Category:

Landowners Are Not a Problem That Needs Solving

6/16/2024

Academics who have never had a transmission line proposed across their property are at it again, writing their idiotic "reports" that claim to find the reason why transmission projects draw opposition and are not successful. I've seen many versions of this "save the transmission world" report, and exactly none of them have gotten it right. I think it's because they are inherently biased to think that transmission is "good" and "desperately needed." They believe, deep down in their highly educated souls, that impacted landowners are simply speed bumps on the road to transmission "progress" and that they can figure out new ways to make landowners either acquiesce, or advocate for new transmission to cross their properties. It's nothing but a psy op.

Nobody likes new transmission across their property. NOBODY! Anyone who said transmission was a great idea is either not affected, or their advocacy is being purchased with favorable treatment and ego-stroking (and cash helps, too!).

This new report (see "How Grid Projects Get Stuck" at the bottom of the page) makes conclusions about why the Grain Belt Express stalled out for so long and thinks it has now been successful. Complete lack of accuracy! GBE is in as much trouble now as it's ever been. It's got its corporate head shoved too far up the Biden administration's rear end, hoping for government favors to pull itself out of the dumpster. How much of our tax dollars will the federal government waste on a project that has never been needed?

And, speaking of need, the researchers did not seem to understand what they were told about lack of need for GBE, no matter how much people tried to educate them. GBE, as a merchant transmission project, has not been found needed by regional transmission organizations for reliability, public policy, or economic reasons. If it had any of those benefits and its cost was less than the benefits it offered, a RTO would have ordered the project. No RTO ordered GBE because there was no need for it, not because they are biased against outsiders. If it's not found needed by an RTO, it is not needed. Everyone (but the researchers) understands that. GBE was a speculative venture, a value proposition that never could find any customers who thought it provided enough value to sign a contract. When a project is not needed by a regional transmission planner, and it can't find any customers that think it's an economic value, then it's a completely unnecessary project. It is like McDonald's eyeing your front yard -- GBE wants to take your front yard so it can build a transmission project for one simple reason -- PROFIT. Not because it's needed, or because it provides economic value. Incumbent utilities may be for profit, but they are also public utilities with an obligation to serve. GBE is not a public utility. GBE is only trying to create profit, not serve consumers who need electricity.

The researchers honed in on the disrespectful way Clean Line treated landowners, even mentioning the "Marketing to Mayberry" episode. Skelly gets faulted for his approach to local governments and elected officials before landowners were even notified. That pretty much set the tone, didn't it? How different things might have turned out if Skelly approached landowners first and actually paid attention to their desire for the project to be sited along transportation corridors and buried. It would be operating right now, if it had attracted customers. Instead, Skelly and then Invenergy, just kept dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into a plan that was badly conceived from the beginning. GBE didn't listen to landowners.

The things the researchers think GBE did wrong ultimately don't mean anything though because they picked up on the wrong things, things that wouldn't have made a difference in the long run.

Regulatory institutions are stacked against new players.
Public and regulators' understandings of public interest and public need enable parochialism.
This case highlights a fundamental mismatch between the scale of costs and benefits for long-haul transmission infrastructure.
The traditional model of community engagement, centered around mass meetings and evaluation of alternatives, failed to satisfy either the developer or the community.
Community members are aware of alternative process models and technologies, and they anchor their judgments to their knowledge of these alternatives.
Public opinion favors incumbent entities and processes.

What? Poor, poor, rich little Michael Skelly. Everyone was against him! As they should have been! He was only interested in plundering for profit. Landowners have no use for him, and sent him packing back to Houston. And did our slick willie friend learn anything from his failure? I doubt it, judging from this article about his new company trying to build a transmission line through Montana. SSDD. You can almost smell the failure wafting its way from that article,

State regulators have a duty to consider the public impacts of new transmission. That's not parochialism, that's doing their job. State regulators don't work for merchant transmission companies, or electric consumers in other states. They only work for the public in their jurisdiction.

Projects without benefits will never be accepted by impacted landowners. Even projects with some supposed benefit for "the public" don't matter when it's your home and your money on the line.

Yes, the utility model of keeping the public uninformed until the project and its routes are set in stone is unhelpful. Transmission developers that operate in secret fail in public. But what's the alternative? Would developers approach communities and ask them upfront what kind of project they should build? That is unlikely because the whole public engagement process is built on an enormous misconception. Developers (and researchers) believe that if they can only "educate" (propagandize) impacted communities, that they can turn opposition into support. That is NEVER going to happen. Nobody wants a transmission line. NOBODY. Self preservation is always stronger than bullshit.

The road to success is staring transmission developers, big green transmission advocates, and their government flunkies right in the face. It's a transmission project that does not need any new land. No new land, no eminent domain, no impacts, no opposition.

First of all, we should build new power generation near the power load. When new transmission is needed, it must be routed on existing linear easements, such as road, rail, or underwater. Building a gigantic network of transmission lines for the sole purpose of connecting wind and solar projects to load in distant cities, and trying to use transmission to make up for the intermittent nature of these unreliable sources of electricity is not going to save them. Remote wind and solar is an infeasible money pit. The only thing it's been successful at is making the rich richer.

Landowners who don't want new transmission lines on their property are not a "problem" to be solved.

0 Comments

More Media Propaganda

1/17/2024

1 Comment

You just can't trust the media these days. Instead of impartially reporting the news anymore, many major media outlets are engaged in pushing the propaganda of energy companies and political goals. Case in point: This article about a solar farm in Michigan.

The "victim" in this article is a landowner who needed money and decided to lease her ground to a solar company. Neighbors objected to the solar farm so local zoning got changed and the project was blocked. Isn't that democracy at work? The needs of the many trump the needs of the few. Local governments have become ground zero for land use issues, and the voters drive acceptance or rejection. But for some reason, the media presented the story to make the voters the bad guys and the few the "good guy." Of course this isn't how democracy works, but somehow this anti-democratic rhetoric was championed in the name of "clean energy." That is, the government should be allowed to dismiss the concerns of the voters if it's about a clean energy project. There, the few rule supreme. This is about huge multi-national corporations making money building things we may or may not need in our own communities. We no longer have a voice in our local affairs. The article touts policies in several states where state level government can overrule local government and direct land use in the locality. Is this a good idea? The article tries to make you think so, but if you extrapolate this out to things like data centers, Walmarts, and polluting factories, the supporters of state rule suddenly think it's not a good idea. It's hypocrisy, plain and simple.

We are constantly told that rural areas must make a sacrifice to create and transmit "clean energy" for urban areas that don't want to put that stuff in their own community because... you guessed it... their voters object to that use of remaining open space. How about a little empathy? If you don't want it in your backyard, we don't want it in ours, either. Urban areas are not "more special" where they can push energy impacts off onto less fortunate and politically-connected communities in order to save themselves. This is the rich and politically powerful enslaving the rest of the country... so they can live well in their own communities and not give "those people" another thought. Some of them tell themselves that "those people" like being their slaves and that they should be congratulated for giving "those people" an opportunity to "be heard." What good is "being heard" when nobody listens? Giving "those people" an opportunity to shout into an empty well before you run them over is not democracy.

When did our energy system stop becoming democratic? It never actually was. It was designed for benefit of corporations, and those corporations are still the ones who benefit. Pretending that "everyone else" loves clean energy and transmission when it is sited on someone else's property, is not democracy, it's corporate-fueled mob rule. And somehow rural property owners protecting the land that produces their income are the demons, the NIMBYs.

NIMBY stands for "Not In My Back Yard." NIMBY is name-calling at its most basic level. Calling opponents "NIMBYs" does not deal with their arguments in a logical way, it simply directs the reader to dismiss the NIMBY altogether and not listen to his arguments because they must be "selfish." Who's the real selfish person here? The person trying to protect himself from invasion, or the person doing the invading in order to protect himself from a similar invasion? Corporations who stand to make big bucks exploiting rural landowners are quick with the NIMBY label. They also try to shut down any NIMBY arguments by claiming they are "misinformation." And they further demonize the NIMBYs by falsely claiming that they are organized and funded by corporations and mysterious "national organizations." All this adds up to censorship of "those people" by turning them into unacceptable groups who are so extreme that they should not be allowed to speak out or object in any way to the invasion.

Case in point: This article demonizing NIMBYs. The author is a real jerk, pretending he's Mr. Science and is somehow figuring out NIMBY motivation. Poor fella, he has no idea what motivates "NIMBYs" and never will until he actually becomes one himself. You cannot truly know how another man feels until you walk a mile in his shoes.

He also doesn't get the reason why thousands of unaffected "YIMBYs" don't show up to shout down the NIMBYs, acting as his own personal army. First of all, use of the term "YIMBY" -- YIMBY stands for "Yes In My Back Yard." None of the proposed YIMBYs even have a back yard of their own if they're the proposed young and clueless climate protestors. They are not accepting any sacrifice for themselves, just demanding that others make a sacrifice for them. YIMBY is not the proper word here. Paid protestor is more apt. It doesn't take a lifelong study of human nature to realize it is harder to whip up support for something than it is to whip up opposition. The supporter simply doesn't care enough to go out of their way to support someone else's project. However, the objector whose property and way of life is threatened will go to great lengths to protect himself. The only way corporations have been successful in creating supporters is with good, old fashioned cash. Paid advocates, whether they are handed cash, free dinners, or business favors, will go out of their way to provide support if the price is right. They will also spread any misinformation they are handed. They are part of national organizations.

Despite all the biased media, we've yet to see rural landowners bow down to their wannabe urban masters. Who do they think they're convincing with this hogwash?

1 Comment

The Hypocrisy of Virginia's Clean Economy Act

1/4/2024

0 Comments

I don’t hate clean energy. I’m all for it, if it works in an economic and equitable manner. But that’s not what’s happening. Clean energy has become a virtue signal, all talk and little action. It's just words Virginia hides behind so its citizens think it's a "clean energy" state. When the rubber meets the road however, Virginia is actually using more dirty energy than ever!

Virginia passed its Clean Economy Act in 2020. On its face, it sounds promising. It establishes a renewable portfolio standard that mandates that the two utilities in the state, Dominion Energy and Appalachian Electric Power, produce 100 percent renewable electricity by 2045 and 2050, respectively. It also established energy efficiency standards. It sounds like a great plan, but can they pull it off?

In 2023, Dominion filed its Integrated Resource Plan, or IRP. An IRP is a utility plan for how it will meet anticipated electric load, and what resources the utility will use to keep the lights on. Dominion’s plan for future resources that comply with the VCEA and meet an unprecedented annual 5-7% increase in load created by the proliferation of new data centers in Northern Virginia consists of new solar and offshore wind additions, energy storage, and thousands of megawatts of incremental small modular nuclear reactors, or SMRs in order to retire all company-owned, carbon-emitting generation by the end of 2045. Dominion also plans to construct several new gas combustion turbines to address future energy system reliability needs. But that’s not all. Dominion also needs to increase its imports of electricity from other states to more than 10,000 MW. Dominion stated that this amount of imports “raises significant concerns about system reliability and energy independence, including over-reliance on out-of-state capacity to meet customer needs.”

Considering that one good-sized fossil fuel or nuclear power generator produces around 1,000 MW, that’s at least 10 electric plants in surrounding states that would exclusively serve Virginia’s needs. Virginia’s clean economy act is coming at the expense of the clean economies of surrounding states. Virginia’s law only concerns itself with power generation in Virginia, but in doing so, it places greater burdens on the surrounding states to power Virginia's economy. Virginia has turned itself into a power parasite – crowing about its clean energy economy while ignoring the fact that it is importing more and more dirty generation from other states in order to power that economy. There is no invisible barrier that keeps emissions from surrounding states from fouling Virginia’s air. Virginia’s “clean economy” is nothing but a virtue signal, and a very expensive one at that.

Would it be cleaner for Virginia to support its own load by building enough of its own new generation to meet VCEA, instead of importing dirty energy from surrounding states? Of course it would. But it would be much more expensive. Virginia’s clean virtue only extends as far as it can raise electric rates without killing its own economy. If Virginia really got 100% of its electric supply from non-emitting sources located within the state of Virginia, electricity would be so expensive that nobody would want to live or do business there. Instead, Virginia is virtue signaling and building its own economy at the expense of surrounding states.

Recently, the Virginia State Corporation Commission rejected Dominion’s IRP because the proposed new gas turbine generators failed to meet the standards of the VCEA. Dominion must come up with a new plan that does not build any new emitting generators. At what point does Virginia’s virtue signaling end and the real work of creating an actual clean economy begin?

Something has to change. Either Virginia has to build its own clean generation to serve its ever-increasing load and actually have a clean economy, or Virginia has to stop building the data centers that are creating that load. More transmission to import fossil fuel electricity from West Virginia to meet load is not the answer.

It’s simply hypocrisy at the highest level. Virginia is not clean, despite its clean energy laws. It’s a filthy parasite feeding off the misery and ruined environments of neighboring states. At some point, those dirty plants in West Virginia will shut down. They’re getting older and more expensive to operate, and they’re getting squeezed by federal energy policy. If Virginia thinks that there will be more than 10,000 MW of generation available to import in 2045, it needs to think again. Shoving Virginia’s energy burden off onto neighboring states and thinking we won’t notice is not sustainable.

It’s up to you, Virginia. Clean or dirty? Energy freedom or filthy parasite? The choice is yours.

0 Comments

Transmission "Community Benefits" Don't Help Impacted Communities

10/24/2023

1 Comment

I've written a lot about the new pot of money the DOE was granted by Congress that is supposed to provide "benefits" to communities impacted by the construction and operation of new transmission lines.

Now here's this... a new proposal to do the exact same thing from some clueless congresscritter, and backed up by some lovely astroturf.

Protect Our Winters, a group formed to safeguard outdoor recreation from the effects of climate change, is advocating a draft bill that would increase fees on Energy Department loans for transmission lines, with the new revenues going for infrastructure projects in communities where the new lines are built.

In doing so, the group is hoping to dispel a “not in my backyard” mentality that has been common in some rural communities, where transmission lines were seen as detriments to the aesthetics of the wilderness frequented by skiers, climbers and outdoor enthusiasts.

The group’s staff, along with outdoor athletes, are seeking support for the draft they partnered on with Rep. Ann McLane Kuster, D-N.H., hoping that it will garner bicameral, bipartisan support when it’s formally introduced. The group came to Washington last week to drum up support.

First of all, who do you think paid for this D.C. party? Do you think the "athletes" paid for it out of their own pockets? I doubt it. There's someone behind this who paid for the whole party, probably a someone who would benefit financially if this legislation is passed. That's how astroturf works. The corporate interests behind the scheme fund all sorts of free parties for anyone who will participate. The participants rarely know anything about what they are "supporting", they're just there for the party to make it look as if "regular people" support the idea. Has anyone actually asked a community impacted by the construction and operation of new transmission if they would drop their "NIMBY" opposition if there was some new infrastructure somewhere nearby? Of course not, because this idea does not work! It didn't work before, and it's not going to work now. It's just a waste of money.

Do these gladhanders think that the actual people affected by new transmission won't continue to speak up for themselves and make their concerns clear? As if they can be smothered into silence by a bunch of puppets pretending they are "helping" the community?

This new legislation shouldn't even see the light of day. It has zero chance of ever being passed.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Energy has extended its deadline to apply for the current "Economic Development Grants" for communities impacted by the construction and operation of new transmission projects. Probably not because they got so many applications, more like they didn't receive any worthwhile applications and are hoping if they extend the deadline some will magically appear.

The problem with these "community benefit" bribe payments is that the "community" impacted by a new transmission line is narrow and linear. It never coincides with a traditional cluster "community." Only those persons who are forced into hosting a new transmission lines, and those living very nearby, are actually affected or impacted. This linear community doesn't need economic development and it would be impossible to site anything like that in the affected linear community. The impacted landowners are the ones who oppose new transmission and prevent projects from being built. They will not be affected one bit by the offering of community benefit bribes. They just want the transmission to go somewhere else... like buried on existing rights-of-way, such as highway or rail.

Landowners directly impacted by new transmission must receive just compensation for property taken from them to site a new transmission line. Nearby communities do not share in the compensation, and that's because they have not had something taken from them. It is outrageous to suggest that people who have made no sacrifice get paid for the sacrifice of others. There's going to be a hard day of reckoning for this at some point in the future.

So, back to the DOE mess. I asked DOE how it defines a "community affected by the construction and operation of a new transmission line." Here's the (non)answers I received:

I saw and heard many statements today that a grant project must “be connected to”, “nearby”, or “have a nexus to” a transmission project. In order to determine if applying for funding is even worthwhile, I need to have this explained.
DOE has not specifically defined a geographic distance from the project for eligibility purposes. We anticipate that each project may differ in its scope and impact, therefore we have requested that each applicant should explain how their proposed project is eligible for support under this program. In addition, please note that the merit review criteria listed in the FOA at Section V states that applications for economic development activities will be assessed in part based on, “The extent and clarity of the connection described in the Application between the proposed activities and economic development benefits in communities that are likely to be impacted by a covered transmission project.”

How will “communities that may be affected by the construction and operation of a covered transmission project” be defined for eligibility purposes? How far from the centerline of the transmission project does such a community extend?
As we anticipate that impacts may vary by project and by community, DOE has requested Applicants for Area of Interest 2 address how the project will promote economic development in areas that may be affected by the construction and operation of a covered transmission project. See Section IV.E.iii of the FOA.

What is considered an “affect” of construction and operation of the project?
For an understanding of how grants will be awarded, please refer to the merit review criteria for Area of Interest 1 (siting and permitting) and Area of Interest 2 (economic development) listed in the FOA at Section V. You may also refer to the “Standards for Application Evaluation” and “Other Selection Factors” including “Program Policy Factors” that are also referenced in Section V of the FOA.

How will an economic development grant be expected to speed up siting and permitting?
While the funds associated with an economic development grant can only be disbursed once either the siting authority has approved the covered transmission project (if the applicant is a siting authority) or construction has commenced (if the applicant is a state, local, or Tribal governmental entity other than a siting authority), DOE may select awardees for economic development grants prior to a decision to site and permit the relevant transmission project and obligate federal funds for such awardees. To the extent that the activities, if awarded, would accelerate transmission siting timelines and/or increase the chance that a transmission project would be developed, DOE will consider that as part of the established Merit Review Criteria.

DOE has no criteria to determine whether the applicant for the funds is actually "affected by the construction and operation of a transmission project" as directed by the enabling statute. DOE is simply going to make it up based on the applications it receives in order to give the money away. What's going to happen when these awards end up in court? The money is going to be clawed back, that's what, unless it is only given to "communities" affected by the construction and operation of the transmission project.

Such a complete waste of time! But that's not stopping Representative Kuster from being a good puppet and adding to this illogical give away.

Kuster, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, noted in a statement that the U.S. may need to triple energy transmission capacity by 2050 to meet the target of net-zero carbon emissions by bringing more renewable electricity generation on line.

“In order to make that a reality, we must ensure that communities where transmission projects will be built are excited to host these lines,” Kuster said. “By securing tangible benefits for the towns and cities that host these projects, like new schools, roads, or outdoor recreation facilities, in addition to improved electricity reliability, this legislation will help build support for transmission projects across the country.”

"Excited"? They're going to be so "excited" that they show up on her front lawn in the middle of the night armed with torches and pitchforks!

And you know what the best part is going to be? The "athletes" in the crowd who thought the party was such a good idea when it didn't affect them, but ended up with a new transmission line in one of the places they hold dear. NIMBY happens to everyone, as soon as the party is over.

1 Comment

The Haves And The Have Nots

9/8/2023

1 Comment

Data Centers in Northern Virginia need more power. They can't get it from local suppliers in Virginia, therefore regional grid operator PJM Interconnection has asked for new transmission proposals to import new electricity supply to serve the Northern Virginia data centers.

But why can't they build more renewables in Virginia to power the data centers, you ask? First of all, the data centers need as much electricity as a large city. Imagine taking New York City and plunking it down next to Dulles Airport and expecting to hook up to the existing electric system. The data centers use half as much as NYC! The load is just too great to solve with new renewable generators at load. This is a fact that seems to be escaping the elected officials in Virginia -- they don't realize how much electricity these data centers use.

Bates said he didn’t realize running a power line to a data center was considered a transmission line.

We all need to educate our local officials on the consequences of building energy sucking data centers in our communities. It's not just a distribution service line on small wooden poles like homes or businesses use. The power requirements are so great that data centers need big new high-voltage transmission lines and substations. They also need big new energy generators to produce the energy used.

Transmission opponent Patti Hankins from Harford County, Maryland, has put together an eye-opening presentation showing the energy supply profiles of several Mid-Atlantic states. Is your state an electricity importer or an electricity exporter? Nobody seems to be paying attention to this important fact these days, when everyone seems to be focused on increasing renewable generation and phasing out fossil fuels like coal, gas and oil. The media drones on incessantly about closing fossil fuel generators, and many people think that renewables like wind and solar supply a huge amount of our energy. What's really happening up the line when you turn on your light switch?

This presentation tells you everything you need to know.

comparison_of_pjm_state_installed_capacity_2022.pdf
File Size:	2140 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

Did you know that Pennsylvania and West Virginia are the only two states in our region that export electricity to other states? Pennsylvania's electricity is mainly created from natural gas, with coal and nuclear making up the vast majority of the remainder. In West Virginia, the numbers are even more astounding, with 91% of the supply created by burning coal. Natural gas makes up the majority of the remainder. In both Pennsylvania and West Virginia, wind and solar provide so little energy that it's hard to even see their slice of the pie.

On the other hand, states like Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia (that imports 99% of the electricity it uses!), Delaware, New Jersey and Ohio are big energy importers. These states all have renewable energy goals and policies that have served to shut down a big majority of the fossil fuel electric generators that used to supply their energy. Additions of wind and solar have not kept up with the supply lost by closing fossil fuel generators. Even in these renewable loving states, wind and solar make up a very small percentage of the power that is used. The percentage is so small that it cannot support the state's electric load under any circumstances. So, where do these states get their electricity? From West Virginia and Pennsylvania via high-voltage transmission lines. Little do these states know that when they turn on the light switch, they are using good, old-fashioned coal and natural gas. And they stand ready to INCREASE their use of fossil fuels by building more energy hogs in their areas. This is the reason PJM is currently proposing a high-voltage transmission build out of epic proportions.

The thought of building the big baseload generators needed to power the new data centers near the data centers isn't even contemplated. It would never happen! However, why is it okay to increase the burning of fossil fuels in other states in order to power new data centers? Don't we all breathe the same air? Who's the NIMBY now?

We're not as far along on a renewable energy transition as people are being told by the media. Wind and solar is getting all the attention (and government handouts), but it's actually powering little. The corporations, utilities, and local governments lie about how "clean and green" they are. If they actually only used the renewable energy they produce, their lights would be out for a vast majority of the time. Without West Virginia and Pennsylvania burning fossil fuels, polluting their environments, and sacrificing to build gigantic new electric transmission line extension cords to the east coast cities, these areas would experience rolling blackouts worse than a third-world nation.

Another lie the media loves is that we need to build new high-voltage transmission to ship renewable energy around the country. After looking at these graphs and maps, you'll realize this just can't happen. We are currently stuck in a world of HAVES and HAVE NOTS. West Virginia and Pennsylvania HAVE the electricity and Virginia, Maryland, DC, Delaware and New Jersey HAVE NOT. What's really going to be on these new transmission lines is fossil fuel electricity from states with enough to export. So while the federal government comes up with new programs and taxpayer-funded giveaways to grease the skids for new transmission, they must acknowledge that the only thing they are actually doing is INCREASING emissions.

Elected officials considering new plans for data centers and other big energy hogs that they hope will bring new tax revenue, jobs, and economic development need to recognize that their state does not have enough electricity supply to support this new infrastructure. New transmission lines from states that burn fossil fuels is not the answer. The data center boom must be paused until the localities that will reap the financial rewards can build the clean infrastructure they will need to support it.

1 Comment

Nobody Asked Me

9/7/2023

0 Comments

...and I'm betting nobody asked you either, but Big Green has now proclaimed that

If care is taken to make sure that host communities benefit in the short and long term from the energy projects in their backyards, they will be less inclined to oppose them, leading to faster timelines for clean energy and transmission projects.

Of course, this is a baseless statement. There has never been a transmission project where "communities" received so much benefit that they dropped their opposition (or never started opposition in the first place).

Nevertheless, these Big Green blowhards are courting Congress to pass more legislation greasing new transmission, wind and solar projects. And they're pretending they speak for impacted landowners. Their bold new plan has been issued as another tedious "report".

The report says the craziest stuff, like:

Community opposition to large-scale wind and solar projects is growing across the United States. There are many reasons for this trend, including misinformation about renewable energy, concerns about project impacts, and concern that most of the benefits flow outside of the community while the burdens fall within. Communities often see hosting renewable energy projects and transmission (which touches multiple communities) as an impediment to their goals, such as preserving community identity, land preservation, and in some cases ensuring ecosystem conservation. While some landowners see these projects as a potential source of revenue from leases, others worry that the projects will reduce the value of their land. Finally, in many communities, while there may be both supporters and opponents of clean energy projects, the opponents are often more vocal, better resourced, and more passionate than the supporters. Because of all these factors, an alarming number of communities are adopting restrictive zoning and land use ordinances that effectively ban the siting of clean energy projects.

This rise in opposition highlights the importance of ensuring that developers and local officials disseminate accurate information about potential projects and that the permitting process allows engagement from a broad range of voices so that decision-makers can accurately assess the environmental impacts as well as benefits of projects. Furthermore, it is important to ensure that host communities share in the benefits of projects in their own backyards.

Misinformation you say? All the misinformation is coming from project developers and proponents. Nobody trusts them because they are in hot pursuit of the almighty dollar, not local interests. The "information deficit" ploy has never worked. Minds are never changed no matter how much nonsense the developers spew. We're not stupid, uninformed bumpkins that just need to be "educated." Is this going to become a free speech issue where "misinformation" is outlawed and the developers are judge, jury and executioner of misinformation?

We're NOT better resourced than deep-pocketed developers. We're just speaking the truth. Truth still matters in rural communities.

Several states, including New York, California, Illinois, and Washington, have enacted laws that improve the siting process for large-scale renewable projects and provide potentially powerful models for similar legislation in other states. Among other things, these laws modernize the permitting process and explicitly provide benefits to host communities via mechanisms like utility bill discounts. States should be encouraged to adopt model siting and permitting laws that expand community engagement while limiting the ability of localities to unreasonably ban all wind and solar projects.

The LAST thing rural states want is to be like California or any of those other states. We live here for a reason... because it's NOT California.

But the best part of this idiotic paragraph is the statement that we can EXPAND community engagement while LIMITING the actions the communities can take. That's not engaging the communities... it's oppression.

Bringing communities from opposition to support—or at least to open-mindedness—is a major challenge to renewable energy growth that needs sustained effort, engagement, and thought. Our recommendations provide a starting point.

And also an ending point because rural communities aren't going to fall for any of your B.S. It is IMPOSSIBLE to undo opposition to big energy projects that benefit far away cities. Build your own power plant in your own backyard, you sanctimonious morons.

Coalitions should work together to build support for well-sited projects that benefit the host community. In cases where developers have done their due diligence as outlined in the preceding recommendations, environmental and conservation groups, labor groups, local landowners and businesses, and other stakeholders—including, where relevant, environmental justice and tribal groups—should form coalitions and work together to support the project. A key part of this support should be highlighting the community benefit agreements, payments in lieu of taxes or other mechanisms for benefit sharing, the creation of local jobs, and addressing other ways to compensate local landowners for any perceived or actual diminution in property values.

Coalitions of the unaffected? Utilities have been trying this for decades without success. These coalitions have always been outed for the greedy, paid off schills that they are. We don't need these idiots to advocate for "benefits" for us because these "benefits" are really for them. There is no benefit that can outweigh having a new transmission line in your back yard or across your prime farmland. What these coalitions actually try to do is simply outshout community opposition and collect benefits for themselves. It's a tactic that never works. Regulators aren't stupid, you know, and they've seen this a thousand times.

This new report is complete garbage. However it has now been made crystal clear exactly which idiots are writing all the new clean energy legislation. It's not your elected representatives. It's private interests.

0 Comments

Fits of Fantasy

7/19/2023

0 Comments

I think the phrase is actually flights of fantasy, but... well, you'll see.

Data centers. Have you ever really thought about them when you're poking around online and the world is at your fingertips? Probably not, but we have to have a place to store all our big data that we just can't seem to part with. We're full-blown digital hoarders.

Data centers use a huge amount of electricity, and they must have a steady supply 24/7, 365. Data centers depend on enormous backup generators (that run of fossil fuels) in the event of a power outage. Data centers require on demand, reliable power.

But this industry fit of fantasy proclaims that we can run data centers on 100% renewable power. No, we can't. We don't have the technology to produce on-demand supplies of electricity from 100% renewable generators. Wind and solar only run part of the time, when their fuel is made available by Mother Nature. A data center that relies 100% on wind and solar will 100% use its backup generators for at least 50% of the time. And doesn't that defeat the purpose of "clean energy" in the first place?

The fit of fantasy examines several data center clusters in the U.S., including the nation's largest data center market in Northern Virginia. Northern Virginia data centers operate on 94% fossil fuel electricity. 94%!!!! That's the type of power needed to power a 24/7 365 power hog like data centers.

But, never fear, this fit of fantasy thinks the problem can be solved by building new transmission. I'm going to guess the author hasn't bothered to examine PJM's recent competitive solicitation for new transmission projects to solve the issue of powering Northern Virginia's data center power suck. It looks like this.

One proposed solution simply imports more fossil fuel electricity from the Ohio Valley. That's sure to speed the "transition" (to 100% fossil fuel power). Other solutions pump fossil fuel electricity in from Pennsylvania. It's all about importing more fossil fuel electricity instead of building reliable renewable generators near the load. That's because, first of all, PJM can only order transmission, not generation, and second wind and solar cannot supply reliable power that will run a data center 24/7 365.

Where's the disconnect?

The superficial examination of how easy it will be to build new transmission is where this fantasy starts having fits.

Plans to transition U.S. data centers to renewable energy power sources are impeded by current utility transmission infrastructure. The main problems are outdated power lines, delays in planning and permitting for new transmission and distribution projects and supply chain bottlenecks. Upgrading existing transmission lines can take as long as three years, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, due to time-consuming regulatory hurdles, resulting in multi-million-dollar costs.

An electric line is just an empty extension cord, not plugged in to anything. Unplugged extension cords do not produce electricity. What you need is another plug -- a reliable generator on site. Having extra extension cords won't produce power if there's no place to plug them in. Not having enough extension cords is not the problem. "Time consuming regulatory hurdles" is something this author doesn't know anything about. There are no hurdles for simple rebuilds on existing rights-of-way. More extension cords are not the answer.

Upgrading power transmission infrastructure to accommodate renewable energy sources is a top priority for utility companies. Recently adopted federal legislation provides $2.5 billion in public funding for this effort. Additionally, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) plans to study and address these ongoing issues. Utility companies are cooperating with regulators, city officials, operators and developers throughout the U.S. to improve connectivity.

Do you have any idea how much "power transmission infrastructure" costs? A good sized transmission project that connects renewable energy resources easily costs MORE THAN $2.5 billion. Qu'est-ce que "public funding"? There's no such thing. What they meant to say is TAXPAYER FUNDING by people like you. This legislation won't do anything but complicate things. How many times has the federal government run to the rescue with handfuls of cash and solved a problem efficiently and cheaply? FERC plans to study and address them? How? Do tell! I'm betting you don't even have a ghost of an idea.

This report highlights select regional data center markets that are working to advance renewable energy power availability and solve transmission and distribution issues. These markets all depend on local renewable energy sources and are at the forefront of a transition necessary for the data center industry to grow on a sustainable basis.

WTH? These markets depend on local renewable energy sources? Where are they going to put millions of acres of solar panels and wind turbines in crowded Northern Virginia when every square inch of available real estate is covered with data centers, warehouses, and urban sprawl? What you're depending on is faked "plans" by utilities checking the politically correct boxes while raking in a huge pile of money. Dominion doesn't give a fig about the environment, or your data center. It only loves money. Dominion will say or do anything, even if it knows what it is saying is impossible, as long as foolish data center companies enable bigger profits for Dominion.

The data center industry cannot grow on a sustainable basis unless they starting building nuclear plants inside the data centers.

Fits of fantasy. No matter how much fiction you write, you cannot force it into being.

0 Comments

Pot Calls Kettle Black in Ironic Twist

6/30/2023

1 Comment

Hit it, Alanis...

Clean energy and environmental justice saints are pointing the finger at natural gas companies for ghostwriting letters of support for their project that were signed by local big wigs.

Isn't it ironic? These very same groups also engage in a little astroturfing of their own. I am always coming across form letters in FERC dockets orchestrated by environmental and social justice groups that are indisputably form letters, such as this letter of support signed by 17,923 clueless petition signatories or these 10,905 form letters submitted by the National Wildlife Federation. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

It seems like the sanctimonious blowhards didn't have much trouble getting biased media to point fingers and make it seem like gathering letters of support are something new.

Shopping around "letters of support" for an energy project (or a FERC rulemaking) has been going on for decades. There's no law against it. It's just plain, old annoying and it's not fooling any regulators at this point. Why do they continue doing it? Because energy companies are like vintage Titanics, sailing along on yesterday's public relations schemes.

Perhaps the opposition groups are just ticked off that the gas company was able to get the signatures of more important people than they were. Really, none of it matters. Form letters are never read past the first one. Nobody cares. They don't even keep little score sheets of the number of comments for or against. It's complete nonsense.

However, shopping around form letters does become a problem when the company uses public or ratepayer funds to pay for its public relations schemes. I don't see where these whiners even bothered to investigate whether that's happening in this instance. Why do any hard work when the media eats up your BFD allegations?

Of course it's annoying when the opposite side uses underhanded tricks to drum up fake support for their position.

“I think that really, really rankles people here in Port Isabel, to see somebody from another city writing a letter saying, ‘hey, you know what? You ought to hurry up and put this polluting, dangerous facility in somebody else's town,’” Port Isabel City Manager Jared Hockema told TPR.

And a particularly bitter pill to swallow when that support comes from unaffected individuals that may have had their hands out for some quid pro quo. It's not uncommon for the company to offer some "donations" or "campaign contributions" or other one hand washes the other kind of "help" in exchange for letters or public comments of support. When they can't build support honestly, they buy it.

How would these folks like it if the ghostwritten letters and handfuls of cash were coming from the federal government instead of the private sector? Congress has unwisely set aside a $760M pot of taxpayer money to fund "economic development" and "grant" payments to "communities" affected by new electric transmission projects. Nevermind the fact that transmission is a linear project whose "community" is linear, the government is eager to dole out your tax money to some other town to pay for your misery living with a transmission line on your property. The only thing these other towns must do is make sure the project gets approved.

I suppose they'll sign some ghostwritten letters.

1 Comment

Big Transmission Needs Big Propaganda

6/28/2023

0 Comments

The climate change religious freaks were wrong that we could power our country completely on renewable energy. Our electricity system has become increasingly unreliable and energy shortages are a "when", not an "if," because we closed too many fossil fuel generators that can run at peak when needed. Oops. But in order to cover up that lie, they have made up a new one. They purport that if we only triple the amount of electric transmission in this country that we could reliably power our entire country with only renewable sources of energy.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me! I'm done listening to the climate change preaching because it's become increasingly clear that it is nothing but a control method thought up by a bunch of people who know nothing about electricity. Spending trillions (that's with a "t") on new electric transmission lines won't make renewables reliable. It will just compound the problem and turn electricity into a commodity only obtainable by the elite. See how that works? It's all about control.

And how do you control the people? Propaganda. If you say something often enough, then it becomes fact in the minds of the unenlightened. We are currently awash in Big Transmission propaganda. Only if we build an unobtainable amount of transmission before 2030 can we meet Grandpa Joe's climate change goals (as if that old fart is any more than a puppet being controlled by Big Green). Big Media is stupidly repeating big lies because they think that makes them "smart." They are currently pretending that the age of some transmission components is the reason most of the country is expected to experience blackouts, instead of the fact that we have closed too many peaking dependable generators. Did they not even read the report they are "reporting" on? They also like to pretend "the energy grid" is responsible for the potential blackouts. Do they really think transmission lines are the problem? Or are they just so exceptionally stupid that they think electricity is produced by the wires?

Take a look at this week's Big Propaganda from the inaptly named "Energy Intelligence." Snicker, giggle, haw haw. We're supposed to believe that "red tape" is the reason we can't have renewable energy. This piece is brimming over with mind control.

It complains that every wind and solar project cannot connect to the existing transmission system quickly and cheaply. There's a reason for that, and it's not what they think. We designed our system of generators and transmission lines for efficiency, not source of energy. The system is designed to make the generator pay for its own connection to the system. After all, the generator is the one who is going to make money selling power at that connection. There is no other magic pool of money to pay for connection. If the generator does not pay, then all the electric customers pay (even ones that won't use that generator). That's not fair. Another reason for making the generator pay for its own connection is to encourage efficient siting of new generators. We should build the most cost effective generators in order to keep electric rates low. Making the generator pay to connect forces them to site their plant efficiently. They would not build a coal plant in Lower Slobovia because connecting it to the system would be way too expensive. They would build it in Upper Slobovia instead because the transmission system is closer and stronger there. Fuel source is not a consideration. If we instead build generators using fuel source as the only consideration, then the connections get really expensive. Whining about that is a way to attempt to shift the cost of inefficient generator siting to electric consumers, even though the renewable generator is literally generating buckets of taxpayer dollars from thin air. Heaven forbid they have to use a little of your gold to pay for their own connection!

There's a huge interconnection backlog because renewable developers take multiple spots for the same generator, hoping to find the cheapest connection. A huge percentage of projects in the queue (80%) never get built because greedy developers are clogging queues with speculative connection requests. Those projects were never real to begin with. It's just developer gaming.

NO, we will not shoulder more cost burden so renewable developers (many of them foreign corporations) can connect anywhere it's cheap and easy to build in order to increase the amount of taxpayer dollars they walk away with.

Somehow, Big Wind + Big Solar + Big Transmission are "choked by regulation", but yet we need MORE regulation on fossil fuel energy systems? Are they really saying that we should let an invasive industry do whatever it wants?

This OpEd makes regional transmission operators/independent system operators (RTO/ISO) look like nothing but utility cartels that somehow got control of the electric system. While incumbent utilities have made up the majority of the organization memberships for decades, there's nothing stopping Big Wind + Big Solar + Big Transmission from participating, except for the fact that they're not really needed for any reliability or economic purposes and therefore would not be ordered by the RTO. Merchant generators and transmission cannot shift their costs to captive ratepayers without an RTO order. Seems fair enough, with the federal government tilting the playing field to favor renewables and whatever they want by showering them with out tax dollars and giving preference to generation source (something they claimed they would/could not do for years). No need to be coy any longer. Renewables get special favors and the power houses that keep the grid from crashing get financially starved until they close. We're headed for disaster here.

But, pushing regulated utilities aside in favor of "independent" generators and transmission developers isn't the solution either. "Independent" energy companies are often market-based merchants that escape regulation. Merchant transmission lines are not the answer because today's merchant is not accepting any financial risk and not negotiating its rates in a free market. Today's merchant wants government loan guarantees, transmission tax credits, and guaranteed customers so it has no financial risk at all. When that happens, it is no longer a merchant project, but one that is being involuntarily supported by taxpayers who will never use it. A merchant transmission project also escapes regulation and scrutiny of need for it in the first place. Want to make a bunch of money? Propose a "merchant" transmission line that might be profitable if utilities use it, then leave the government holding the bag when the project fails.

So what if incumbent utilities get right of first refusal to build new transmission? It's not like merchant transmission serving renewable generators can even compete. Apples and oranges. Only needed transmission is planned and ordered by regional organizations, and charged to captive ratepayers. Merchant transmission is not needed, it's optional, therefore it has to pay its own costs and shoulder all the financial risk. The propagandists are trying to change this paradigm to independently find merchant transmission "needed" outside the regional organization process, and then shift cost responsibility and risk to consumers and/or taxpayers. If that happens, why even have regional transmission organizations and reliability organizations? Why have any organization or regulation of the grid? Why not just let private investors build what they want and hope the lights stay on? Because they wouldn't, not without reliability organizations and independent transmission planners. Electricity would become a commodity available only to the rich, who can afford their own private systems. How far will they go to try to control the rest of us?

“We’re on the verge of energy abundance and independence if we can just get the energy from where it’s made to where it’s needed,” said Colorado Sen. John Hickenlooper who co-sponsored a bill that would establish a minimum-transfer requirement for regions to be able to transfer at least 30% of their peak electrical loads with other regions. “Show me a new power project in this country and I’ll show you red tape and haphazard grid planning holding us back.” Democrats pushed to have the bill included in the debt ceiling deal but Republican opposition prevented it.

The only thing Hickenlooper can show is his stupidity. He can't do what he pretends to do because he is stupid about how electricity works.

All these private entity, bought and paid for, politically-biased "studies" about the grid and what the grid needs are simply not enough to plan and operate a fair, balanced, cost effective electric system in the public interest. They only encourage failing projects like Grain Belt Express. In exchange for little to no regulation, including no evaluation of need for the project, transmission merchants agree to shoulder all risk and cost of the transmission project. But yet Invenergy is whining that it should not have to hold up its end of the bargain.

Often, transmission projects fall by the wayside because of the capital required upfront and the logistics of tying together buyers and sellers in regional marketplaces with different rules and processes. “If you’re going to inject power you have to put money down ahead of time for system upgrades. Independent developers are asked to say yes or no on those down payments before having firm interconnection permissions and timeline certainty from grid operators,” said Rob Taylor, director of transmission at Chicago-based Invenergy. “Our request is to standardize the processes, timelines and definitions so you can have a level playing field."
Invenergy’s Grain Belt Express transmission project, the highest-capacity line in development in the US, will connect four states across 800 miles, taking mostly wind from Kansas (in the Southwest Power Pool) and delivering it into MISO and PJM, the ISO/RTO covering much of the northeast. With a capacity of 5 GW, the proposed project will use HVDC technology. Since Invenergy acquired the project in 2020, it has progressed through key state approvals, with one remaining approval expected at the end of August. Assuming full construction starts at the end of 2024, the project will have been in the works for over a dozen years.

Well, well... you expect approval? Why is that? Did you put money down on it? If you don't like having to put up money and accept risk, then abandon the merchant transmission model and bid on one of the regionally planned and transmission projects ordered by an RTO.

The more electricity issues infiltrate main stream media, the dumber the story gets.

0 Comments

Whoever controls the power has the power

5/25/2023

1 Comment

I've been around since before clean energy was cool. Does that make me a dinosaur? Maybe, but it also gives me perspective.

Let's dial it back to 2008 or so. Clean energy was a dream, a wish, and a lot of people didn't believe in climate change because they were allowed to think free thoughts. Believe it or not, this was in the time before climate change became a new religion. Like a lot of people back then, I thought clean energy might be a good idea. Of course, back then it consisted of ideas like energy efficiency, distributed generation, and a very limited amount of wind energy. Solar was something you put on your own roof to reduce your energy costs and provide power during outages... if the sun was shining. Clean Energy was local.

But even at that time, there were rumblings from people who lived near small wind turbine installations complaining that they hated them. They were noisy and they decimated birds and bats. We should have listened back then...

However, the political winds soon changed direction and clean energy got a little bolder, and much better funded. Suddenly, wind turbines were the place to be to shovel tax dollar into your pocket as fast the blades spun. Big Wind was born, and it was HUNGRY! It proceeded to cover vast portions of the Midwest, where farmers were told they could farm around them and collect a huge windfall, pardon the pun. Some fell for it and were instantly sorry. Others fell for it but moved away with their windfall because who needs to do the hard work of farming when you can sit on the porch and watch the turbines spin? Of course, sitting on THAT porch was no longer pleasant, so they rented their farmland and moved elsewhere.

This is the moment in time when Big Wind got all chummy with Big Green. Suddenly, public interest groups like Sierra Club and Earth Justice were living just a little better with generous grant funding from clean energy foundations and other important donors. And these public interest groups soon stopped talking about energy efficiency, distributed generation, and local solutions and started talking about wind "farms", tax credits, and a completely contrived non-product, "Renewable Energy Certificates." A REC is defined as "the environmental and social attributes of clean energy generation." As if an electron can be separated from its attributes. RECs aren't real. The attributes go with the electron. Whoever uses the electron gets the attributes. You can't sell those separately to another user. But, yes they did. Something was starting to stink.

Big Wind said it needed lots of government funding and tax breaks. It said they could power our entire country with their wonderful new generators. If they overbuilt them to a mind-boggling degree, then they would always be producing the power we needed somewhere. So our government gave them all the funding they wanted. Big Wind, Big Green and Big Government declared fossil fuel dead.

So they built way too many wind "farms" in certain areas, but not anywhere near where the important elite people lived. Those people were fortunate enough to beat them back with political pressure and fat wallets. It's the regular folks who got saddled with them.

Except wind turbines are not reliable. They only produce energy when nature provides the fuel. And it soon became apparent that we could not power our country with just one source for electricity that was not reliable all the time.

Enter Big Solar. The collective Bigs (wind, solar, green and government) said we could reliably power our entire country if they could also build a massive amount of solar "farms". So the government funded those as well and the energy companies proliferated and began to build solar on every piece of farmland they could lease. People began to hate them as much (or more) than wind turbines. Solar is quiet, they said. Solar has no moving parts. Solar is cheap if we import the panels from China. They told us that if we had lots of wind turbines and solar panels that we could power our entire country with them. They insisted if we had enough solar and wind, something would always be generating enough power to supply our needs.

Except solar isn't reliable. It only produces energy when nature provides the fuel. Vast regions, such as the Midwest, that covered their ground with wind and solar soon began to have reliability issues. It was feast or famine -- too much wind and solar, or not enough, depending on weather. Storage was not a practical or economic solution. It soon became apparent that even with a huge amount of wind and solar, it just wasn't true that something was always generating enough power to serve the region.

Meanwhile, due to all the government subsidies, wind and solar became the cheapest power available. Because the cost of producing it was funded by the government, these generators could bid into regional markets at low cost, maybe even zero. How about that? Some "free" power courtesy of trillions of your tax dollars! Except that's not really how markets work. Generators bid in and the bids are stacked in price order. Beginning at the lowest cost, the market buys available resources in order. When the need is covered, the buying stops. The highest price paid is then paid to every generator in the stack. So, even if a resource is bid at zero, it ends up earning the top clearing price. But, back on topic. Because reliable generators like gas, nuclear, coal that can run when we need them have an actual, unsubsidized cost, they cannot bid in at zero. Therefore, they are higher in the cost stack. Some are just priced out of the market. If you're too expensive to compete, you make no revenue. No revenue means you are out of business. So, the coal, gas, and nuclear plants began to close. And the Bigs crowed about how many "dirty" power plants they had closed and how wonderful everything was.

But wait... big wind and solar are not reliable all the time and without those "dirty" plants to back them up, we started to have reliability problems that could tank the whole wind and solar scheme. So they told another lie to prop up the first two.

Suddenly, we need a whole bunch of new electric transmission lines so that wind and solar can be shipped to other regions of the country. Certainly if they could spread their failure over an even bigger area from coast to coast, their other lies about wind and solar being able to produce reliable power when needed would finally pan out. Now that reliability issues have surfaced and continue to expand every year, they blame it on "extreme" weather caused by climate change, and not on reality: there are not enough "dirty" plants to back up wind and solar. Wind and solar cannot supply reliable power for our nation without a huge amount of back up nuclear, gas or coal-fired power plants. Reliability issues are incorrectly blamed on the weather and climate change.

Building an enormous amount of solar, wind and transmission isn't going to change the weather. See how that circular argument goes? Clean energy causes reliability problems but that's only because the weather is extreme because of climate change. If we just keep building wind and solar, we can change the climate and stop extreme weather and then clean energy will be reliable. Ya know, I think your arrogance has gone to your head. You can't change the weather. It's not "extreme" due to climate change. That's just one more lie from the Bigs.

If we continue down the path where clean energy needs new transmission subsidies, what's next? Big transmission isn't going to solve our problems. It's just going to make the failure and reliability issues even bigger. Big transmission is just another lie, meant to prop up the earlier lies of Big Solar, Big Wind and Big Green. But it is a series of lies that our current Big Government supports in its quest for power.

Whoever controls the power has the power.

It's time to stop. I don't believe the lies anymore. Bring back the local solutions.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!

1 Comment

<<Previous

Forward>>

Landowners Are Not a Problem That Needs Solving

More Media Propaganda

The Hypocrisy of Virginia's Clean Economy Act

Transmission "Community Benefits" Don't Help Impacted Communities

The Haves And The Have Nots

Nobody Asked Me

Fits of Fantasy

Pot Calls Kettle Black in Ironic Twist

Big Transmission Needs Big Propaganda

Whoever controls the power has the power

About the Author

About
StopPATH Blog

Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
Email me

Archives

Categories

About the Author

AboutStopPATH Blog

Archives

Categories

About
StopPATH Blog