Category:

Just Say NO To Utility Representatives Sneaking Around Jefferson County

4/16/2025

We've had multiple reports recently that FirstEnergy (possibly masquerading as your local electric company, Potomac Edison) has been sneaking around Jefferson County, knocking on doors and trying to get landowners to sign permission forms allowing the utility to perform its "surveys" outside the existing easement, on the landowner's property instead. It has also been reported that people are being approached by telephone.

One person even reported that the utility representative said the company would be seeking to expand its easement and he would be delivering an offer soon.

Just say NO!

You are not required to permit the company on your property... and that is why they need your permission to do it. Don't give away your property rights like that!

What's a survey? In addition to the normal metes and bounds survey you're probably thinking about, transmission developers also want to do environmental, historic, cultural, and geotechnical surveys. The environmental surveys are looking for the presence of certain bats, or turtles, or other endangered species. They are also looking for wetlands and other land features. They are looking for historic resources. They want to dig and perform archeological surveys. And they want to bring large equipment on your property and drill core samples to see if it's possible to anchor a giant transmission tower foundation 30 feet down. Sometimes, they need to cut trees and vegetation to get a line of sight (or so they've told the landowner). If you want to open your property up to a parade of people using it for transmission development surveys, then go ahead and sign their form. Otherwise, tell them to get lost and come back when they have a permit from the West Virginia Public Service Commission (WV PSC) in their hand.

FirstEnergy does NOT have a permit from the WV PSC at this time. In fact, FirstEnergy has not yet even applied for a permit. In order to apply for a permit, the company is required to undertake community engagement (dissemination of project information to the public such as meetings, routes and maps, newspaper articles, a website, informational mailers). FirstEnergy hasn't even done that yet. Instead, it wants to divide and conquer landowners, keep them isolated and uninformed, and get them to sign away their rights for pennies on the dollar.

Why is FirstEnergy so afraid of us? Because last time they tried to build an unneeded transmission line here, they lost! There's power in numbers and information sharing between neighbors. There's power in grassroots community opposition, and we need to circle the wagons to keep our community safe. Don't let FirstEnergy's representatives cut you from the herd and isolate you from your neighbors. Tell them to stop calling and/or get off your property until they have a permit to build their transmission line from the WV PSC.

There's a rhythm to planning and building a new (or even re-built) transmission project. The FIRST thing the utility usually does in your local community is schmooze your local elected officials and try to get them on their side. That ship has sailed here in Jefferson -- we beat them to the County Commission and FirstEnergy has provided absolutely ZERO information to our local government.

The SECOND thing the utility usually does is to schedule what it calls "Open House" public information "meetings." They really think one trip around this room is all it takes to turn you from transmission skeptic to transmission advocate!

FirstEnergy has not announced any public meetings yet. In fact, there's no indication that it ever will happen at all. It seems FirstEnergy has skipped some steps because contacting landowners and asking for permission to survey typically comes AFTER these meetings, the publication of a website, news articles, and community notification through postcards or other mailers.

What kind of dirty deeds and misinformation is FirstEnergy spreading in our community that can't stand the sunlight of public scrutiny?

Over the years, I've assisted communities on so many transmission projects that I've come to know the "utility playbook" for ramming a new transmission project through a resistant community by heart. However, it seems the utility has updated their playbook lately, and I'm gonna call it "Utility Playbook - Desperation Volume 2.0". The new volume dispenses with public information and preys on landowners (that's right, I said PREYS) to get then to sign away their rights before they have necessary information to make a reasoned decision.

There's another community to our north in Pennsylvania that seems to be experiencing an identical transmission project information desert populated by the same shady characters approaching landowners and saying the most outrageous things, such as:

“People are trying to take approximately 5 acres of my property and giving me absolutely no information,” she said. “They’ve called me, and they want to do a survey, but they won’t give me any information.”

Sound familiar? Or, how about this?

“(PPL) was asking if (residents) would sign a document and if they didn’t sign the document, they couldn’t tell them about the project, I’m being told,” Walsh said. “Other people were being offered crazy low value for property.”
He said at least 10 people told him of instances like this....

Enticement to sign away your rights to get information? That's plainly criminal.

FirstEnergy needs to pull its camel nose out from under the wall of Jefferson County's tent. We're not stupid, and we're not for sale. Creating an information desert is about the stupidest stunt they could perform. They must have signed with Charles Ryan again to get such stellar advice! I know how much FirstEnergy loves to read my blog, so here's a word to the wise. GET BUSY WITH THE INFORMATION. THE LONGER YOU WAIT, THE WORSE IT'S GOING TO BE.

And while we're waiting... let's hold our own informational meeting for the community! Everyone is welcome to join us on April 29 at 7:00 p.m.! FirstEnergy spies at the meeting will be separated from the herd and given last year's Halloween candy and bottled water from Jefferson County's underground pollution plume. I can spot you guys a mile away. Dork has a certain fashion sense that's impossible to hide. See you there, everyone!

1 Comment

Valley Link Transmission Files for Incentives and Formula Rate at FERC

3/18/2025

0 Comments

On Friday, Valley Link Transmission filed at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for approval of a formula rate to collect their costs from ratepayers, along with a request to set a Return on Equity (ROE) and additional financial incentives. They're wasting no time trying to ram their transmission projects through and make a ton of money doing it.

Applying for CPCN/CCNs from the Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia state commissions is a threshold step for Valley Link during the pre-construction phase, because obtaining CPCN/CCNs will improve Valley Link’s ability to secure the needed land rights to support the Project Portfolio. Because the PJM Board only recently approved the Valley Link Portfolio Project on February 26, 2025, Valley Link has not yet initiated the CPCN/CCN process. Valley Link faces significant time pressure to initiate the CPCN/CCN process within the next few months because CPCN/CCN proceedings in these states can be lengthy.

That's right, Valley Link wants to file its state permitting applications within the next few months, even though we've been waiting 18 months for FirstEnergy to take any interest whatsoever in building their section of the 500kV MARL project in Jefferson County. They're in an awful hurry on Valley Link and landowners and communities are going to be mowed down if they can't keep up.

"Valley Link is committed to collaborating with residents, local governments and other stakeholders in the project communities at every stage of the process."

Well, except this stage. Valley Link doesn't want you to "collaborate" on their request for FERC incentives or in their rate process. All the more reason to do it!

Your first task? Valley Link's 1500 page rate/incentive filing. Go ahead, take a look. I hope you understand FERCish. You don't? Fortunately, I do so here's a summary of the important points included in this filing. You are encouraged to intervene and/or file a comment on this proceeding. Deadline to do so is April 4.

Valley Link is a 765kV transmission project proposed to connect the John Amos coal-fired power station in Putnam County, WV to Loudoun County's "data center alley." It will cross 14 counties in West Virginia on its way, including Jefferson. It will require a new 200-foot wide right-of-way for its entire length. In Jefferson County it is proposed to expand the existing transmission line corridor through the southern part of the county and add a third transmission line to the existing configuration that is surrounded by hundreds of existing homes, schools, businesses, parks, historic resources and even our national parks!

Valley Link's filing asks FERC to grant financial incentives to the project and set up the rate it will use to collect its costs from captive electric customers across the PJM region.

First, let's examine the incentives Valley Link has requested. In order to qualify for incentives, the transmission line must be the product of a fair and open transmission planning process. Competition is an important and required part of this process so that consumer costs may be reduced through competitive cost concessions. Except there were no such concessions for Valley Link. They not only bid their projects in at full price, they also did not include any cost caps. Consumers will pay whatever it costs to build these projects, even though the initial "competitive" bid may have been much lower. The sky's the limit! The idea of competitive transmission is that it allows incumbents and non-incumbents to compete on a level playing field to construct the most cost-effective project. Incumbents hate it because they'd rather not compete at all, and instead be awarded all new transmission in their territory at whatever price they want to charge. For years after FERC's Order 1000 required competitive transmission windows, incumbents simply declined to participate in region-wide competitive planning, preferring instead to concentrate on smaller projects in their own territory. PJM's 2022 Window 3 competitive planning process actually allowed several non-incumbent companies to offer cost caps and financial concessions that actually saved ratepayers money, and those projects were selected, much to the chagrin of the incumbents. But they weren't about to be fooled again, so they created an incumbent cartel and agreed not to compete with each other so that none of them had to make any financial concessions. If they didn't compete with each other, they could create ostensibly "joint" projects that shut out all competitors and took control of PJM's Planning Process. And that's how we got Valley Link's $3B project portfolio, with no limit on how much these projects might eventually cost. Who does that? PJM ought to be ashamed of itself! Valley Link Transmission was not the result of a fair, open and competitive planning process.

Financial incentives for transmission must be rationally tailored to a project's risks and challenges. "Rational" has long ago left the incentives building... it's nothing but a free buffet where utilities gorge themselves on ratepayer cash. That's right, ratepayers fund all these financial "extras" that encourage transmission developers to build "much needed" projects. Except if you attended any of the PJM meetings, you know that these developers are beating each other down to get awarded these projects. And that's precisely because they want to gorge on the unnecessary incentives. Even if FERC stopped offering these incentives tomorrow, these companies would *still* be falling all over themselves to build new projects. Incentives are a give away that is not needed to encourage new transmission.

These are the individual incentives Valley Link has requested, with a brief explanation of each:

Recovery of 100% of prudently incurred costs in the event that all or part of the Project Portfolio must be abandoned for reasons outside the control of Valley Link (“Abandoned Plant Incentive”)

This means that Valley Link is guaranteed to be able to collect ALL its prudent project costs from ratepayers if the project is cancelled. Essentially, ratepayers are providing insurance for the project's success. If it fails, then the utilities can't lose. Only ratepayers can lose. In the case of the failed Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) project, ratepayers ended up spending more than $250M on a cancelled project that never put a shovel to the ground. This is outrageous! Utilities must have some skin in the game and accept some of the risk that they are being rewarded for through incentives.

Inclusion of 100% of construction work in progress (“CWIP”) in rate base during the development and construction of the Project Portfolio (“CWIP Incentive”)

This means that Valley Link will be able to collect a return (interest) on the amount of money it has spent to construct the project while it is building the project. It begins collecting money from ratepayers as soon as FERC approves the incentive, although the project may not actually be built and serving ratepayers for many years. It makes ratepayers responsible for paying for projects that are not being used, and haven't even been finished yet. Ratepayers are being used as the utility's "bank" to pay the companies while they are building.

Recovery of pre-commercial costs through establishment of a regulatory asset that will include all expenses, including expenses incurred prior to the filing of this application, that are incurred prior to the time costs first flow through to Valley Link customers under the PJM Tariff, including authorization to accrue monthly carrying charges (“Pre-Commercial Incentive”)

This means that Valley Link can put all its costs from its first idea to make a "joint project" through the time its formula rate is approved into a regulatory asset and collect them from customers in the future. It's a way to retroactively open the money spigots so that ratepayers pay Valley Link's costs to compete at PJM as well as their costs to create their fake shell company, and ask for incentives and a formula rate. It makes sure that the utility never has to spend a dime of its own money on this project.

Inclusion of a 50 basis point return on equity (“ROE”) adder for Valley Link’s participation as a new member in a Regional Transmission Organization (“RTO”) (“RTO Participation Adder”).

This means that Valley Link's Return on Equity (ROE) will be raised one half of one percent because its "joint venture" will be a separate new member of PJM. Keep in mind that each one of these three joint venture companies (FirstEnergy, Dominion, and Transource) is an existing member of PJM and collecting their own RTO Participation Adder. But because they formed a new fake shell company, they can pretend to be "new" and collect again. This is also outrageous. It's not a new entity, and it would only encourage utilities to keep creating new shell companies in order to receive financial reward.

Valley Link says it needs incentives to reduce "risk" for its project. What risk is that? Valley Link speaks out of both sides of its mouth. First they say this: "Valley Link Transmission’s joint venture structure allows the Participants to combine their diverse experience and knowledge to successfully develop projects of significant size and scope, while sharing the risks of such projects. The geographic and financial scale of new competitive transmission projects sought by PJM in the RTEP process in recent years lends itself to this structure to adequately manage the risks associated with infrastructure projects of this scale." Somehow the joint non-competitive project was able to "manage risk" but yet on the other hand, the project is just so risky that it needs a bunch of financial incentives. "Valley Link will
face significant permitting, siting, construction, procurement, and financial risks that present challenges to developing and constructing the Project Portfolio." So, which is it? Is Valley Link risky or not? It can't be both!

Of course, Valley Link plans to lower its risk that you're going to go all torches and pitchforks on them by "collaborating" with you. Of course, that "collaborating" doesn't mean they will make any adjustments to their plan or anything like that... they just want to pretend they're considering your ideas while they laugh at you behind your back.

Valley Link is committed to collaborating with residents, local governments and other stakeholders in the project communities at every stage of the process. Community engagement is crucial for making informed decisions that reduce or prevent potential impacts while delivering for the public essential infrastructure necessary to address large-scale reliability needs that the PJM grid faces both in the short term and for years to come.

Valley Link also requests three identical new formula rates, one for each of its state-specific sub-companies (it's like Russian nesting dolls). A formula rate is a set of calculations that devise a yearly revenue requirement for each company. It includes O&M, A&G, taxes, and return (interest) on capital expenses that are paid for over the project's useful life (approximately 40 years) as these assets slowly depreciate because we pay for them. I've long since given up trying to explain formula rates to people who don't understand them, but let's just say it's extremely complicated. If you don't believe me, take a look at the proposed formula rates in the filing. I will sum it up by sharing that we pay for transmission much the same way we pay for a home using a 30 year mortgage. While the bank loans us the cash to purchase the home, we will pay much more than we ever borrowed over that 30 years because the interest is calculated monthly. We slowly pay the bank back, and they earn a huge profit over 30 years. It works the same way with transmission, except the utility is "the bank" and the transmission line is our house that we have to pay for over 40 years, with interest calculated every year on the remaining unpaid balance.

And speaking of interest... Valley Link has requested a base ROE of 10.9%. But they're not stopping there... they are also requesting .5% for their new membership in PJM (see above). Total Return on Equity for this project is proposed at 11.4%. That means Valley Link would earn 11.4% on the unpaid project balance every year for 40 years. Do you earn 11.4% on your investments? Probably not. Transmission ROEs are already incredibly generous.

The important thing to think about with the formula rate is transparency so that we can check the utility's math from time to time to make sure they are doing it correctly. Valley Link's formula rate is not transparent and leaves certain terms undefined. That's probably because of this. However, lack of transparency is not just and reasonable and FERC cannot approve a formula rate that is not just and reasonable.

And I think I'll stop there. If you have any additional questions after reading the filing, I'd be happy to help.

So, let's sum it up:

FERC should not grant transmission incentives to Valley Link because Valley Link was not part of a transparent and competitive transmission planning process.

FERC should not grant the costly transmission abandonment incentive to Valley Link because the project has not been found needed by any state where the public may actually participate in the decision making.

FERC should not grant the CWIP in Ratebase incentive because that starts the money flowing out of ratepayer pockets before any state has approved it.

FERC should not grant the RTO Participation incentive to Valley Link because it is a shell company managed by incumbent utilities that have already been granted this incentive. The "joint venture" is a charade.

FERC must ensure that Valley Link's formula rate is transparent and allows any person to participate in annual updates, seek information, and file challenges.

And keep this in mind when you file your comments at FERC. (File on Docket No. ER25-1633). FERC Chairman Mark Christie had this to say about the cancelled PATH project just over a year ago. (Begin at minute 13:48 and watch for about 5 minutes until he's finished). Attention must be paid! Valley Link is a second attempt to build the PATH project, but it also presents FERC with a second chance to correct all the things Christie said they got wrong with the original project.

0 Comments

Shady Surveys = Skewed Stories

3/18/2025

0 Comments

Sometimes the special interests get a little carried away with themselves, especially when the young folks who work there think they're saving the world. The progressive left is still trying to find a way to make transmission lines "less bad" for landowners so that they will happily accept them.

NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN!

I was recently contacted by a gal representing shady far left groups who think paying bribes to community members unaffected by new transmission projects is going to be the solution to transmission opposition. Save your effort. It doesn't work. And... as if I would help

The World Resources Institute
and
Data for Progress

with anything at all.

And it went like this:

On behalf of research teams at Data for Progress and World Resources Institute, I’m reaching out to ask if you would be willing to participate in a 30-min or 45-min confidential recorded interview to answer questions about your experiences with community engagement and transmission infrastructure projects. The opportunity to learn from your expertise with the PATH project would be a particularly valuable contribution to our research.

We are inviting advocates both for and against transmission projects, policymakers, developers, community organizations, and other key stakeholders to these discussions. In the interview, we hope to learn about your familiarity with and views of community engagement efforts around transmission development, including what you view as working well or as areas for improvement.
These interviews are part of a larger research project designed to examine barriers and opportunities for transmission deployment, including a specific focus on community engagement and understanding the role that community benefits (and tools like community benefits agreements) could potentially play in addressing some of these challenges, or if not, what their shortcomings are. We plan to synthesize what we learn from these interviews into a report which will also include evidence from case studies, focus groups, and survey data.

We would be grateful for the opportunity to include valuable insights from your unique expertise in our research. Your interview responses will be confidential and nothing you say will be attributed to you or your organization. Please reach out if you have any questions about the interview format.

If you’d like to participate in this interview, please let us know, and we would be delighted to set up a 30-min or 45-min Zoom discussion in the next few weeks.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Does this deserve a response? Not really, but I wanted to have a little fun.

I’m not sure how I can help you with your project. How many actual transmission opponents are you interviewing? The fact of the matter is that once a transmission project is sited on private property, the impacted property owner will oppose it. It doesn’t matter how many “benefits” the government or the transmission owner want to shower on others in the community who are NOT impacted. For instance, if a transmission line is sited in my back yard and I will have to live with it in perpetuity, it doesn’t matter much to me if somebody wants to fund a new park across town, or in an adjacent community that is not impacted at all. Community “benefits” are nothing more than a bribe to buy the advocacy of unaffected persons. It doesn’t make the landowner whole. “Benefits” to people who are not impacted do nothing to change opposition and only create arguments and bad feelings in local communities. I wouldn’t throw my neighbor under the bus for my own personal gain, and I hope you wouldn’t either.

Maybe you should change your polling questions to ask people if they support a transmission line ACROSS THEIR OWN PROPERTY that will use eminent domain to take the land if the landowner refuses. Or if a landowner is willing to sacrifice his home for the “benefit” of people who are sacrificing nothing for the effort.

The only opinions that matter here are the ones of impacted persons.

Have a great day!

P.S. Transmission opponents are unlikely to give away our strategy to dark money transmission advocacy groups.

Perky young gal was undeterred.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I completely understand if you do not wish to participate in this research project. Thank you for sharing your perspective. I respect the time you spent writing this reply and wanted to provide more context to you about this work.

As an independent non-profit research organization, we hope to present a balanced view of challenges and shortcomings when it comes to how companies have approached transmission development, as well as opportunities to ensure that landowners have a meaningful say in these projects, including when that means organizing to stop them or to improve the conditions under which they do get built. We are representing a variety of perspectives across nearly 100 participants in our interview and focus group research, and have invited transmission opponents to participate in these interviews ranging from directly impacted landowners to county commissioners that have spoken out against projects. Our research included focus groups with rural landowners to understand their views on the important questions that you raise -- such as how they would feel about transmission infrastructure being built across their own property and their views on the use of eminent domain. You make valid points we've also heard during our research about the perceptions of benefits and their limitations, which will inform the analysis in our report.

In case it is of interest to you, we are also conducting 15-20 minute anonymous surveys as part of this project. We'd welcome your response if you would want to participate in this in lieu of an interview, but we also respect your decision to decline participation in the project.

Once again, I wanted to thank you for your time and the care you put into your reply. Have a wonderful weekend!

Their research included focus groups with rural landowners to understand their views on the important questions that I raised -- such as how they would feel about transmission infrastructure being built across their own property and their views on the use of eminent domain?

How many actual rural landowners went willingly to a focus group held by these far left groups? How much were they paid, and were they told the truth about who was paying for the focus group and how their participation would be used? I doubt it. It never is with focus groups. If there's so much lying going on at these groups, who could trust the results? The ones who paid for the focus group want to use the knowledge gained to skew public opinion.

Right. With another biased "report" that promises throwing money at the transmission problem will solve it. This problem can never be solved until transmission is properly buried on existing transportation rights of way and landowners are not victimized over and over again.

Do these groups know Biden isn't President any longer and they are not running the federal government anymore? Who are they going to convince with their bogus reports?

Nobody.

I suggest they redirect their grant money toward other important social dilemmas, like finding out why environmentalists are burning their Teslas and buying gas guzzlers. Well, if they have any grant money left that is... ;-)

0 Comments

GBE's Loan Is Frozen... Or is it?

2/6/2025

2 Comments

The trade press is gushing about the possibility that freezes on DOE activity could derail energy projects. We could only be so lucky! The money DOE was so eager to give away after the election is yours!

The corporate media is intent on trying to find a way to grease the giveaways so that they are not thoroughly examined by the new administration.

This piece in Utility Dive talks about a lot of transmission projects that are now threatened, but conveniently avoids mention of Grain Belt Express, perhaps the most egregious of the conditional loan guarantees. Utility Dive says:

Recipients of low-interest LPO loans “incur lower financing costs for their qualifying infrastructure projects than if they had used commercial capital markets [and] will pass along the savings to customers”

Apparently LPO is oblivious to the fact that Grain Belt Express is a merchant transmission project... or maybe it simply doesn't understand what that means. Any savings from low-cost government financing doesn't get passed along to GBE's customers, it goes in Michael Polsky's pocket!

A merchant transmission project is a speculative, supplemental transmission project. It isn't needed for reliability, economic or public policy purposes and therefore it has no captive customers at existing utilities. A merchant's speculation comes from its bet that if it builds a transmission project, it will be so valuable that customers will volunteer to pay for it in the form of capacity contracts. That contract is like a toll to use the transmission line, much like you pay tolls for private highways. The price that customers would be willing to voluntarily pay for GBE's transmission capacity is dependent upon the market -- what do other transmission options cost? How much additional transmission would be necessary to actually get the energy to load? GBE's contracts don't include energy. Any transmission customer would have to purchase that separately from a generator near one of GBE's three converter stations. The cost of the energy also figures into the market price of GBE's transmission. The amount a voluntary customer would pay for capacity on GBE is set by the market, not the cost to build and operate GBE.

A low-cost government loan may lower the cost of the transmission project, but it cannot change the market price of transmission. Since GBE's profit comes from the difference between what it costs to build GBE and what customers will pay to use it, lower financing costs will simply lower the cost to build and increase GBE's profits. GBE is interested in building the cheapest project possible in order to increase its profits. That's where the money is made. So, I ask, what is the benefit to the citizens from this taxpayer loan? There isn't any.

But yet LPO is still on a crash course to get GBE's Environmental Impact Statement completed ASAP. After all, this guy has to keep to his little schedule...

,Senator Hawley recently sent another letter to new Secretary of Energy Chris Wright asking why the DOE is proceeding with this loan when the Acting Secretary clearly paused all projects.

And about that Draft EIS... time is running short to get your comments in! Find something within the report that you'd like to address and have at it!

I found it interesting that DOE doesn't seem to understand what merchant transmission is, as well as its discussion of the non-existent generators in Western Kansas. DOE speaks with forked tongue!

Meanwhile, GBE has filed a bunch of condemnation suits in Missouri. How did GBE get so far over its skis? According to the information provided in the Draft EIS, GBE doesn't have any customers except for the Missouri municipalities that agreed to buy less than 5% of the project's capacity. Obviously that tiny revenue stream will not be enough to make the project economically viable. And what is our government thinking providing a loan to a company without enough contracted revenue to repay the loan? Is this some kind of taxpayer-funded charity for one of the richest Democratic campaign donors in the country? Quick, someone call in the DOGE!! The Grain Belt Express is the second costliest "conditionally approved" project on LPO's list. We could save $5B (that's BILLION) by denying GBE's taxpayer funded loan guarantee.

But you know what's really galling? GBE's biggest fan telling landowners to just give up and sign easements.

Although it may seem profitable for landowners to reject offers and hold out for 150% compensation, going to court may be costly and not worth the risk, said James Owen, director of Renew Missouri, a local clean energy nonprofit organization.
“I do not believe it is going to be in anyone’s best interest to challenge this in court,” he said. “They’re going to have to pay attorney fees on that. It’s going to be dragged out."

Owen is literally the LAST person a landowner should turn to for legal advice. Who thought he made a credible source for landowners? He should shut up and sit down because my experience has been that landowners find him to lack character. And that's being nice (which is more than he deserves). Don't need to slum in the mud with Owned.

And let's end with this little blast from the past:

No customers, no project.

2 Comments

Grain Belt Express Revelations

1/19/2025

0 Comments

Grain Belt Express made several revelations last week at a Kansas legislative committee meeting. It was quite apparent that GBE realized that the NIETCs severely damaged its reputation and project prospects in Kansas (and any other state where Invenergy is trying to build transmission). Your complete opposition and swift action on the proposed NIETCs gave GBE a real black eye. GBE is now rightfully terrified that the welcome mat is going to be yanked out from under them in Kansas. With such a massive uprising of the people, GBE's golden reputation in Kansas may be waning. YOU can do it again. You know how, and you've got the numbers! The world is your oyster, transmission opponents!

So, GBE showed up at a recent meeting of the Joint Committee on Energy and Water at the Kansas legislature and made an obsequious presentation about the failed NIETCs and how great its project will be for Kansas. You still love them, don't you, Kansas? Kansas? Hello? Somebody needs a hug!

Remember how Invenergy has been claiming (in multiple states) that its transmission projects had NOTHING to do with the NIETCs and that Invenergy did not request them? I have been pushing back against that for months because it is a big, fat lie. Of course Invenergy submitted requests for NIETCs for all the transmission projects it is developing. DOE asked for suggestions of where to make corridors. They didn't have a crystal ball. Invenergy DID request these corridors that so upset and horrified thousands of landowners across the Midwest. Invenergy admits it at minute 12:00 of its presentation. Listen carefully.

When DOE first opened this program, we initially submitted applications for all projects in Invenergy's transmission portfolio to be considered.

Right, like I've been saying... Invenergy requested these NIETCs. Later on, Patrick whines that DOE didn't provide adequate notification and landowners got quite ticked off when they found out. Invenergy was a huge fan of hiding its NIETC requests from landowners, until they got caught. Then Invenergy first requested that its corridor be narrowed to half a mile, and in November it says it asked DOE to remove the corridor in its entirety. Let's see... that's about the time you all got cranked up about the corridors. Invenergy knew it was beat and threw in the towel. You did this! Congratulations! You have the power!

And one more thing before I get onto the real revelation DOE and GBE is trying to hide from you now...

While Patrick Witty gave the presentation and began answering questions, he made the fatal mistake of calling Brad Pnazek up to the podium to answer a question. The bombastic Brad took over and it was quite a while before Patrick was able to wrest the microphone away from him at the request of a legislator. It might not have mattered if our friend Brad wasn't a prevaricator of the highest order. Remember when Brad "misspoke" at a DOE EIS webinar to say that GBE wasn't necessarily a merchant transmission project and had not yet decided how its project would be structured? Once again, Brad did not disappoint. I'm going to be frank with you... Brad has a penchant for making crap up if he thinks it will help his position. Even when the lie actually matters little, Brad can't help himself.

Brad told the committee that while GBE pays 110% of fair market value, other utilities only pay 90% of fair market value for their easements. C'mon, Brad, this lie doesn't even make sense! All utilities are required by law to pay 100% of fair market value for the easements they want. He followed that lie by saying that while GBE is only going to use eminent domain on around 4% of the easements needed, other utilities use eminent domain for 20% of the easements needed. This is ANOTHER made up fact. Utilities usually take less than 5% of the land they need using eminent domain. A transmission line that attempted to take 20% would be a public relations disaster of epic proportions (sort of like requesting NIETCs, right, Brad?).

Gotta wonder about Brad. Is he someone's relative or a political favor? I understand that the Peter Principle elevates employees to their level of incompetence, but it's not just incompetence here. Brad just can't help making crap up if he thinks it would sound good (in his own head). Take note! He's a ticking time bomb. Deploy as necessary.

Now let's get to the most important and urgent revelation...

The DOE has published the Draft EIS for Grain Belt Express and set a 45-day comment period.

That's right, Patrick just casually dropped that in his presentation and the press (and everyone but me apparently) missed it.

As you may recall, Grain Belt Express has applied for a $4.9B loan guarantee (of taxpayer money) from the U.S. Department of Energy. As part of its intent to grant that loan, the DOE is required by federal law to perform an Environmental Impact Statement on the project so that its environmental effects can be made public and taken into consideration when deciding to grant the loan. Of course, you may also recall that the DOE granted a "conditional" approval of GBE's loan in its panicked, mad dash for the exit after President Trump was re-elected. DOE has been madly pumping out the taxpayer dollars to its favored companies and projects ever since November. GBE's "conditional" approval is contingent upon the completion of the EIS. So does this mean that the EIS is merely a pre-determined exercise at this point, where the report is written to bolster the already granted approval? Why even bother?

An EIS has several steps that the federal government usually drags out for years. The first step is Scoping, where DOE shows the project to the public and asks them what it should study. The DOE engages in the widest notification it can to make sure impacted communities can be engaged to make comment. The DOE held public "workshop" meetings and accepted a boatload of public comment back in 2023. Then DOE published a Scoping Report to share what they learned.

And since then... crickets. DOE did nothing with GBE's EIS for two years. Guess they thought they had all the time in the world... and then the real world intruded. Now it's apparently a rush-rush, hurry up emergency. DOE has set the MINIMUM time frame it can get away with to accept comments on its Draft EIS. You have only 45-days to comment from the date the notice was published in the Federal Register. You read the Federal Register every day, don't you? You don't? Of course you don't! So, how is that public notice? Sure, it's available to the public, if you know where to look and your crystal ball lets you know it's there. Where's all the notice to the public? Last time, DOE did media and sent notices to landowners. DOE has a list of people who commented on the scoping in their possession. Where's the notice? There isn't any. Isn't that where GBE and DOE got in trouble on the NIETCs? Lack of public notice is a serious issue. How can you tell when your government is trying to pull one over on you? Lack of public notification of its actions. DOE has become a very shady agency during the past four years. Isn't it time to clean house? At any rate, your deadline to comment is March 3, 2025.

The EIS is over 400 pages, and has numerous appendices. You're supposed to read, digest, and comment on all this in less than 45 days, because the clock has already started ticking. Ask your Senators and Representatives to demand that DOE not start its 45-day clock until it has notified all impacted communities, landowners and the people who commented on scoping. It's going to take more than 45-days to notify everyone and by that time the comment period is over. This deadline and lack of public notification is ABSURD! An extension must be demanded.

And just like the NIETCs, lack of DOE notification doesn't prevent grassroots notification. Spread the word! Let everyone know about the Draft EIS and the upcoming public meetings where people can get more information and make oral comments. The meeting schedule is here.

There are ONLY 2 meetings being held across the state of Kansas. How far are you expected to drive in the dead of winter to attend one? 100 miles? 200 miles? 300 miles or more? There's also just 2 meetings for Missouri! Let your elected officials know that this is an inadequate number of meetings!

And here's something else DOE "forgot" to tell you... you can request your own personal copy of the EIS, whether electronic or on paper. Each paper copy DOE has to send out costs GBE several hundred dollars. Request your paper copy by emailing:
[email protected]
Please also read the Federal Register Notice to scan for other information that DOE didn't include on its EIS page.

Also take note that the EIS is a public recitation of the environmental impacts of GBE, it not a pass-fail test that promises no impacts. The federal government is required to make the environmental impacts of its action public and allow the public to comment on them. If you notice things that DOE missed in their report, let them know. If you think their conclusions are wrong, let them know. If you think DOE didn't adequately study alternatives, let them know. And, most of all, let the DOE know that you demand they select the "no action" alternative that means they don't grant the loan.

This is going to be a lot of work, but don't give up. Remember how your participation in group action cancelled the NIETCs. You activated your elected officials and their involvement was crucial to your success. Like the shampoo bottle says... lather, rinse, repeat.

0 Comments

Invenergy Asks To Dismiss Illinois Landowner Suit

1/14/2025

0 Comments

As you may be aware, a group of Illinois landowners appealed a recent decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to somehow "continue" Grain Belt's Negotiated Rate Authority at the same time it granted completely new authority. Of course, FERC can't do these completely opposite things at the same time. The basis for Invenergy's intervention in the case and request to dismiss the case is that the Illinois landowners have no standing to bring the case because they have no interest in the outcome.

20241213_motion_gbx_to_dismiss_petition.pdf
File Size:	301 kb
File Type:	pdf

About the Author

AboutStopPATH Blog

Archives

Categories

About
StopPATH Blog