about saving consumers money? I think it would be much, much cheaper for me if you ordered the owners of the two existing, half-utilized lines running parallel to the proposed IEC to each build one of the two 230kV circuits you say you need. And don't give me any of that "reliability" nonsense about having too many circuits on one pole. It's no different that your current proposal to double circuit the IEC on one set of poles.

Meanwhile, the important bats of the community are opposing the project. L. Michael Ross, president of the Franklin County Area Development Corporation writes:

PJM/Transource has managed to unite virtually every constituent group in Franklin County in opposition to the project.

...neither PJM or its surrogate, Transource, has been able to establish a quantified need for the project; more importantly, they have never been able to articulate the benefits to Franklin County.

Finally, it is worth noting that the FCADC has not received a single call, email, or letter from a Franklin County business voicing support for the project. (As an aside, one should be aware that Transource simply assumed that because the FCADC is involved in economic development that we would automatically support the project. We all know the definition of assume.)

I guess Transource spokeswoman Abby Foster "assumed" Mr. Ross's comments meant that nobody was buying Transource's fake economic claims and vague assertions of benefit to target communities. So she responded:

Transource officials believe the project would alleviate congestion in the high voltage grid and would create an economic benefit locally. Abby Foster, community affairs representative with Transource, released a statement saying in part:

"The project will bring investment in the region’s local economies during the construction phase with a direct investment in the project area communities. Construction activities alone are projected to support 112-147 full-time jobs with 50-60 of these being in Franklin County."

People are scratching their heads this morning. How could construction of something like 16 miles of transmission line require 50-60 permanent full-time jobs in Franklin County? Are 50-60 people going to be climbing the poles in people's backyards and physically squeezing the electricity through the lines so that it may reach the Washington, DC metro area and save those city folks twenty cents a year on their bills? What would that look like?

In the photo above, one of Transource's full-time permanent, local Franklin County workers discusses where he will place the ladder when he climbs the pole to squeeze electricity through the brand new transmission line. Other workers look on in awe, so grateful they have jobs that they don't mind climbing a ladder to the top of a transmission tower and manually squeezing electricity through the wires.

Silly, isn't it? However, it's no sillier than Abby's job claims. Where did she get those? From some economics computer program where you plug in a price tag for your project and then it spits out some wacky numbers based solely on the price of the project? Probably. Fact is there will be few local jobs during the year or so Transource is planning to build the project. Maybe some ground clearing or some concrete. If you own a company who does that, perhaps you think it's okay to toss your community under the bus to make a few bucks. It takes very specialized labor to construct a high-voltage transmission line. Transource's contractor will import the workers with the right skills for the duration of the project. Transource will not be cruising the K-Mart parking lot looking for day labor. There will be zero permanent jobs created by the proposed project. If it is ever constructed, it pretty much does its own thing unassisted. Repairs and maintenance will be handled by crews who already have a job. Trust me, maintaining 29 miles of new transmission is not a full-time job for anyone.

I think Abby should spend her time improving Transource's website instead. Perhaps she can find the missing number that belongs here.

Are easement owners supposed to guess or make up their own number?

Or how about this. Maybe Abby can figure out how to spell "publicly?"

And while she's at it she can get rid of the half-truths, such as this:

Why is this project needed? Through its regional transmission expansion planning, PJM identified concerns with the delivery of electricity on the high-voltage grid into the region.

Now, PJM, you know this just isn't true. It's weasel words. PJM supposedly identified economic congestion on its existing transmission system. That means that the cheapest power available in the region cannot be delivered to all the customers in the region at certain times. It does not mean that power cannot be delivered and the lights will go out. It means that some load pockets that use a lot of electricity on a hot day may have to buy their power from more expensive generators closer to home. It might cost those people some scary number... like 21 cents a month to buy that expensive power on certain days! So, PJM, you mean to tell me that a twenty one cent savings for someone in Washington, DC is reason to tear up four rural counties in Pennsylvania and Maryland? I don't think so. We all know that more than 80% of the benefit from this project will be exclusive to the Washington, DC and Baltimore metro areas. Those are places that will never allow a nasty power generator to be built in their midst, but yet they have a huge demand for electricity. What makes you think, PJM, that rural places want to look at transmission lines strung across their communities so that those city folks don't have to make any sacrifice for their own huge appetite for electricity... not even 21 cents a month?

You're ridiculous, PJM. The IEC project is never going to happen. There's too much opposition and the communities threatened know the truth about the project. You know what happens in rural communities in times of trouble? They gather together and defend their community. There's a lot you don't know about "undeveloped spaces," PJM. Some land is "undeveloped" on purpose because its highest and best use is being undeveloped.

It's time to admit this project isn't really needed. How many former PJM projects have been cancelled without being built? How many millions of dollars have those projects cost ratepayers like me because PJM didn't want to admit its process is flawed and its projections wrong?

Stop wasting my money, PJM. Cancel the IEC project. Now.

2 Comments

FirstEnergy Failure

2/14/2018

2 Comments

FirstEnergy's attempt to transfer its risky, money-losing coal generating plant to West Virginia ratepayers has failed. Finally. It's just too bad all that time and money got wasted on an idea that had no real chance of succeeding. Only a corrupt regulatory system and galling arrogance made it seem like a good idea.

Because the WV Public Service Commission had approved a similar deal for a different company transfer several years ago, FirstEnergy thought it didn't have to try so hard. Its idea to transfer the Pleasants Power Station from its competitive generation company to its WV distribution affiliate was a bold joke, flimsily wrapped in "need" and bad economic projections, submitted with a wink and a nod. FirstEnergy knows that the WV PSC is more interested in the needs of the company than the needs of the ratepayers it was created to protect. Oh, sure, the WV PSC pretends its mission is to "balance" the needs of ratepayers with the needs of the community at large and the needs of the utility. However the utility is perfectly capable of advocating for its own needs, and the communities are so bought out by corporate profits that they act like yappy lap dogs, barking at corporate direction. It is the ratepayers who rely on the regulatory system to protect their interests. Indeed it is the very nature of a monopoly situation that requires regulation to protect ratepayer interests. FirstEnergy's WV affiliate has been granted a monopoly franchise to serve West Virginians. Because FirstEnergy has a monopoly, regulation serves to provide competition where none exists naturally. It is regulation that controls utility actions to ensure a monopoly does not exert market power over captive ratepayers. Therefore, the WV PSC exists first and foremost to protect the needs of WV ratepayers captive in a monopoly system. Perish the thought that FirstEnergy would have to perform and earn its right to own a monopoly franchise. That thought has probably never even crossed the minds of WV's PSC Commissioners. They seem to think they exist to make sure the utility is treated fairly. And that's what they did in the recent Pleasants transfer case.

Knowing that the WV PSC is a captured agency who dances at corporate will, it was much more productive for ratepayers to look beyond the first string of regulators who are supposed to protect them. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission isn't as wrapped up in the needs of West Virginia's economy or corporate profits, and is not captured in the same way as the WV PSC, whose commissioners are appointed as lobbied by state franchised utilities. The chances were better that an impartial decision would be made at the federal level. And it was. The FERC rejected FirstEnergy's proposal to transfer the plant between affiliates, finding that the transfer resulted in improper cross-subsidization. In plain speak, that means that it was not a fair arm's length transaction. But FirstEnergy, in its sheer arrogance, attempted to apply its West Virginia bag of tricks to influence the federal agency. That's right, FirstEnergy had its attorney call up a FERC Commissioner to try to influence the agency's decision. Somehow, FirstEnergy was aware "that the Commission would shortly issue an order adverse to the interests of Monongahela Power." How was it that a party to a FERC proceeding was aware of a decision of the agency before it was issued? Because FERC is as much a revolving door regulatory agency as any. It's a great landing spot for attorneys fresh out of law school with a mountain of student debt. With just a few years of effort at marginal pay, a FERC staff attorney can make himself marketable to private industry as an "insider." The regulated entities prize these FERC insiders and pay them handsomely. FERC is just a springboard to fat paychecks for some attorneys. That's not to say that all FERC attorneys are using the agency to pad their resumes, I found that there are plenty of staff who take their charge to protect public interests seriously and make a career out of it. Those public employees are treasures, but as you can see, it only takes a handful of bad ones to trash FERC's public service mission. I'm happy to realize, though, that one of FERC's Commissioners put a stop to this underhanded effort and reported the illegal contact from FirstEnergy's attorney. Bravo! But what happens to the attorney who attempted this improper influence? I'm thinking that FirstEnergy's attorney knew calling up the Commissioner like that was against the rules. But he did it anyhow. Why isn't he barred from practice before the agency in the future? The only thing he seems to have received is some exposure. No harm, no foul, he's free to repeat this behavior in the future, perhaps with a Commissioner who may not blow the whistle on him. It is only when improper behavior comes with significant consequences that it will end.

And why did FirstEnergy think improper influence on FERC would save their bacon? Probably because it works in other jurisdictions. I believe that if the same situation played itself out in West Virginia, for instance, that ending the contact and reporting the encounter would not occur. FirstEnergy only does this because it works.

So here we are again at regulation acting as safeguard in a monopoly situation. It's a lesson the WV PSC never seems to learn.

And what happened in West Virginia after FERC disapproved the transaction? The WV PSC approved the transfer, saying that the unfairness of affiliate transactions didn't matter. The WV PSC was totally unconcerned about the fairness of the transaction and whether it violated the concept of competition in an open market where a utility did not have a monopoly. The WV PSC tried to pretend it actually listened to public comment and considered it in its decision. That's a first, but it was contrived nonsense. The WV PSC's decision to approve the transfer was nothing short of a display of disgusting arrogance. Someone's fee-fees seemed pretty bruised that the company did not accept their offer to approve the transaction with a delay. Everyone got some backlash. The Consumer Advocate gets chastised for protecting consumers:

The CAD takes no prisoners in its attempt to “advise” the Commission of its responsibilities. In its Reply Brief, the CAD emphasizes the gravity of the situation by stating that, if this Transaction is approved, “the harm that redounds to West Virginia captive ratepayers will be a legacy of this Commission.”

Seriously? The CAD exists to protect ratepayer interests. Why shouldn't it be direct about the harm to ratepayers? Its job IS to advise the Commission, no quotation marks needed. If the CAD can place a little nugget of guilt into the mind of a compromised Commissioner, it's still not a fair trade for years of increased electric rates. And a Commissioner who resents this effort obviously doesn't have the best interests of ratepayers in mind. If he did, then the CAD's attempt to inspire guilt would have no effect. Think about that.

The WV PSC treats "risk" as a non-starter. The PSC thinks risk exists everywhere and assumption of risk should not be a primary concern in their decision. Except the company failed to accept the PSC's conditions on approval, stating:

Additionally,the Companies will not accept the conditions included in the Commission Order that would result in Mon Power assuming exposure and significant commodity risk, which is inconsistent with FirstEnergy’s announced corporate strategy.

So it is about the risk after all? While the ratepayers are supposed to be unconcerned about taking on additional risk from the transaction, the company can base its decision to abandon the transaction on its aversion to risk? FirstEnergy was trying to transfer its risk to WV consumers, but it was unsuccessful. And that's the bottom line.

FirstEnergy failed. Although it was a rough ride with some hairy, scary moments, ultimately the company ends up stuck with their own mess. We just get the bill.

2 Comments

Shame On You, Transource!

1/13/2018

4 Comments

Transource is a new joint venture of utility giant American Electric Power and Great Plains Energy. So far, it seems that Transource's Independence Energy Connection is being managed by AEP employees. AEP has more than 100 years of experience building utility infrastructure and interacting with consumers. So how did they screw this up so badly? Why has an elected representative demanded that Transource cease and desist aggressive and illegal land acquisition practices and issue an apology to all the landowners it threatened?

You've gone too far, Transource. Shame on you!

Transource thinks that perhaps they're dealing with a bunch of rubes who are easily threatened into submission. After all, the eastern portion of the project is only 10 miles of line in a rural community bisected by a state border... but it's a sophisticated and well connected community. Transource, your strong arm tactics and lies don't work here!

During the past week, Transource poured the gas on their fruitless efforts to get landowners to sign legal documents giving the company permission to "survey." Landowners are never required to sign survey permission forms. While Pennsylvania law allows a public utility to access private property, there's a lot more to it that Transource presumes landowners don't know.

Furthermore, the Transource letter sent to landowners dated January 5, 2018 is inaccurate and misrepresentative of the proper procedures set in place under the Eminent Domain Code and public codes of the Commonwealth. In the letter, your company stated it has obtained utility status by Pennsylvania. While the Public Utility Commission (PUC) approved Transource's application for utility status on December 21, 2017, your company has yet to obtain the appropriate certificate and orders from the PUC to operate as a public utility and conduct land surveys/assessments. Moreover, even after obtaining the appropriate approvals, Transource must follow the Eminent Domain Code and issue a 10-day notice to all landowners before accessing private property. As of today, Transource cannot send such a notice until the proper certificate and approvals from the PUC.

And Transource is going to pretend, with all its lawyers and legal support staff, that it didn't know these things? I don't believe you! And even if Transource was completely unaware of Pennsylvania law, there's absolutely no excuse for threatening to have landowners arrested on their own property. You went too far, Transource.

Even if Transource has the legal right to enter onto property, a landowner never has to sign a permission form. If the company exercises its right to access property without the owner's permission it cannot expect that the landowner would release the company from liability for its use of the property. You need never sign a permission to access form.

Numerous landowners on the eastern portion of the project reported a rash of strong arm tactics by Transource land agent Western Land Services last week. Landowners received threatening phone calls demanding that they sign the survey permission form or the sheriff would come and arrest them.

I have received numerous complaints from constituents in my legislative district who experienced threatening behavior from your contracted land services agent, Western Land Services. In communication with landowners, agents from Westem Land Services threatened to call the sheriff's office and arrest residents who did not sign letters granting access to their properties. This type of coercive behavior and harassment by your contracted agent is unacceptable and illegal at best. I am requesting punitive actions be taken to ensure this type of disrespectful behavior does not happen again during the remainder of the project.

The sheriff isn't going to arrest these landowners for failing to sign a permission form. At best, if Transource receives all its permits from the PUC the most it can do is issue a notification that it will be access the property in 10 days. Such notice would need proof of delivery. Only if Transource had accomplished all the necessary legal steps and had some sort of legal order to present to the sheriff, and the landowner physically threatened or interfered with property access, would the sheriff even be interested in wasting his time on this issue. Your sheriff works for you, not some company in Columbus, Ohio.

Whose idea was this, and why did they think it would work to intimidate this community? That person needs to be fired, first for breaking the law, second for having no morals, and third for being stupid, I mean just a complete idiot.

It really wasn't that long ago that another company got in big, big trouble in the Pennsylvania court and regulatory system by deploying threatening and coercive land acquisition tactics just like these. And TrAILCo's application to build transmission in Pennsylvania was denied by the administrative law judge who heard he case. Did TrAILCo's abysmal behavior play a part in its ultimate denial? Absolutely! Let's look at all the abusive land acquisition tactics that Transource has in common with TrAILCo... so far.

All communications with property owners and occupants must be factually correct and made in good faith.

Do not make false or misleading statements.

Do not misrepresent any fact.

Until the Company has been authorized by the state utility commission, do not suggest that the Project is a "done deal" or is "99 percent sure" or make similar statements suggesting that the state utility commission has authorized construction of the project.

All Communications and interactions with property owners and occupants of property must be respectful and reflect fair dealing.

Do not engage in behavior that may be considered harassing, coercive, manipulative, intimidating or causing undue pressure.

All communications by a property owner, whether in person, by telephone or in writing, in which the property owner indicates that he or she does not want to negotiate or does not want to give permission for surveying or other work on his or her property, must be respected and politely accepted without argument.

Do not represent that a relative, neighbor and/or friend have signed a document or reached an agreement with the company.

Do not represent that a relative, neighbor and/or friend supports or opposes the Project.

Do not threaten to call law enforcement officers or obtain court orders.

Do not threaten the use of eminent domain.

We've hardly just begun, Transource, and already you've violated accepted conduct for land agents working on your behalf. I know you're going to blame Western Land Services for going rogue behind your back, or a few "bad" agents who don't understand their job. But I know that's just not true. Land acquisition companies behave badly with the full knowledge of the company who is paying them. So maybe it's time to fire this company. And Transource needs to get all the money it paid Western refunded to the ratepayers so it won't cost the ratepayers anything extra to hire a reputable company with some moral and ethical standards.

Does PJM Interconnection know how badly you've screwed up this transmission project they "ordered" you to build? If I was PJM, I'd cancel your contract and find a reputable company to build it instead.

Meanwhile, Representative Hill wants you to apologize to the landowners you harassed. Try to be a big boy and take responsibility for your actions and don't blame them on rogue land agents or a fly-by-night company. You all know what's going on and chose to try to strong arm this community willingly. It blew up in your face.

Shame on you!

4 Comments

Tone Deaf Transource "Listened" But it Failed to Hear

12/12/2017

2 Comments

How sad it is when a company's op ed about how much it cares about your community comes with a "fill-in-the-blank" for the name of your community?

Transource claims to have "listened" to your community, and wants you to know:

We heard about the valuable role agriculture plays in this region and our engineers worked to ensure typical farming practices in **INSERT COUNTY NAME HERE** County, from crops to orchards, could continue to exist within the right-of-way.

See York County version here.
See Franklin County version here.
Same op ed, only the county names were changed. It's like getting a "personalized" piece of junk mail in your newspaper.

What does an electrical engineer in Columbus, Ohio, know about "typical farming practices" in Pennsylvania? Transource "heard" what it wanted to hear -- that its project could be built without impacting farmland. But that's not what the community was telling Transource. In fact, as a wise person pointed out, if Transource really heard what the community was saying, there would be a few electrical engineers tiptoeing around quite gingerly because they'd have a monopole shoved where the sun doesn't shine.

The communities in York and Franklin counties said "no" to Transource. No, you cannot build that line across our land. No, you cannot build the project without impacting farmland.

Todd Burns is living in some kind of fantasy world, where the communities accept the transmission project and are so happy that Transource "listened" to their opinions and "started a dialogue." Of course, nothing much changed. Todd just wants you to think you had some influence on the process. Transource wants to build its project. It will be very profitable.

The actual "folks" in the community want a "dialogue" about whether to build this project or not. And if it's built, they want to shape how and where it's done. Perhaps the project should be built on existing rights of way owned by other companies, or perhaps it should be buried. The only choices Transource gave the community was to suggest that an aerial line on new right of way could be shifted onto a neighbor's property. That's no choice at all. That's not a "dialogue," it's a monologue. When "folks" objected to the project, Transource tossed out some "responsible construction practices that respect the environment and your property, and the operation and maintenance of the transmission line," and some "practices to fairly compensate landowners when we acquire easements for the new line, including compensation for potential impacts or crop loss during construction and restoration." But the "folks" were not satisfied, and they're still not satisfied.

So, what kind of performance art* was that op ed? The affected "folks" didn't feel that their concerns were addressed. If they did, there wouldn't be any opposition. And yet I found myself in an auditorium filled with staunch opponents of the project last night. And they're not giving up. And they're not giving in.

So, yes, let's get on with this, Transource. Let's get on to the REAL listening to "folks" that happens in the regulatory, political and public relations arena. Let's examine the fragile claims of "need," and let's admit that this project provides no benefit to the "folks" Transource wants to burden with its impacts.

The real listening has only just begun.

*Oh for the love of Christmas cookies, Todd must think the "folks" can't read, so he needs to act it out for them on video. I'm not sure whether to laugh or throw up.

2 Comments

Pennsylvania and Maryland Vow to Stop Transource

11/18/2017

0 Comments

This video will touch your heart.

For more information and to support these folks, please visit Stop Transource in Pennsylvania and Maryland's website.

0 Comments

JCP&L Feels the RAGE

11/6/2017

0 Comments

Bravo, RAGE! The Residents Against Giant Electric (RAGE) have identified a cheaper, less invasive alternative to JCP&L's Monmouth County Reliability Project (MCRP), currently before regulators.

At a press conference last week, RAGE shared its initial brief to Administrative Law Judge Gail Cookson at the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities in the matter of the MCRP. The brief is a summary of evidence leading to legal conclusions, and RAGE's brief was stunning. JCP&L "expert" witnesses were systematically unmasked and dispatched to the Land of Corporate Biased Quacks. JCP&L was demonstrated to have mislead the public about the MCRP, including hiding the true evolution of its project. The MCRP was dreamed up and a route chosen before PJM Interconnection found a need for it and ordered it to be built. And speaking of PJM, they didn't escape the dead-eye scrutiny of RAGE's legal team, who remarked:

The participation of Mr. Sims [PJM witness] in this proceeding as an enthusiastic cheerleader for an expensive and blighting transmission project even after being presented with a feasible non-generation solution to the P7 contingency raises very serious questions about the neutrality of PJM. As is the case with other RTOs, PJM is by law and FERC decisions supposed to be scrupulously neutral. While this is ordinarily taken to mean that it cannot discriminate in favor of one or more member utilities or independent power producers, it also means that PJM cannot be in the business of advocating a solution that has been given an “exclusive” to one of its member utilities. The Board should express condemnation of PJM’s role in this case.

Lots of transmission opposition groups have demonstrated that utility (and RTO) solutions to purported violations are massively expensive overkill that cannot be supported with transparent and accurate calculation, but RAGE took it one step further. They proposed a fully formed and vetted alternative solution that would not only cost $80M less than PJM's solution, but also would not require new greenfield transmission sandwiched between dense residential neighborhoods and a congested rail corridor.

During testimony, RAGE unveiled its alternative to the transmission line plan — an alternative the group says would cost 70 percent less, and present less danger to the community.

The group’s solution, backed by a power flow analysis and an engineering expert, includes the addition of two STATCOM devices — each about the size of an RV — at the Red Bank substation. It also calls for updating 11 of the existing 34.5 kV lines coming out of Red Bank.

“That’s it — all you need to do is update some existing lines that probably need replacing anyway, and add two big boxes to Red Bank, Kanapka said. “Do these two things and the P7 violation goes away, for a total estimated cost of just $30 million.”

In its most recent estimate, JCP&L said their project could cost $111 million, and that does not include the fee for usage of NJ Transit’s property.

Never underestimate your opposition, JCP&L! RAGE is obviously composed of a bunch of overachievers who leave nothing to chance. What was it General Yamamoto was supposed to have said [Hollywood version]?

I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.

The RAGE giant isn't going away. Isn't it time for JCP&L to fall on its sword?

Not only has RAGE excelled at the regulatory game, it's also on top of its political game. Numerous candidates for elected office have fully endorsed RAGE and voiced their opposition to the MCRP. Good luck on election day to RAGE and its supporters!

What's next for this wildly successful transmission opposition group? Reply briefs to the BPU judge, an opinion on the MCRP from the judge, and then the entire case record is forwarded onto the BPU Commissioners for final decision.

My money's on RAGE for the win!

0 Comments

Clean Line Needs to Hurry Missouri Courts

11/2/2017

9 Comments

Because, apparently, due process for Missourians is much too costly for this Texas company, and time is money.

This week, Grain Belt Express announced:

Grain Belt’s case seeks to have the PSC divested of its role in exclusive role of deciding on whether utility projects are in the state’s best interest. “The urgency in answering this question is driven by a statewide financial impact on hundreds of thousands of Missouri electrical consumers who will pay higher power prices if the Grain Belt Express wind transmission line is not built,” the company said in its announcement.

Well, color me confused. I figured if I unearthed the source documents filed with the Missouri Supreme Court that GBE's petition for transfer to the Supreme Court might make sense. Obviously this reporter is confused, right? Nope. GBE's petition to skip the appellate court process and have its matter heard by the Missouri Supreme Court, like right now because it's such an economic emergency, makes absolutely no sense.

GBE says it must have the Neighbors United decision reversed so that the PSC can issue it a conditional permit. A conditional permit? So GBE would still have to get county assent for its project under Sec. 229.100 of Missouri law, right? A conditional permit doesn't alleviate GBE's problems and allow the project to be built. All GBE's economic arguments (contrived as they are) should fall on deaf ears. Grain Belt Express is creating its own problem and shouldn't be wasting a court's time on this (not to mention all its precious economic resources that make its project so expensive to construct).

What's the problem? Affected Missouri counties have not granted assent for GBE to cross county roads as clearly set forth in Sec. 229.100. If Missouri counties grant assent, the PSC can freely issue that approval it wanted to issue. The courts wouldn't have to waste their time on this issue. If GBE tried to work this issue out with the counties, none of this appeal nonsense would be necessary. None of it! But GBE has refused to have anything to do with Missouri counties, even after telling the PSC that it would only use an advisory opinion on whether the project met PSC criteria to convince the counties to grant assent. GBE got its advisory opinion but hasn't even tried to get county assent.

Missouri Landowner's Alliance attorney Paul Agathen filed a suggestion to the Missouri Supreme Court, pointing out the obvious and pouring some cool common sense on GBE's confused and affected firestorm about why the Supreme Court should waste its valuable time.

No party to this proceeding is contesting the fact that before Grain Belt may build the line, at some point it must obtain the necessary County Commission consents under § 229.100. In fact, Grain Belt has conceded that point throughout these proceedings.

Thus the basic issue in this case is whether Grain Belt must obtain the county consents before the CCN may be issued, or whether it is allowed by law to obtain those county consents after the PSC issues the CCN. In either event, as Grain Belt concedes, the County consents are required before the line may be built.

Go to the counties and get your consents, Clean Line, and all these "legal clouds" will completely disappear. Whether the consents come before or after the CCN issues, they still have to come. GBE is barking up the wrong tree, wasting its own precious economic resources (and everyone else's) on an appeal it doesn't need to make. I'm pretty sure even state supreme court judges don't like having their time wasted any more than anyone else does.

Okay, now that we've gotten the only part that should matter to a court over with, can we take a minute here to examine Clean Line's completely bogus, over the top, fake and contrived "economic" argument that it uses to prop up its need to have the Supreme Court intervene now, right now? I'm completely flummoxed over the colossal stupidity of it. C'mon, no energy attorney wrote this! The author doesn't understand the first thing about energy, transmission, or the Grain Belt Express project. I guess Clean Line put too much value on influence and appeals practice and zero value on accuracy. None of GBE's attorneys list "energy" as a practice area. And apparently Clean Line staff attorneys were too awed by greatness to correct any of the gross errors in a filing they signed their names to. I hope they soon develop some self-worth. Maybe this will help?

So, what stupid things did GBE say in its filing?

Grain Belt Express has entered a transmission service agreement (“Services Agreement” or “TSA”) with the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission (“Joint Municipalities” or “MJMEUC”) to purchase up to 250 MW of capacity from the Project, which would save hundreds of thousands of electrical consumers millions of dollars annually.

Funny, in its own overblown request for transfer MJMEUC called its "contract" "the option to purchase up to 200 MW of firm transmission capacity at a discounted rate." Oh, right, option. It's only an option. MJMEUC can back out of it and purchase nothing at any time. And while GBE says this option is 250 MW, MJMEUC claims it is 200 MW. That 50 MW in dispute? It's 50 MW of export capacity from Missouri, because the munis will continue to run their polluting power plants in Missouri (so Missouri gets all that delicious environmental pollution) and attempt to sell the power to "states further east" that don't want to pollute their own air producing power for their own use.

The Project has received regulatory approval from the relevant utility commissions in Kansas, Illinois and Indiana. Each state independently determined the Project is in the public interest and issued certificates for construction of the Project across those states. Missouri is the final state in which regulatory approval is needed for the Project to proceed.

Except that "certificate for construction" from Illinois is currently on appeal. The appeals court could rule any day and vacate that certificate. And they most likely will, since the appeal deals with the issue of whether or not GBE was a public utility when it applied for the certificate, and the Illinois Supreme Court has already ruled that another Clean Line project is not a utility even AFTER it received its certificate. Clean Lines are dead in Illinois. ALL of them! So, no matter what the Missouri Supreme Court does here, it's almost a certainty that GBE will not be able to use eminent domain in Illinois. End of project.

The Commissioners identified numerous benefits the Project would have had in the public interest: “lowered energy production costs in Missouri by $40 million or more”; “a substantial and favorable effect on the reliability of electric service in Missouri”; “positive environmental impacts”; “supported 1,527 total jobs over three years, created $246 million in personal income [including easement payments], $476 million in GDP, and $9.6 million in state general revenue for the state of Missouri, and $249 million in Missouri-specific manufacturing and personal service contract spending”; and resulted in “a total of approximately $7.2 million” in yearly property tax benefits to affected counties.

Did you ever stop to look at what you did here in your ineffectual rage, Chairman Hall? You set Clean Line up to get this project cost allocated to all Missouri ratepayers, didn't you? I didn't see any conditions on that "concurrence" that required GBE to remain a participant funded merchant. In fact, there were no conditions at all. Not even those purported "Landowner Protections" negotiated on behalf of landowners by former Governor Nixon on his way out the door of the Governor's mansion. Which, in retrospect, are a conflict of interest joke. How could the PSC accept any conditions negotiated between GBE and its attorney on behalf of GBE's opponents? It's ludicrous.

In contrast, § 229.100 is a non-PSC law that relates to county roads. It requires those who wish to erect poles and power wires, or lay pipes across public roads of any county to obtain the assent of county commissioners under rules established by the county engineer.

Well, no, that's not actually what it says, Clean Line. That's what you want it to say. That's what Ameren wanted it to say. But what it actually says is..."No person or persons, association, companies or corporations shall erect poles for the suspension of electric light, or power wires, or lay and maintain pipes, conductors, mains and conduits for any purpose whatever, through, on, under or across the public roads or highways of any county of this state, without first having obtained the assent of the county commission of such county therefor" and then it has a semi-colon before continuing by using the word AND to indicate an additional requirement "and no poles shall be erected or such pipes, conductors, mains and conduits be laid or maintained, except under such reasonable rules and regulations as may be prescribed and promulgated by the county highway engineer, with the approval of the county commission." The county commission can refuse assent for the crossing for any reason. The county commission does not have to assent to any county engineer plan, or even order one made. There's a legal distinction between the words "may" and "shall". Eventually, Clean Line's ridiculous appeals are going to come around to misinterpreting Sec. 229.100 for its own benefit. Might as well head that one off at the pass.

The Court should accept transfer to secure for all Missourians the full extent of the benefits identified by the PSC, including substantial and proper leasehold payments to landowners, and to allow Missourians to begin enjoying these benefits immediately.

Leasehold payments to landowners are not a BENEFIT. They would be "just compensation" for private property condemned. COMPENSATION for something taken from the landowner. Compensation means: something that counterbalances or makes up for an undesirable or unwelcome state of affairs. Since the landowner is saddled with the undesirable and unwelcome transmission line for perpetuity, a handful of beads tossed at them today is compensation, not benefit. A benefit is a windfall. Nothing must be sacrificed in exchange for a benefit. A benefit allows the landowner to remain whole while receiving something additional.

Get it through your thick head, Clean Line. Landowners hate you. They abhor you. They would NEVER allow you to speak for them to a court or at the PSC. Quit trying to pretend you are fighting for landowner interests, okay? Nobody believes it anyway.

The Services Agreement between Grain Belt Express and the Joint Municipalities allows the Joint Municipalities to purchase up to 250 MW of from the Project.

Dr. Freud, paging Dr. Freud. Slippage at GBE's office. Stat.

MJMEUC is purchasing 250 MW of WHAT, exactly. It doesn't say, does it? Perhaps there was some internal debate (or stealth editing) about exactly what GBE was selling. Is it energy? Or is it merely transmission capacity?

The fact is, MJMEUC can purchase renewable energy from anyone, for any price, even if GBE is never built. What GBE did here is offer MJMEUC transmission service at a loss-leader price. That's right, GBE's pricing is below GBE's cost to provide the service. GBE will have to make that loss up on other customers. Except it has no other customers. Which calls into question whether or not this project will ever be built, even with approvals. If the project doesn't sign up some customers paying above cost rates for its service, it cannot financially sustain itself. It can never be built.

The savings expected under the Services Agreement are indicative of what other energy purchasers throughout the state would realize and will ultimately be passed on Missouri energy consumers.

Well, no, GBE. You can't afford to provide service at below cost rates to all your customers, as noted above.

And this. This has to be the biggest lie yet!

The availability of these PTCs substantially lowers overall development costs of wind-generation projects, which allows Grain Belt Express to pass on the cost savings to its customers. Grain Belt Express, like many other industry members, is relying on the availability of PTCs to complete the Project as cost-effectively as possible to deliver maximum cost-savings to energy consumers. Without the benefit of the PTCs, the completion of Project is in jeopardy and the savings to Missourians at risk.

1. Clean Line is not eligible to take advantage of the production tax credit. It is a credit for generators. It is not available to transmission lines. Clean Line does not sell energy. Clean Line sells transmission capacity. Transmission capacity rates have nothing to do with the PTC. The PTC can only lower the rates for energy generated. It cannot lower transmission rates. There is nothing for Clean Line to "pass on" to its customers.

2. Since Clean Line cannot receive the tax credit, it cannot affect Clean Line's cost to build its project "cost-effectively." Since it cannot lower the cost to build the project, there is no savings to pass on to energy consumers in transmission rates.

See what I mean? Colossal stupidity. The author(s) of this document don't understand anything about the production tax credit, nor are they aware of what GBE is selling and how it might impact consumers. It's all unicorn sprinkles. Attorney fantasy.

And it's all so pointless. Clean Line, you're living somewhere underneath desperate, by about 50 yards. You can't win this. Game over.

9 Comments