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

Ratepayer Complaint Nets $4.2 Million Refund for Arkansas Electric Customers

6/14/2016

5 Comments

 
Eureka Springs, Arkansas – Martha Peine, a local electric customer and non-practicing attorney, went to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to challenge the transmission rates of a large, regional electric supplier.  After lengthy negotiations and two trips to Washington, D.C., by Ms. Peine, regional electric customers can now expect a $4.2M refund.
 
In 2013, Ms. Peine decided to learn how Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO) makes money from its transmission business. Using the transparent, but complicated, processes in place to review transmission rates, Ms. Peine set to work. 
 
After examining the expenses SWEPCO recovered in its 2013 and 2014 FERC-filed formula rate updates, Ms. Peine filed a legal challenge to SWEPCO’s recovery of certain expenses, including what she claimed were improperly recovered charitable and lobbying items. Last August, the Commission determined her challenges raised material issues and set the complaint for hearing. 
 
As Ms. Peine and the other parties prepared for a hearing before a FERC Administrative Law Judge, discussions about settling the case were also taking place.  These negotiations among Ms. Peine, SWEPCO, and FERC lawyers eventually proved successful.
 
On Monday, June 13, 2016, without the necessity of a hearing, Ms. Peine and American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEP), on behalf of its subsidiaries SWEPCO and the Public Service Company of Oklahoma, filed a settlement agreement with the Commission that includes a $4.2 million refund to ratepayers in the region. The agreement also limits the amount of litigation expenses related to Ms. Peine’s challenges, and clarifies that certain expenses, including charitable and lobbying related expenses, cannot be charged to ratepayers by SWEPCO in the future.
 
“While the end result in my case is a win for ratepayers, I will always wonder what mistakes there may be in the years to come,” said Ms. Peine. “The review process is complicated and time consuming. There is no person, entity, or agency that meaningfully reviews the rate updates on a regular basis, so there is always the potential for significant overcharges.”
 
”On behalf of Save the Ozarks, we congratulate Martha for her accomplishment,” said Pat Costner, STO Director. “Every SWEPCO electric customer owes a debt of gratitude to this remarkable woman, who has shown us that one person can make a big difference.”
 
The refund will show up as a one-time credit on ratepayers’ electric bills within 90 days of the Commission’s approval of the settlement, which should be a routine matter.  A copy of the settlement can be downloaded from the Commission’s website here.
 
Background:  The transmission of electricity in interstate commerce is nationally regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  FERC allows regulated transmission companies to utilize what are known as “Formula Rates” to recover their cost of service from electric consumers.  A Formula Rate is a mathematical formula for calculating a rate from yearly expense totals.  While the formula stays the same year after year, the rate changes depending on how much a company spends.  Not all company expenses are recoverable from ratepayers.  FERC regulations and legal precedent prohibit the recovery of charitable contributions, as well as the cost of lobbying to influence the decisions of public officials.  Formula Rate updates are informational filings.  FERC does not review them for accuracy, but relies on those who pay the rates to raise the red flag if it is not calculated correctly.
5 Comments

Clean Line Has An Imaginary Friend

5/24/2016

0 Comments

 
...errr, customer.  This morning, Clean Line Energy Partners had an imaginary customer.
Utility Energy has agreed to purchase 500MW of power from Plains & Eastern via an intermediate converter station in Arkansas. It is not immediately clear where the balance of the line’s capacity will be sold.
So reported "Recharge News," which bills itself as "the multi-platform news service for senior professionals in solar, wind and related sectors. It balances in-depth coverage of wind and solar with relevant news from the wider global renewables industry."

Balance?  Recharge News thought this article was "balanced?"  It only tells one side of the story... Skelly's side.  Apparently the reporter did absolutely no fact checking.

"Utility Energy" doesn't exist.  There's no company named "Utility Energy," therefore it has not agreed to purchase 500 MW of power from Plains & Eastern.  Or maybe the reporter MEANT to report that "Utility Entergy has agreed to purchase...".  But that would also be untrue.  Neither Entergy nor Clean Line's imaginary friend, Utility Energy, have agreed to purchase so much as a glow stick from Plains & Eastern.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

It's pretty doubtful that Clean Line will "begin construction on Plains & Eastern next year."  It's pretty hard to construct a transmission line on land you don't own.  What Recharge News fails to report is that landowners are refusing all Clean Line's advances.
Picture
Get yourself one of these nifty signs from Golden Bridge, LLC!
Are you directly or indirectly affected by Clean Line Energy Partners' "Plains and Eastern" HVDC transmission line project? Don't want to talk to them? Members of Golden Bridge don't have to.

Our Mission:
The LLC will educate members and other interested parties on our issues regarding the Plains & Eastern project, condemnation (eminent domain), and landowners' rights, especially as they affect property values and agricultural/recreational operations.

The LLC will take those steps necessary to help protect property owner interests, including but not limited to addressing environmental, economic and health impacts, and helping to protect and improve landowners' property rights, including the mitigation of potential liabilities.

Our Objectives:
To evaluate ALL options available to address the potential impacts from the Project, including, but not limited to:
- Legal action in defense of landowner rights
- Negotiation of the right-of-way easement terms that benefit landowners now and in the future

We are still accepting memberships. To find out more information:

Visit: www.GoldenBridgeAR.org

Contact Us Directly: [email protected] or (479) 214-0799

Please share this post to help us inform our friends and neighbors along the route.

And guess what?  Clean Line does NOT have eminent domain authority, nor authority to enter private property along the route.  No "studies."  No "surveys."  No land agent visits or calls.  Landowners can simply tell Clean Line and its contractors to go away.  And they are.  They certainly are.  It's not looking like Clean Line is going to have any land rights for its project by next year.  Because the only way Clean Line can get land rights from resistant owners is to ask the U.S. Department of Energy to use its authority to condemn and take their land.  And the U.S. DOE agreement stipulates that Clean Line must have firm, contracted customers, not just imaginary friends, before DOE will even consider getting involved.  And even if they do, DOE must start all over again attempting to negotiate with the landowner.  Think all this can be accomplished by next year?  Not.  It's going to take YEARS and YEARS, if it ever happens at all.

And there Skelly stands, waving his hands around and making up imaginary customers, like "Utility Energy."  He doesn't have any real customers.  And he won't have any real customers, because all the good imaginary customers will only "...commit once they see the project meeting critical milestones towards the start of construction."  But Clean Line won't be meeting any milestones until it has land rights.  And it can't get land rights until it has customers.  Chicken, egg.  Rock:Clean Line:Hard Place.

Skelly needs to quit making crap up.  And the trade press needs to stop reporting made up crap.

Imaginary friends are only cute when you're five.
0 Comments

Truth In Media

4/13/2016

0 Comments

 
Perhaps one of the most satisfying articles about the U.S. Department of Energy's decision to "participate" in the Plains and Eastern Clean Line came from something called The Covington (Tennessee) Leader.  Perhaps an editor or reporter was having an "off" day, or perhaps an editor or reporter wasn't fooled by the bullshit in Clean Line's press release and simply decided to tell the truth.  This is a rare opportunity to see what goes on in today's modern newsroom.

Opposed project gets federal green light begins by revealing that The Leader received an "email blast" and press release from a prominent public relations firm.
The public relations firm WestRogers sent out an e-mail blast on March 25 with a press release touting a federal decision that appears to clear the way for a $2.5 billion transmission line that would bring wind power from Oklahoma, through Arkansas and southwestern Tipton County, and into Shelby County.
West Rogers is a branding, advertising and public relations firm who will "analyze your goals and develop a communications strategy that meets them."  In other words, West Rogers will create whatever reality you need in order to accomplish your goals.  On its website, West Rogers shares one of its communication strategies to accomplish your goals:
This Grass Looks Real

In grassroots organizing you drum up broad-based support for your issue.  A grasstops effort is more narrow, focusing on business, community or government leaders.  But what if you could create the appearance of citizen interest and get decision-makers to take notice?  It's called astroturf organizing, where you fake grassroots support.  Tactics include phone banks, "citizen" front groups, press release blitzes or rent-a-demonstrators.  Politicians are catching on to this latest turf war, so practitioners are looking for more subtle ways to simulate citizen concern.
The Public Relations Society of America says astroturfing is often associated with unethical front group activities.  And they say it constitutes improper conduct and malpractice under their Code of Ethics and should be avoided.  Maybe West Rogers isn't a member of the PRSA, but The Covington Leader seems to be familiar with ethical public relations, and they don't seem to like West Rogers very much.  And The Covington Leader proceeded to tear West Rogers' press release apart as only a seasoned public relations professional can:
In the release, there is ubiquitous use of buzz words like "jobs," "clean," "low-cost" and "renewable," classic public relations language.

Despite the flowery language in the release, there is plenty of opposition to the project.
The Leader is talking about "glittering generalities," which are one of the Seven Common Propaganda Devices.  And the Leader wasn't fooled by them.

The Covington Leader reported the truth. 

Reporting the truth is in short supply these days.  When newspapers were better funded through advertising, they had more reporters.  The reporters would investigate the press releases they received from companies like West Rogers, hear both sides of the story, and separate fact from fiction.  They would then report the facts.  However, in this day and age of shrinking newspaper advertising revenue, newspapers have fewer reporters, and they pay them less.  Today's reporter, especially at a small-town paper, does the work of 10 reporters of the past.  The modern reporter no longer has the luxury of time to investigate press releases.  The reporter may only have minutes to turn a press release into a story.  As a result, many press releases are simply re-written as "news" and the investigation process doesn't happen.

This is why I'm a huge advocate of opposition groups writing and issuing their own, competing press releases.  While good press releases are a bit of an art, it's nothing a transmission opposition group can't learn with lots of practice.  A concise, well-written press release works, where bombarding a reporter with helpful links and things to read doesn't.  A reporter simply doesn't have time these days to read, analyze, and investigate the reams of technical and other material that are generated by a specific issue.  A short press release is often their only view of the other side of the issue.

Newspapers like The Covington Leader are very rare these days.  Learning today's public relations game is a transmission opponent's responsibility, if they want to help generate fair press.  Otherwise, only one side of the story gets told.
0 Comments

And Not A Single Wart Was Found!

4/7/2016

0 Comments

 
Bob Stevenson's search for Clean Line warts has come to an end.  And not a single wart was found!

In Bob's first weekly Clean Line column, he promised, "to shar[e] all we know about the company, the offer, the risks and rewards, warts and all."  Except in the seven weeks since, he hasn't shared one wart.  Not one.  In Bob's view, Clean Line has no warts.  Week after week, Bob sang Clean Line's praises. 

Bob thinks that his columns helped Hannibal "form an educated opinion."  But I think Bob is the one who got the education here.  Last week, Bob got publicly educated by Missouri electric cooperatives, who corrected some misinformation in one of his columns.  And every week, Hannibal ratepayers educated him about other misinformation.  Bob got educated about regional transmission organizations, electric resource planning, renewable energy certificates, Hannibal's laws about procurement, what was actually in Clean Line's presentation to the City, the MO PSC Order Denying Clean Line a Certificate, Clean Line's business plan, and other topics.  Good times!  So, let's put this baby to bed for now, because these glowing Clean Line sales pitches are getting tiring.

Bob shares that "sometime in the next few weeks we expect to see a more definitive offer from Clean Line with or without other Municipal electric cities."  And this will be made public, Bob?  Or will you simply start the circus over from the beginning?  Let's hope Bob will use his new education to make impartial decisions in the best interests of Hannibal's electric ratepayers.

Bob says, "I have tried to dispel the notion the Clean Line project is dependent on our approval or partnership."  Whose notion is that, Bob?  I've never heard that notion.  Clean Line wants to use Hannibal as "a good witness" in a possible future PSC case.  Does Bob think his testimony will make or break it for Clean Line?  He certainly can't have the notion that Hannibal's puny 25 MW purchase of Clean Line's 4,000 MW capacity will make or break the company's success, can he?  That might just overestimate Hannibal's importance as the attractive Clean Line capital of the free world.

Your opinion about the terrible things that may happen if the Federal government got involved in Grain Belt Express is misinformed.  What makes you think Federal involvement would "leave Hannibal out of the deal entirely?"  This demonstrates how little Bob knows about the Clean Line projects, but yet he is quick to offer his misinformed opinion.

Bob wants you to answer some questions, such as:  "Are the possible savings on our bills worth the possible ill feelings from our neighbors?"  What possible savings?  Remember, Bob, Clean Line's presentation didn't show any savings over other wind options.  Your reason for steadfast allegiance to one company, a company that may not be there when you need a wind resource in the future, is a secret everyone would like to see revealed at this point.  I guess Bob has one more deep, dark secret after all.
0 Comments

Legislators Work To Protect Constituents

4/7/2016

0 Comments

 
All too often our elected representatives head off to our state capitol, where they're surrounded by paid corporate lobbyists every day, and they forget all about us.

Not so in Iowa and Missouri, where legislators are working hard to protect the interests of the ones who elected them.

A bipartisan Iowa House yesterday passed HF 2448, an act relating to the construction, erection, maintenance and operation, or sale of specified electric transmission lines.  The bill:
  1. Prohibits bifurcation.
  2. The sale or transfer of a merchant line shall not carry with it the transfer of the franchise (permit).
  3. A company has 3 years from the first informational meeting (required as part of the application process) or its application shall be rejected.  A company shall not file another application for the same, or a substantially similar project, for 60 months.
  4. The IUB shall not grant a petition that involves the taking of property by eminent domain unless 75% of the necessary easements have been obtained voluntarily.
  5. In an application that involves eminent domain, "public" shall be interpreted to be limited to the consumers located in Iowa.
The bill now moves on to the Iowa Senate. 

The bill's sponsor, Representative Bobby Kaufmann, said, “Every day I, in this body, am going to be loyal to the landowners rather than the pocketbooks of the Rock Island Clean Line.”

Opponents of the bill said it wasn't "fair" to Texas-based Rock Island Clean Line.

Kaufmann said Rock Island Clean Line developers have kept property owners hanging for too long.

“Whose fairness right are we going to choose: property owners or an out-of-state corporation?” Kaufmann asked.

Read more about the remarkable grassroots efforts in Iowa on the website of the Preservation of Rural Iowa Alliance.

And in Missouri, a House committee hearing was held on HB 2418, a bill modifying provisions related to eminent domain power of utilities.  The bill adds the following provisions:
4. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the power of eminent domain shall not be exercised for any electric transmission line project if any of the following apply:
(1) Such project is proposed and built outside a regulated regional transmission planning process;
(2) Such project is not eligible for recovery of costs under a regional transmission operator or independent system operator tariff for transmission service it provides;
(3) Such project is constructed entirely with private funds and users of the line pay for the transmission line;
(4) Such project primarily involves construction of a high-voltage direct current transmission line.
5. Subsection 4 of this section shall not apply to a transmission line, wire, or cable that primarily provides electricity through alternating current and is used by:
(1) Rate-regulated electric utilities, municipal electric utilities, or rural electric cooperatives; or
(2) Electric transmission owners to provide electric service, for compensation, to the public or any entity described under subdivision (1) of this subsection.
Read more about this legislation here.

Block GBE Missouri reports that the hearing went well, with six witnesses testifying in favor of the bill.

Now that's representation of the people!
0 Comments

How Much Do You Want to Pay Environmental PIGs to "Represent" You at FERC?

3/9/2016

4 Comments

 
Warning... this is going to be a long one.  Like a terrifying octopus, this issue has tentacles going in all directions.  Hopefully I can follow them all, so that you, little consumer, can follow along and perhaps act in your own interests down the road.

Let's start with the good news -- FERC has approved ratepayer funding for the Consumer Advocates of the PJM States (CAPS) to participate in PJM matters.  This is good news for consumers in the PJM region who don't have time or inclination to participate in PJM's countless stakeholder proceedings.  CAPS is made up of "state advocate offices designated by the laws of their respective jurisdictions to represent the interests of utility consumers within the service territory of PJM...".  These state consumer advocates are overworked and underfunded for all they do on behalf of residential electric customers. 

One caveat in the Order, however, says that CAPS funding may only be used for "staffing and travel costs for state consumer advocates to participate in in-person meetings and other proceedings at PJM as well as to pay professional staff and operation of the CAPS organization."  This also includes "participation in other Commission activities, such as responding to Notices of Proposed Rulemakings and participating in Technical Conferences."  CAPS funding may not be used for "(1) activities related to proceedings of state agencies;  (2) proceedings at federal agencies other than the  Commission; (3) litigation of matters at the Commission arising from the filing of Tariff or Operating Agreement changes by PJM including the filing of interventions or protests or participation in hearings or settlements; or (4) the hiring of counsel or expert witnesses to support the filings of other parties."

However, Commissioner Tony Clark dissented, stating:
This Commission has not before endorsed the policy that the activities of non-decisional
intervenor groups be funded through a dedicated utility tariff under the auspices of the FPA. Yet here we are doing exactly that. Today’s order is couched in the language of
good intentions, but I find it troubling  precedent as both a matter of policy and prudence.
Commissioner Clark said that this Order "cracks open Pandora's box," and before the ink was even dry on the Order and the Dissent, that's exactly what happened.  Clark wondered:
My public policy concern is that there is little that meaningfully differentiates these
organizations from a myriad of other state agencies and not-for-profit governmental
organizations or other interest groups that will now say, “what about my piece of the
pie?” CAPS entities argue they are uniquely situated. But aren’t state energy offices, in
their own way, also uniquely situated? What about state departments of environmental
quality? Do they, too, deserve a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) funded
organization to finance their participation in stakeholder meetings? Furthermore, given
that CAPS includes at least one non-governmental non-profit, we now have cracked-open the lid of Pandora’s Box just a little wider yet. What is to stop any of the countless groups that intersect with the regulatory world from arguing that they are also uniquely situated to speak for any  number of communities of interest?
Which brings us to... Monday, when the very PIGs (Public Interest Groups) Commissioner Clark was concerned about filed a rulemaking petition looking for their own piece of the pie.

It's no secret that Public Citizen has been harping on FERC for years to set up the Office of Public Participation which was authorized by Congress back in 1978.  That's 38 years ago, folks.  And Public Citizen just now thought about filing a Petition for Rulemaking?  That's some stellar FERC work right there!  Thirty eight years ago, a leisure-suited Congress authorized such an office, along with a funding stream to compensate "persons under this subsection" through the year 1981.  What is new is that Public Citizen now wants its piece of the "person" pie!  And Public Citizen has brought along an entire herd of hungry PIGs to gobble up what it believes should now be a $6.5M yearly pie.  The petition was signed by 31 self-appointed PIG "advocates" for consumers and the environment, and not a state advocate office designated by the laws of their respective jurisdictions to represent the interests of utility consumers in the bunch.

The hungry PIGs are a hodge-podge of "consumer interest" groups you've never heard of, environmental organizations, "coalitions," "projects," "centers," "councils," "institutes," "partnerships," and an "investment corporation."  I've never seen many of these groups doing much of anything at FERC, and I haven't seen them litigating actual rate cases that save consumers real money.  The few I have seen poking their stick into the FERC lion cage are more interested in policy issues, such as championing environmental interests before the Commission.  These organizations are already very well funded through grants and gifts to advocate for the environment.  Do they deserve public money for carrying out their political goals?  These aren't public interest groups, they're specialty interest groups.

Let's look at just a couple on the list.  Public Citizen describes its climate and energy program as:  "Public Citizen's energy and climate program advocates for affordable, clean and sustainable energy. We safeguard families by promoting the strong regulation of energy markets, educate the public on the dangers of continued reliance on dirty energy sources, help solve climate change by promoting localized clean energy alternatives and hold large energy corporations accountable by exposing wrongdoing."  The group's Form 990s available here and here describe their Energy Program as:  "Provides information to the public on the threat of catastrophic climate change, the dangers of nuclear and fossil fuels, and the opportunities available to advance energy efficiency and develop renewable energy solutions."  And they show a whole lot of income from mysteriously unnamed donors, and grants to clean energy programs.  And they also show that Public Citizen has its fingers in a whole lot of political issue pies, not just energy.  Their "Accomplishments" page is devoid of any victories at FERC.  I'm not convinced that Public Citizen is substantially contributing to important issues at the Commission, or that any participation by Public Citizen presents a "financial hardship" for their "person."

At the other end of the PIG roll, A World Institute for a Sustainable Humanity describes itself as:  "A World Institute for a Sustainable Humanity (A W.I.S.H.) is an international nonprofit organization whose mission is to provide models and support for life sustaining activities that integrate solutions to poverty and the environment while fostering self-reliance. It was founded in March of 1995 and is registered as an NGO in fourteen countries and states."  A search of FERC's eLibrary for this organization brings up nada.  I'm not convinced they have ever done anything at FERC that contributed to any substantial issues.

This seems more like a "build the funding and they will come" pipe dream.
So, what does the 1978 law say, anyhow?
(a)
(1) There shall be an office in the Commission to be known as the Office of Public Participation (hereinafter in this section referred to as the “Office”).
(2)
(A) The Office shall be administered by a Director. The Director shall be appointed by the Chairman with the approval of the Commission. The Director may be removed during his term of office by the Chairman, with the approval of the Commission, only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
(B) The term of office of the Director shall be 4 years. The Director shall be responsible for the discharge of the functions and duties of the Office. He shall be appointed and compensated at a rate not in excess of the maximum rate prescribed for GS–18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5.
(3) The Director may appoint, and assign the duties of, employees of such Office, and with the concurrence of the Commission he may fix the compensation of such employees and procure temporary and intermittent services to the same extent as is authorized under section 3109 of title 5.
(b)
(1) The Director shall coordinate assistance to the public with respect to authorities exercised by the Commission. The Director shall also coordinate assistance available to persons intervening or participating or proposing to intervene or participate in proceedings before the Commission.
(2) The Commission may, under rules promulgated by it, provide compensation for reasonable attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, and other costs of intervening or participating in any proceeding before the Commission to any person whose intervention or participation substantially contributed to the approval, in whole or in part, of a position advocated by such person. Such compensation may be paid only if the Commission has determined that--
(A) the proceeding is significant, and
(B) such person’s intervention or participation in such proceeding without receipt of compensation constitutes a significant financial hardship to him.

(3) Nothing in this subsection affects or restricts any rights of any intervenor or participant under any other applicable law or rule of law.
(4) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy to be used by the Office for purposes of compensation of persons under the provisions of this subsection not to exceed $500,000 for the fiscal year 1978, not to exceed $2,000,000 for the fiscal year 1979, not to exceed $2,200,000 for the fiscal year 1980, and not to exceed $2,400,000 for the fiscal year 1981.
So, any funding to "persons" is contingent upon the participation substantially contributing the approval of that person's position.  This is not an advance funding free-for-all for PIGs to suddenly access funds to create their own offices to participate in FERC ratemaking.  Funding only comes AFTER a "person" wins a case.  The proceeding also must be "significant," whatever FERC wants to presume that to be.  Such "person's" participation must also present a "financial hardship."  That's a conundrum.  If a person can only collect funding after their position is approved by the Commission, then said "person" would have already spent the money to participate, without knowing in advance if they will prevail, or whether the proceeding is "significant."  If the money has been spent without promise of funding, then how could the "person" then make a case of financial hardship?  If it's a true financial hardship, they'd never be able to participate in the first place.  For real people, every dollar they spend on lawyers and experts is one dollar less they can spend on hot dogs and tickets to the ball game.

Public Citizen then goes on to quote the Congressional Record from 1978, which makes clear that Congress intended this public participation to come from "electric consumers," or "individuals."  I don't see anything in there about PIGs.  After all, any "person" could declare that their efforts were "for consumers," and attempt to score some public funding for participating at the Commission, even utilities, or utility industry coalitions or associations, such as EEI.  Who knows what will pop out of Pandora's box?

Case in point... after blathering on about how the idea for the Office of Public Participation was based on public participation by electric ratepayers, in ratemaking, Public Citizen says this:
The Office of Public Participation is also needed to provide support to communities involved with FERC-jurisdictional hydro and natural gas infrastructure proposals.
Funny that.  The Delaware Riverkeeper Network also used FERC's failure to create the Office of Public Participation and fund intervenor costs as an example of FERC's "bias" in its recent lawsuit filed against the Commission in U.S. District Court.  While I have the utmost sympathy for individuals personally affected by fracking and pipelines, I have no respect for the environmental groups who use these folks as battering rams to accomplish their environmental goals.  That lawsuit was painful to read and I can't imagine a court wasting much time on it.  Just because funding for FERC's gas program comes from gas companies does not create bias.  The annual costs for the program are allocated to gas companies based on their usage.  The Commission would be funded whether or not they approved new pipeline applications, because gas will continue to flow.  Adding new pipelines to the stable simply spreads out the costs among a larger herd.  It does not increase FERC's "take," nor pay dividends to FERC employees to approve pipelines.  The continual attacks on FERC (both judicial and in person at the facility) aren't helping the cause.  About the only good argument in the whole lawsuit relates to requests for rehearing, and FERC has already handled that.  And that's oftentime the problem with environmental and other group participation that comes from "outside" FERC's little specialty practice arena.  It can be clueless about process, laws, and even FERC's jurisdiction to act in the first place.  I'm not sure adding more misinformed voices to the shuffle is prudent or helpful.  If you want to participate at FERC, make it meaningful.  Don't just carry on at monthly meetings, interrupting every other hearing underway in the building, because you're angry and unsatisfied with your own ignorance of the process.  Educate yourself!

And be careful what you wish for.  In discussions with grassroots groups in states with a mechanism for intervenor funding for participation in public utility cases, the same complaint comes up over and over.  They allege that well-heeled and well-connected PIGs are always first in line at the funding trough, and there is precious little left over for the folks who are actually on the front lines of energy projects and rate increases.  Oftentimes the PIGs use their funding to weigh in on the side of the utilities, especially to enable construction of renewable energy infrastructure.  PIGs don't care about you, little ratepayer or landowner.  They really don't.

Funding PIGs to carry on in a nonsensical manner at FERC is a bad idea.  Let's see if FERC actually notices a proposed rulemaking on this issue, or simply bats it aside as more PIG mischief.
4 Comments

Hannibal BPW Tables Clean Line Proposal

2/18/2016

0 Comments

 
The Hannibal Bureau of Public Works "stepped back" from Clean Line this week.  Can we get a Hallelujah, brothers and sisters?

The Herald-Whig reports:
The Hannibal Board of Public Works has suspended talks with Houston-based Clean Line Energy Partners about investing in or using its proposed Grain Belt Express transmission line to bring wind-generated electricity to the city.

BPW General Manager Bob Stevenson told the utility's board of directors Tuesday that the BPW has decided to step back and observe developments between the company and other municipalities before moving forward.

"We just decided to sit back, take it easy for a while, and just study what's going, keep asking questions, keep researching," Stevenson said. "We've got nothing to put forward. There is no pending contract."
Good idea, that research thing.  Clean Line's claims to the BPW haven't quite added up.  Although, I do think other municipalities should observe developments between Hannibal and Clean Line before moving forward themselves, instead of the other way around.  Looks like when push came to shove, there was no contract.  Why couldn't Clean Line put its offered prices in writing? 
In other news:
BPW board members also accepted an average $36.86 per megawatt-hour bid from Florida-based NextEra Energy Resources for energy to be used in summer 2017, 2018 and 2019. Four bidders, including NextEra, submitted quotes for supplying 20 megawatts in June, 25 megawatts in July and 25 megawatts in August each year.

Stevenson said those energy blocks, which make up about one-twelfth of the BPW's demand, will cover peaks during hot summer days. He said the BPW and Chris Dawson, a representative from consulting firm GDS Associates, had discussed locking down prices now while they remain low.
Well, lookie there, that's how energy contracts are supposed to be evaluated and signed.  Because, "an agreement that would commit the utility to do nothing except be a good witness in front of the Missouri Public Service Commission and be willing to work toward a final arrangement" isn't a bid, an expert evaluation of bids, or a contract.  It's nonsense, and it's selling Hannibal short.
The Public Service Commission denied Clean Line a certificate of convenience and necessity in July on grounds that the 4,000-megawatt, direct-current line would not benefit the state's consumers and landowners. Clean Line has since approached municipal utilities, including the BPW, about participating in the project in hopes of showing regulators it has a customer base in Missouri.

Stevenson said the BPW has no deadline for making decisions related to the project despite Clean Line's goal of appearing before the commission again this year.

"Without us, they've got nothing," he said. "Just because they're in a hurry doesn't mean we have to be."
Ahh, so maybe Bob has realized that Hannibal shouldn't be such a cheap date.  Hannibal has something Clean Line desperately wants, and they shouldn't give it away cheaply.

As well, the Missouri PSC and its experts thoroughly vetted Grain Belt Express before making its determination that the project did not benefit consumers last summer.  Hannibal should consider that carefully before making inexpert, snap judgements of its own on the merits of the project.  And so should any other municipalities being courted to "be a good witness" for Clean Line, before signing up.

If the project has merit, it will swim, not sink, on its own before the PSC.  And nobody needs another Prairie State.  Good job, Hannibal BPW!

Clean Line goes home with a big, fat goose egg, as my friend Dave in Arkansas opined.  But something wonderful happened in Hannibal nonetheless.  The Hannibal Ratepayers for Smart Energy grassroots group has formed, and will hopefully continue their efforts to become involved in Hannibal's energy choices going forward.  Public participation is always a good thing!
0 Comments

Hey, Hannibal... What's up chuck?

1/21/2016

2 Comments

 
Samuel Clemens, better known as Mark Twain, grew up in Hannibal, Missouri.  He once said, "We have the best government that money can buy."

And it must have been in that spirit that "top brass" (subtract consonants at your own pleasure) from Texas-based Clean Line Energy Partners descended on Hannibal this week.
Skelly said that Clean Line is prepared to make a power proposal that would represent a “fantastic deal for the city of Hannibal.”
Insert carnival sideshow music here.
For a visual depiction of the action, go here to get your poster of Michael Skelly scowling in his Dad jeans, arms crossed in defiance.

Of course, nothing is written in stone, or legally binding.

What's the pitch?
Lawlor suggested that the Grain Belt Express could potentially offer power to Hannibal for as little as 2 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh).

...the possibility that Hannibal could buy “capacity rights,” which the BPW could utilize or sell on the open market.

Lawlor said a $12.5 million investment in Grain Belt could equate to a 25 megawatt stake in the Ralls County converter station and a portion of the project's capacity, noting the utility could buy as much or as little as it wanted.
So, Mark, Clean Line is selling power now?  And at two cents per kWh?  Where's your generator?  And how is that power going to get to Hannibal?  How much would that possibly cost?  FOB Kansas, right?

And how about that mind blowing opportunity to invest $12.5 million dollars in the Grain Belt Express project?  What's the guaranteed return on that?  And what happens if Grain Belt is never built?  The entire $12.5 million dollars of Hannibal's ratepayers hard earned cash disappears forever.  You'd think Hannibal has learned their lesson about investing in energy market revenue schemes, after their recent investment in Prairie State, right?
Critics of the investment need only look at the audit’s bottom line regarding Prairie State to find areas where revenues from the sale of power generated at the plant continued to not equal the BPW’s expenses associated with the facility.
I can't imagine what the good citizens of Hannibal must be paying for power, what with all this energy market investment going on.  How much will rates go up to fund a $12.5M "investment" in Grain Belt Express for which the ratepayers may never see any benefit? 

And it wouldn't even supply half of Hannibal's energy needs, "The 25 megawatt chuck of power the city is interested in would represent approximately 40 percent of the city’s current needs."

What's a "chuck" of power?  Maybe it's this.


Is this deal really about cheaper power for Hannibal, or is it about:
What Clean Line will be seeking initially from the city is a letter of participation that the company would include in its next application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the Missouri Public Service Commission. The PSC denied Clean Line such a certificate in July 2015.

In a renewed effort to illustrate Grain Belt's merits to the PSC, Clean Line has approached municipal utilities about participating in the project.
Don't be a cheap date, Hannibal.  That "letter of participation" is worth a lot to Grain Belt Express.  Think of it as Clean Line's precious...
You could probably get Clean Line to pay YOU $12.5M for the letter, if you hold out for a better deal.  Now that's an energy market play with a real return!

But, will the Missouri Public Service Commission really be swayed by Clean Line investors and their non-binding "letters of participation?"  Probably not.  The MO PSC has already rejected this project once, and nothing has changed (except Clean Line's traveling carnival side show barker act at municipal power authorities across the state).  It would be foolish to underestimate the state-wide opposition to this project. 

Samuel Clemens had a lot of wise things to say.  He also said...
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog."
My money's on the Grain Belt Express opposition.
2 Comments

Clean Power Plan Does Not Require "A Tangled Mess of Hulking, Long-range Transmission Lines"

1/12/2016

3 Comments

 
The Pittsburg Post-Gazette's "Power Source" energy news believes the Clean Power Plan will require "a tangled mess of hulking, long-range transmission lines."  Not true, and the report's "facts" are fallible.

The reporter seems to rely on energy platitudes, pasted together with quotes from people who should have been asked about the conclusions the reporter made.

Such as:
Opponents used some of those arguments to successfully derail the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, a 290-mile line from Putnam County, W.Va., to Frederick County, Md., proposed by Allegheny Energy in 2008. The Greensburg company, acquired by FirstEnergy in 2011, suspended the project after it could not convince regulators the line was necessary.
This guy calls up Steve Herling, but doesn't bother to ask him why PJM terminated the PATH project.  It's not that "opponents" proved there was no need in any state regulatory process.  It's that PJM first suspended, and later terminated the PATH project because
PJM staff reviewed results of analyses showing reliability drivers no longer exist for the project throughout the 15-year planning cycle. The analyses incorporated the continued trends of decreasing customer load growth, increasing participation in demand response programs and the recent commitment of new generating capacity in eastern PJM.
This reporter also seems to be under the impression that all transmission opposition comes from "citizens groups" who oppose transmission due to environmental reasons.
While citizen groups have fought transmission projects — often successfully — by attacking the developer’s need to build them, the environmental regulations could usher in more projects and complicate opposition.

Changing drivers of transmission
In the past, environmental groups have glommed onto transmission battles and used citizen group opposition to fuel the push on environmental grounds.  Those days are over.  This reporter seems to be the last to find out, but environmental groups are the newest and biggest fans of transmission lines.  Numerous environmental groups have intervened in favor of big, new transmission lines that the wrongly believe are "for wind."  Transmission lines are open access and it's not possible to segregate "clean" electrons from "dirty" ones.  The citizens are on their own here and that's just fine... nobody needs or wants a hypocritical environmental NGO championing eminent domain for "clean" transmission lines while simultaneously using the same issue as a reason not to build "dirty" pipelines.  Nobody takes these fools seriously anymore.  Without an army, the environmental groups are simply Don Quixote.  Tilting at their beloved windmill fantasy, but getting nothing accomplished.

It's still about need though.  And the transmission poster child the reporter chose to use is not part of any regional transmission plan and therefore has not been designated "needed."
Transmission companies see big potential for new projects, particularly from sparsely populated areas that generate wind energy to urban areas. “Just as trains carried cattle and other goods from the rural areas to urban centers, the Plains & Eastern Clean Line will carry renewable energy from the Plains of the Southwest,” states the website of one developer, Clean Line Energy of Houston, Texas.

Clean Line expects federal approval for its 700-mile Plains & Eastern Clean Line, designed to carry 4,000 megawatts of power from wind farms in the panhandle of Oklahoma. The line will terminate near Memphis, Tenn. Clean Line has four other projects in the pipeline.

“We anticipate a very busy 2016,” said company president Michael Skelly. 
And that's why Clean Line is attempting to use an untested part of the 2005 Energy Policy Act to usurp the siting and permitting authority of states and ram its project through using the federal eminent domain authority of federal power marketers.  Except that statute requires a need for the transmission in the first place.  And there is none.  Clean Line elected not to participate in the regional transmission planning processes that determine need for transmission projects.  Clean Line is nothing but a gamble -- the investors are gambling that a need for the project will develop if they can build it... but Clean Line hasn't been successful in signing up any potential customers... because they can't get their project built... because there is no need for it.  That's the real chicken/egg the reporter should be examining.

I do hope Mr. Skelly is very busy in 2016... polishing up his resume and looking for new investors for his next get rich quick scheme.

The reporter longs for
...some wind mills and solar farms in areas with constant breeze and abundant sunshine
But he's looking in the wrong place.  Even though he had a conversation with Scott Hempling about non-transmission alternatives, none of that seemed to sink in.

There's an area with "a constant breeze" located much closer to Pittsburgh than the Great Plains.  It's called the Atlantic Ocean, where wind potential is much greater.  Best of all, very little "
tangled mess of hulking, long-range transmission lines" would be "necessary to bring that renewable power from the point of generation to utilities for local distribution."

Why can't eastern states boost their own economies by harvesting renewables close to load?  The days of centralized generation are over.  Also, sunshine is abundant anywhere -- no transmission lines needed to slap some solar panels on your own roof.

This reporter needs some education.

1.  Transmission opposition by "citizens groups" won't change because of the Clean Power Plan.

2.  Speculative transmission projects for which there is no need shall not be granted state eminent domain authority to take property for rights of way.

3.  Clean Line is a merchant transmission project, not part of any transmission plan and completely unlike most other transmission projects.  Therefore, it should not be lumped in with them or used as an example of anything transmission-related.  If the CPP requires transmission, it will be planned and ordered by regional transmission organizations so that there is some surety that it will actually be built.  Clean Line is not needed, may never be built, and is driven by anticipated profits selling energy into more expensive markets, not by the Clean Power Plan.

And stop drinking the big wind koolaid.  There are no facts in it.
3 Comments

Grain Belt Express Permit Appealed in Illinois

1/5/2016

3 Comments

 
The same day that the Illinois Commerce Commission denied rehearing of its Order issuing a permit to Grain Belt Express, the Illinois Farm Bureau and grassroots group Concerned Citizens and Property Owners filed appeals with the Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court.

Grain Belt Express pretended that the ICC's denial to rehear the case "strengthens our ability to move the Grain Belt Express clean line project forward."  Huh?  The ink wasn't even dry before appeals were filed that will tie the project up in court for months, or years. But it seems that the media wasn't fooled by Clean Line's press release puffery and coverage was balanced.

But the media missed a couple of important points.

The ICC vote on the rehearing was split into several distinct topics.  On the topic of whether to grant rehearing on Grain Belt's public utility status, it remained 3-2, with the two dissenting Commissioners holding firm in their belief that GBE is not a public utility entitled to file under the expedited process reserved for public utilities.  This "strengthens the opposition's ability to move their appeal forward." ;-)

It was also enlightening to see what the ICC did with GBE's Request for Rehearing.  While the Commission altered some language to include the 345kV lines between the converter station and the substation in the permit, it declined to alter language saying that GBE was not needed, “The Commission finds that GBX has not demonstrated that the Project is needed to provide adequate, reliable, and efficient service to customers within the meaning of Section 8-406.1” (Order at 125).  Have fun with that, Clean Line!

So what does the ICC's denial of rehearing really mean?  "Case Status - Appeal - Court Action Pending."

Looks like the Grain Belt Express is still stuck at the station and not moving anywhere.
3 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    About the Author

    Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.
    In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history.

    About
    StopPATH Blog

    StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project.  The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

    StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view.  If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty.  People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself.  If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

    Got something to say?  Submit your own opinion for publication.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories

    All
    $$$$$$
    2023 PJM Transmission
    Aep Vs Firstenergy
    Arkansas
    Best Practices
    Best Practices
    Big Winds Big Lie
    Can Of Worms
    Carolinas
    Citizen Action
    Colorado
    Corporate Propaganda
    Data Centers
    Democracy Failures
    DOE Failure
    Emf
    Eminent Domain
    Events
    Ferc Action
    FERC Incentives Part Deux
    Ferc Transmission Noi
    Firstenergy Failure
    Good Ideas
    Illinois
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Land Agents
    Legislative Action
    Marketing To Mayberry
    MARL
    Missouri
    Mtstorm Doubs Rebuild
    Mtstormdoubs Rebuild
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    Newslinks
    NIETC
    Opinion
    Path Alternatives
    Path Failures
    Path Intimidation Attempts
    Pay To Play
    Potomac Edison Investigation
    Power Company Propaganda
    Psc Failure
    Rates
    Regulatory Capture
    Skelly Fail
    The Pjm Cartel
    Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes
    Transource
    Valley Link Transmission
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.