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

Avangrid/CMP Uses Private Investigator To Stake Out NECEC Opponents

3/6/2020

2 Comments

 
Just a little "opposition research," said the head of Avangrid's political action committee that is trying to prevent a citizens referendum on the company's New England Clean Energy Connect transmission project through the woods of Maine.  Opposition research is "standard operating procedure" for such a campaign, he said.  Perhaps that's so, but is it fair?  Or is it another manifestation of the corporate state we all live in?  Does it demonstrate the advantage corporations have in the uneven balance of power in the true life David v. Goliath struggles of grassroots groups against the corporations who have bought their government?

What if the citizens had conducted surveillance of corporate activities, sitting outside corporate offices in their cars while taking photographs of the people coming and going, finding out who owns certain vehicles and where they live, calling around to compile information about the executives' activities when they're not at work, and trolling their personal social media pages to find and exploit personal information?  I'm pretty sure the corporation would consider that dangerous stalking and take whatever action it felt necessary.  But, yet, that's exactly what Avangrid did to NECEC opponents, and they claim there's nothing wrong with it.  If corporations can use their vast resources to target ordinary citizens, but citizens cannot use their own resources to target corporate executives, we need to re-examine how we think about the balance of power.

Last month, Maine citizens opposed to Avangrid's NECEC transmission project turned in enough signatures to put the project's approval by the Maine PUC on the ballot in November.  Good for them!  The citizens have valiantly tried to be heard through the regulatory and legislative venues available to them, but kept finding doors closed  because the corporation behind the initiative wields too much political power in Maine. A citizens referendum was their best option.

But the corporation wasn't going to let its influence and control slip away so easily into the hands of the people.  It's spent millions opposing the referendum, and the depths to which they have stooped have finally been revealed.

On February 26, Avangrid executives got thoroughly roasted by investment analysts over the NECEC project during an earnings call.  Avangrid was peppered with questions regarding a public statement that it would begin building the project before the referendum came to a vote in November.  An analyst wanted to know how Avangrid would "offset the risks of negative referendum outcome," where the company may have made a significant, unrecoverable investment in a project that later had its permit invalidated.  It's a good question.  Well, first the company sort of walked back its statement about starting construction before 3rd quarter.  Then CEO Jim Torgerson shared that "there are some thing[s] we can do in the interim" while the Secretary of State was reviewing the submitted petitions for certification.  Cue the creepy and suspenseful music...

Some things?  What things would those be?  Turns out the company was smack dab in the middle of sending letters to the Maine Secretary of State alleging that the petition gatherers had broken laws, along with an affidavit from a private investigator that made a lot of presumptions out of little fact.

Turns out Avangrid's PAC (which, let's be real here, is actually just Avangrid itself) had been doing some surveillance of its opposition.  According to the affidavit, a private investigator creeped on an office the opposition rented to house the administrative functions of its petition drive.  He creeped for just 4 days, and wouldn't you know it, he found exactly what he was looking for on those days, despite the fact that the signature gathering had been going on for months.  What a coincidence!

The investigator zeroed in on one particular woman and photographed her, called her place of employment, creeped on her online presence to gather information, and used resources to run license plates and identify vehicles.  And then he compiled his findings in an affidavit full of presumptions and "who shot John" conclusions.

Although Avangrid had this information at the end of January, it sat on it until the end of February.  On Feb. 27, Avangrid's attorney sent it to the Maine Secretary of State alleging that violations occurred of "eminently clear" Maine law that would make certain petitions invalid.  The Secretary of State says that it did not have sufficient time to investigate the allegations and thus could make no findings regarding the allegations.

This is starting to sound like a set up to me.

First, let's look at the law that was supposedly violated.

§903-E. Persons not authorized to administer an oath or affirmation to a petition circulator
1.  Certain notaries public and others.  A notary public or other person authorized by law to administer oaths or affirmations generally is not authorized to administer an oath or affirmation to the circulator of a petition under section 902 if the notary public or other generally authorized person is:  
A. Providing any other services, regardless of compensation, to initiate the direct initiative or people's veto referendum for which the petition is being circulated. For the purposes of this paragraph, "initiate" has the same meaning as section 1052, subsection 4-B; or   [PL 2017, c. 418, §3 (NEW).]
B. Providing services other than notarial acts, regardless of compensation, to promote the direct initiative or people's veto referendum for which the petition is being circulated.
Eminently clear?  My reading is that a notary cannot initiate the referendum.  Avangrid provides no proof that the notary they creeped did this.  I also read that a notary cannot promote the initiative.  Again, Avangrid provides no proof that the notary they creeped did this.  The most Avangrid's affidavit reveals is that they saw a notary playing with papers at the opposition's office.  No initiation, no promotion.  It seems to me that it is eminently clear that no violations occurred (except for the creepy privacy violations engaged in by Avangrid's investigator).  Looks like a judge is going to have to evaluate whether the law is "eminently clear" or if Avangrid is just stretching things to create a long and grinding court battle to delay the referendum.
Picture
2 Comments

House Bill To Limit Eminent Domain Clears Committee in Missouri

1/14/2020

2 Comments

 
Good news this morning!  Representative Jim Hansen's HB 2033 to limit eminent domain for merchant transmission sailed through a committee hearing yesterday and was approved to pass this morning.

We're on our way! 

Lots of stuff got brought up in the hearing yesterday, and two very different news articles were posted.  One was good, and one was biased opinion cloaked as news.  Do we call that "fake news" these days?  At any rate, it gives me an opportunity to clear up some misinformation that got spread yesterday.

The bad article can be found here.  Does the St. Louis Post-Dispatch have a bias in favor of the project?  I'd guess they do, after reading the article, or maybe the reporter himself is just uneducated or too lazy to get information first hand and relied too much on opinion instead of fact?

The article starts out with an apparent misunderstanding of the three branches of government.  This is something I think I learned in elementary school, and perhaps a refresher course is in order.
Although judges and state regulators have given it the go-ahead, Missouri lawmakers are still trying to unplug a controversial electric transmission line.
State regulators are part of the executive branch of government.  They carry out laws as they exist.  Judges are part of the judicial branch of government.  They interpret laws as they exist.  Legislators, on the other hand, are part of the legislative branch of government.  They MAKE laws exist.  The legislature can change laws, or make new laws, that are then carried out by the executive branch, or interpreted by the judicial branch.  It doesn't matter what judges or state regulators did with existing laws, the legislature is in the process of making a new law.  Once it does, the regulators and judges will follow the new law.  This ostensible "justification" for GBE makes no sense, because legislators can change the law.  Legislators are not beholden to the opinions of judges or regulators.  Only legislators make laws!

And now let's skip to the reported malarkey spewed by Invenergy at yesterday's hearing.
A spokeswoman for Chicago-based Invenergy, which is spearheading the project, said the power line project will have a significant economic impact in the state.

“This project will create thousands of jobs here in Missouri,” said Nicole Luckey.
In addition, she said the company is prepared to pay more for land than its fair market value.
“We are committed to compensating landowners fairly,” Luckey said.

Invenergy says its structures will take up less than 10 acres of land throughout Missouri, not including land underneath transmission wires.

Jobs, jobs, jobs!  We've all heard this baloney before and we know that job promises rarely come true.  Their numbers are based on extrapolated numbers in a computer program, not reality.  In addition, most of the jobs will be temporary and filled with trained professionals from out of state.  Quit trying to push the "benefits" thing, nobody believes it.

And let's examine that statement about paying more than fair market value.  Who determines "fair market value" if a taking isn't challenged in the courts?  Invenergy does!  Invenergy's land agent subcontractor works to get "market study" data from past land sales in each county.  There could be some picking and choosing going on there that skews the numbers.  Then an "average" market value for land in that county is developed.  Once that figure is arrived at, individual property characteristics can be applied to either raise or lower it to arrive at a "fair" cost per acre.

We are committed to compensating landowners fairly?  Is this the landowner's idea of fair, or is it Invenergy's idea of fair?  Of course, it's Invenergy's, because they currently hold the power of eminent domain to take a property, even if the owner does not agree the compensation is fair.  There's nothing fair about this!

And, which is it, Invenergy?  Fair market value... or more than fair market value?  How much more?  Those statements, taken together, make no sense, which leads me to think that maybe the whole thing is just made up baloney.

Speaking of baloney... less than 10 acres?  So is that all that will be compensated across the state?  Why would Invenergy pay for land not taken?  The truth is that Invenergy is planning to take a 200-foot wide strip of land clear across the state, and they have to compensate landowners for all of it.  This claim is ludicrous.

This seems to be the only thing the reporter managed to come away with to represent the bill's supporters yesterday.
Landowners in the path of the transmission lines argue that a private company should not be able to condemn land in order to build the project.

I'm pretty sure there was a lot more said on this topic that perhaps was just too complicated for this uneducated reporter to grasp.

The difference between merchant transmission and regionally ordered and cost allocated transmission was explained rather succinctly.  Here's my version:

Regionally ordered and cost allocated transmission comes from independent regional transmission system operators.  They order new transmission for purposes of reliability, economics, or public policy.  When transmission is ordered, the transmission organization also assigns cost responsibility for the project to regional customers based on their use of the transmission line.  Most importantly, those customers assigned cost responsibility for the project only pay for the cost of the project, plus regulated return to the owner of the transmission.

Now, the difference of merchant transmission, like GBE.  No transmission organization ever ordered GBE.  Its costs will not be collected from regional customers.  Instead, GBE has federal negotiated rate authority.  It collects its costs through rates it negotiates with voluntary customers.  Whatever price GBE can agree to with customers is the amount those customers pay, regardless of what the project costs to build.  These are what is known as "market rates," where the rate charged is supported by a free market where each party comes to the table and negotiates the price without undue influence.

Therefore, GBE's rates are independent from the cost of the project.  If GBE saves money on land acquisition due to the use of eminent domain, then that profit goes in GBE's pocket.  It won't change the rate it has negotiated with its voluntary customers.  On the other hand, when a project is cost allocated to regional customers, they only pay for what it costs to build.  If the owner saves money on land acquisition through the use of eminent domain, those savings go to the customers who pay for the transmission project.

Bottom line:  Eminent domain would increase GBE's profits beyond its cost of service.  If GBE cannot use eminent domain to keep land acquisition prices low and must depend on free market negotiation to acquire land to build its project, that eats into GBE's profits.  There are no savings that go back to customers if land acquisition costs are limited by eminent domain.  This is why merchant transmission should never be granted eminent domain authority.  And this is why the Missouri Legislature wants to change the law to exclude its use for merchant transmission.

This article about yesterday's hearing is much more balanced.  This reporter paid attention and didn't try to apply bias to sway reader's opinions.  You should read it to get a complete picture of what was said by both sides.

And here's what that Invenergy lady had to say in this report:
The company in charge of the project, Invenergy, said condemnation of properties under eminent domain is more of a last resort.

“We are not seeking ownership,” Nicole Luckey, director of regulatory affairs at Invenergy, said. “We are seeking an easement over folks’ land. Landowners will retain full ownership of the land in an easement. They can continue to use it for agricultural purposes.”

Luckey said landowners would be paid 110% of the market value in an easement, plus a structured payment that can be taken in a lump sum or in an annual payment, which would increase every year.

More of a last resort?  More of a last resort to paying a price for land that is negotiated in a free market?  Eminent domain isn't a part of fair negotiation.  It's coercion, plain and simple.  It was also reported, although not in this article, that she claimed that if a landowner didn't want to negotiate with Invenergy, the company would simply route its project around them.

So, in that case, GBE's route may look like this:
Picture
I'm not buying it.

Easement.  Sure, that's where another party has a right to use a portion of your land for their own purposes, even if you object.  Of course, you still "own" it and pay taxes and insurance on it.

Oh! 110% of market value?  Is that "fair?"  Once again, who determines market value?  Invenergy does.  They're going to pay landowners 10% more than the value they determine is fair.  Garbage in, garbage out!

A transmission company's hired land acquisition company spends several months creating a plan before they hit the streets.  They do the market studies, then create a database containing a range of values for each property.  The lowest "fair market value" in the range is what a landowner is originally offered.  The value can increase when a landowner resists, dependent upon approval from higher ups.  What's the highest value in the range for your property?  Of course, they're not going to tell you.

I heard that the Invenergy lady also told a lovely story about the company's plan to hire land agents.  It will be very selectively hiring agents in January, training the agents in February, and then sending them out to the field in March.  BALONEY!  Transmission owners don't hire individual land agents off the street and then train them.  They contract with land acquisition companies that already have teams of trained agents, such as this one, which is said to train their agents in psy ops in order to get resistant landowners to sign agreements.  What happened to the land acquisition company Clean Line was using in Missouri?  Is Invenergy going to just toss out that database and start fresh?  In that case, how could it know what a particular landowner was previously offered to make sure it's new offer was at least as much?

She also allegedly said that Invenergy would gladly deliver all the energy to Missouri, if it could.  Still can't find any customers, Invenergy?
Picture
Missouri's energy needs are met, without any part of GBE.

So, now we see where this bill wanders next.  A companion bill in the Senate is set for Committee hearing on Wednesday.  Off to a great start!

What can you do?  You could dash off a Letter to the Editor of one of the newspapers reporting on yesterday's committee hearing, just to set them straight.  Or you could send one to your local paper, or any other paper in Missouri.  Need help?  Just ask!
2 Comments

Transource Continues To Waste My Money As Hearings Continue

1/11/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
There.  I fixed the headline for this article published recently.

There's absolutely no good answer to why Transource feels the need to award a construction contract for a project that hasn't been approved in either state in which it is proposed to be constructed.  No good reason at all.

Maybe it's a PR stunt?  Perhaps Transource wants to tell the PA PUC in its upcoming status report that it has awarded the contract for the project to a "Pennsylvania company" and created jobs in the state?  Otherwise, it makes no sense at all, since Transource cannot put any shovels in the ground until it has its certificates.  But what may be happening is stockpiling of materials and final engineering work for a transmission project that will never be built.  Transource continues to spend buckets of ratepayer cash on their dead project.  Every dime Transource spends will have to be repaid by electric ratepayers assigned cost responsibility for the project by PJM, plus annual return more than 10% until the sunk costs are paid off.  We're talking tens of millions of dollars repaid over perhaps a 5-year period when the project is abandoned.  Actions like this are why everyone's electric bills are so expensive.  We've only recently finished paying off the quarter billion dollar sunk costs of the failed PATH transmission project that was never built.  Gotta keep those dollars coming in for abandoned projects!

So, who got awarded the contract for a project that will never be built?  Harlan Electric, which is supposed to be based in Harrisburg.  But it's also based in Massachusetts and Michigan, and builds projects all over the place.  If you think all the folks working on the project for the company are based in Harrisburg, you may not be correct.  How many workers would be imported to construct the project?  If all workers were local to Harrisburg, there would be no need for hotels with group rates, right?  The workers could simply go home every night.  Instead, Transource wants to hear from local hospitality folks who want to bid on supplying restaurants, catering, venue rental, and hotels with group rates.  Sure sounds like support for a traveling minstrel show of transmission workers.

But it seems there is one company local to Pennsylvania (although not in the project area) that has been awarded a subcontract, according to the Waynesboro Record Herald.

Harlan Electric representatives are securing subcontractors and will be working with local contractors such as Newville Construction of Newville.
So, Harlan is just a general contractor who will be subbing the actual work out to other contractors?  My, my, that sure sounds cost efficient!  Everybody gets a piece of the ratepayer cash pie!

And where have we heard the name Newville Construction before?

I think it first came up in this video, where a farmer appealed to other farmers in the project area, telling them that the transmission project won't be a burden and that the construction company would leave their property in better condition than they found it.  The farmer, Jim Shuster, didn't mention that he is also the President and Founder of Newville Construction.  Of course, that's not relevant, right?  It must have just been a happy accident that a company he owns, in addition to his farms, ended up with a construction contract, right?  Of course, Jim wasn't paid "a plugged nickel" for his work in the video.  That's what he said in this article.
"Jim spoke from his perspective as the owner of Eleven Oaks Farm on his experiences with utilities and agriculture. Transource has not yet made a selection of the construction companies that will build (the line), nor has it promised work to Newville Construction." 
Shuster said that is the case. He said he was approached by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers to appear in the video and testify about his experience with power lines and agriculture. He doesn't understand the opposition to the power line. "I wasn't paid a plugged nickel for that," he said. "I was not promised a dime's worth of work for doing it." 
The impact on the land is minimal, he said, and his company operates under the directive to leave the land in better condition than they found it, something that has earned the company awards and praise from conservation groups. 
Transmission and Agriculture video.mp4
"We're not some Ma and Pa operation with a backhoe," he said. "We're a $30 million-a-year business." 
He is angry with some of those who oppose the power line because, he said, they suggested that his farm is a hoax. About the opposition, he said, "It's one of the most hypocritical things I've ever seen." Unless those opposed to the transmission line have their own power plant, he said, the electricity they use flows through a power line on some other farmer's property. 

"I frankly don't understand what their problem is with it," he said. 

Well, serendipity!  What a fortuitous event!  What are the chances?  Wish I could take those chances to Vegas!  Jim wasn't promised a thing in exchange for making that video.  He only did it as a favor to the union.  And by a rare stroke of good luck, he ended up with a contract to work on the proposed transmission line! 

I wonder if Jimmy Hoffa knows anything about this?  Maybe I can contact him via seance?  The union is surely involved somehow.
“Anytime jobs are created, it’s a win,” said Bernie Kephart, business manager for IBEW Local 126. “Our workers earn family-sustaining wages building the infrastructure that supports our daily lives. We’re proud to build infrastructure that saves customers money and reinforces the grid against power outages in Maryland and Pennsylvania.”
“We support clean, safe and affordable power,” said William C. Tipton Jr., business manager/financial secretary for Maryland IBEW Local 70. “Any conversation around energy comes to a quick halt if we do not have the transmission infrastructure to transfer that power to all who need it.”
Wait a tick... it has not been determined that the IEC will save customers money or reinforce the grid against power outages in Maryland and Pennsylvania.  It also has not been determined that the IEC would provide clean, safe and affordable power.  The only ones who can make this determination are the Pennsylvania PUC and the Maryland PSC.  Neither one of these agencies have made their determination yet.  There's still a long slog ahead, and there's still opposition from state agencies who protect customers, as well as opposition from landowners in the project area.  The jury is still out.

Jobs aren't everything.  Creating jobs just for the sake of having jobs is a waste of money.  My money, your money, electric customer money.
Local companies contracted by Transource also completed much of IEC’s geotechnical survey work, which concluded last year.
Right... and much of that money was wasted when the original eastern route was completely scrapped in favor of building the connection on existing right-of-way.  It's not like using existing infrastructure was an idea that came out of the blue after the work was completed.  Opponents had identified existing resources and asked to use them from the very beginning, before one penny was wasted on geotechnical work.

Waste, waste, waste.

But, hey, now that Transource has awarded all its construction contracts, perhaps we can get a better feel for how much this project is actually going to cost?  With all these contractors, subcontractors, and hotel venues, maybe it would cost more than has been estimated?  There's no cost cap on this project.  The more AEP (Transource) spends, the more it makes!  Perhaps that's why they're still moving full-speed ahead on a project that has stalled in the regulatory process?  Maybe they just want to pad their investment so they can recover it from us with interest?

Stop wasting my money, Transource!
0 Comments

AEP Snows City of Dublin About Transmission Project

12/4/2019

0 Comments

 
Where there's new transmission, there's always opposition.  The crafty utility manipulates the community to fight about where to put the transmission line, not whether to build it in the first place.  Yay, you, AEP!

It was reported that residents of the Ballantrae community in Dublin, Ohio, stormed a city council meeting recently.  The City wants to re-route or bury the project, but seems to have blindly accepted its necessity.
PJM Interconnection -- a regional transmission organization that coordinates the movement of electricity in 13 states including Ohio -- mandated AEP build a new line in Dublin’s West Innovation District based on energy forecasts and projections, said Dublin Public Affairs Officer Lindsay Weisenauer.

Joe Demaree, a project outreach specialist for AEP, said Dublin residents and businesses -- and future residents and business -- would require more electricity. The summer of 2022 is when projected electrical capacity necessary to support businesses and residents would outpace existing infrastructure, he said.

The proposed transmission line, Demaree said, would fix that problem and avoid putting AEP’s power grid in jeopardy.

Mandated?  Isn't that a pretty strong word for a project AEP requested that was never approved by PJM?

This project was one on a long list AEP presented to PJM under its M-3 process.  Under the M-3 process, the Transmission Owners are responsible for planning a series of meetings with stakeholders specific to system needs, solutions and projects to be included in the local plan. PJM's role is to facilitate those meetings. The PJM Board of Managers do not approve Supplemental Projects.

Got it?  Not approved.  Simply accepted.  Acceptance does not equal mandate.

And why does AEP believe this project is needed?  Here's AEP's actual description of need for this project presented to PJM:

AEP has received requests for increased demand in the Dublin, Ohio area. Analysis shows Bethel - Sawmill 138 kV will be a constraint. Consequent inspection identified clearance violations along the Bethel - Sawmill 138 kV line. AEP has de-rated the thermal capacity of the line to mitigate potential safety issues. Brookside-Sawmill -> N-1-1=127%, N-1=117% Bethel-Brookside -> N-1-1=102%, N-1=92% (N-1-1: Bethel - Roberts 138 kV + Davidson - Roberts 138 kV) AEP believes that the loading issues exist today due to the recent 30% de-rate of the line. Newly connected customer loads are scheduled to ramp up, significantly contributing to area thermal concerns.

The Dublin-Sawmill 138kV circuit will experience loading of 116% under N-1-1 conditions involving the loss of Bethel-Davidson 138kV & Davidson-Roberts 138kV circuits. With load growth in the area, we anticipate this line to overload starting in 2022. AEP-Ohio has requested a third 138kV source to Dublin station to maintain acceptable reliability levels for the load at risk. Dublin Station serves 75 MVA of peak demand with minimal load transfer capability. Dublin station serves some critical loads. Newly connected customer loads are scheduled to ramp, significantly contributing to area thermal concerns.

Newly connected customer loads.  Requests for increased demand.  Some new customer or customers that use an inordinate amount of power are expected in Dublin.  New manufacturing that will provide new jobs?  Or new data center that will provide few jobs?  I dunno, but it's a big customer or customers.  This is what is driving this request from AEP... their anticipation of increased load.  Will it actually happen?  Maybe the City of Dublin can shed some light on this.

Because it was expecting this new, big customer, AEP decided to inspect its existing line.  And, wouldn't you know it, there are some previously neglected clearance issues!  As in, the existing line sags too much during high load and hot weather.  Ut-oh!  AEP took it upon itself to save the day by de-rating the line 30%.  This means that the maximum loading of the line was reduced by 30%.  And, wouldn't you know it, de-rating the line caused overloads!  Now there's not enough capacity available to serve anticipated load!  And, wouldn't you know it, utilities like AEP make money building things and collecting generous returns on their investments over their useful life.  Serendipity!  Dublin needs new transmission!

PJM has nothing to do with AEP's request.  AEP concocted this solution.  PJM didn't say "boo" one way or the other.  Hardly a mandate.

Now the City of Dublin is in a quandry... should it spend city funds to make AEP bury the transmission line, or route it somewhere else?  Are the drawbacks of this new line too much for Ballantrae, or other residents of Dublin to bear?  Where should they put the transmission line?

Does Dublin really need this transmission line?  Are there other solutions?  These are the questions Dublin should really be asking.  PJM simply won't care if AEP doesn't carry out its current plan.  The lights aren't going to go off.  There are always alternatives.

Looks like AEP has a community opposition wildfire igniting.  Just because the City swallowed AEP's fish story about mandates hook, line and sinker doesn't mean the people who would have to live with the new transmission line will.

It's never about where to put it, it's about whether to put it.  Before spending millions of dollars of taxpayer funds, the City of Dublin has a little more investigating to do.
0 Comments

Transource's Tall Tale

11/13/2019

0 Comments

 
"Look, look," said Transource.  "We care about your community!  We're planting trees!"

Honestly, this public relations stunt is about as transparent as tracing paper.

Instead of reporting on the way Franklin County got tossed under the bus in Transource's settlement with York County, the media covered Transource's propaganda stunt like a trained monkey.

Transource pretended that it "donated" money "to support local conservation efforts of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed."  Is this the same watershed that it's going to degrade with new transmission on new right of way in Franklin County?  You betcha!

So, while Transource "volunteers" (wanna bet these employees were paid their normal hourly rate, which is charged to electric ratepayers, while "volunteering" for an out-of-office activity) planted 300 trees to create a future riparian buffer along the West Branch of Conococheague Creek, it still plans to destroy the mature riparian buffer along Falling Spring?

Trees and vegetation would no longer shade the stream in the area, which would damage the habitat for fish and the insects they feed on, according to Chris Rudyk, vice president of Falling Spring Chapter of Trout Unlimited. There's also a danger of defoliants running into the stream. Many defoliants approved for use in Pennsylvania cannot be sprayed in California, New York or Delaware, Rudyk said.
Warren Christman, chapter president, said blasting during construction could impact the flows to the limestone creek.

Of course!  They call it "mitigation," as if destruction of nature can somehow be negated by helping nature somewhere else.  A real nature-boosting "donation" from Transource would be if they packed up their carpet bag and hightailed it back to Columbus, Ohio.
“At Transource, we are proud to advance shared priorities like this and we understand the important role streams play in the natural ecosystem and community recreation,” said Todd Burns, director of Transource Energy.
Shared priorities?  Get outta town, Todd Burns!  Todd Burns only understands the important role streams play in the natural ecosystem and community recreation when the stream in question isn't slated to be destroyed by his company's money-making schemes.

What's the point of all this?  I'm guessing Transource's fee-fees were a bit bruised when its settlements with eastern leg parties weren't glorified by the media.  The people of Franklin County failed to lie down in front of the bus like defeated doormats.  Transource maybe thought it needed a little good press to counterbalance all the negativity stemming from its settlements.  Gagging settling parties didn't create a media lovefest.

But here's the thing.... nobody cares!  Transource shot its wad way too early.  The real negativity hasn't happened yet.  It's dangling over Transource's head like an anvil on a fraying cable, and when it drops it's going to flatten them.  What's Transource going to do when that happens?  Throw cheap candy from a garish float in a Franklin County Christmas parade?  Quick, someone think of a random act of fake charity Transource can hide behind when the anvil falls...
0 Comments

Social Media Proves Too Real For Invasive Projects

10/3/2019

1 Comment

 
Big, invasive infrastructure projects have lost the social media battle.  This isn't new, it happened before the war even started.  There's no way these projects can ever win the social media battle.  However, that doesn't stop them from trying.  But, they're only fooling themselves!

Take a look at this silly article in a "renewables" publication.  Oooh... use of NIMBY in the headline and throughout the article.  Name-calling is one of the seven common propaganda devices named decades ago by a now defunct U.S. organization, the Institute for Propaganda Analysis.
Name-Calling: "Giving an idea a bad label and therefore rejecting and condemning it without examining the evidence." This is the use of negative words or labels to create prejudice against some person, group or idea. If you fall for this you have been driven to reach a conclusion without examining the evidence.
Interesting these folks need to use propaganda to try to convince their own people that they can win this war.  They need their own people to believe anyone who opposes industrial wind is a self-interested "NIMBY" who shall be dismissed out of hand without consideration of his or her arguments.  That's pretty revealing right up front.  The industry dismisses the concerns of community members automatically.  How could such a project fool the community into believing they care?  They can't.

Who writes this drivel?  A "clean" PR firm drumming up business for "Corporate social media strategy and management."  Take a look at this company's website.  They have written extensively about their "success" with digital media campaigns for "clean" companies.  And, hey, look... they have a facebook page.  Maybe you want to connect and let them know what you think about their article?  They've created a post about it.  They want your comments.  The irony of Tigercomm itself being taught the very lesson it writes about is just too delicious.  Let them know what you think about the opinion expressed  in their article.
Such as:
There’s a growing concern within the wind industry that in communities considering hosting wind farms, the loud minority of opponents is increasingly trumping the silent majority of supporters who want the jobs and revenue that come with projects.
Minority?  Majority?  Where's the unbiased poll numbers?  Or is this contention just created out of thin air to support Tigercomm's opinion?  My experience has been that the only ones who support a new wind farm or other large infrastructure project, such as an electric transmission line, in a community are the ones directly profiting from it.  It's pretty much impossible to buy an entire community, but wind farms do try, with their "Good Neighbor Agreements" that effectively gag signatories from vocal opposition.  If the vocal opposition is such a minority, why would a wind farm pay to gag them?  It's well known that being against something generates more energy than being for it.  Why don't wind farms use their cash to pay the silent majority to be vocal, instead of paying the vocal opposition to be silent?
At best, Nimby pushback is raising costs through delays. At worse, half-a-billion-dollar wind farms are dying because 50 people shouted at their county commissioners during a public meeting.
My, aren't we creative and colorful?  That's a pretty loaded statement.  That make-believe community probably only consists of 52 people who spoke out for or against the project (rarely shouting).  When faced with a threat, rural communities circle the wagons and it's the whole of their energy that is so powerful, not just a handful of shouters.
Facebook is “the new town square” in rural areas, according to Avangrid Renewables’ director of communications, Paul Copleman, as it’s eclipsed traditional local newspapers, many of which are dying.

Nimby groups organise online, then they show up in the room. The wind IPPs have ceded the digital ground to such an extent that “the opposition is eating our lunch”, according to Matt Wagner, manager of renewable energy development at Detroit-based DTE.
It's the digital town square because it's composed of real people with real relationships to each other communicating without the media filter controlled by corporate public relations spinners like Tigercomm.  Real people, real information.  But it's only a window into the town square room.  The real interaction happens in the community, in person, a place that the corporation isn't.
Projects are being built in communities that see undeveloped land as something to be conserved, rather than a resource to be used.
Oh my!  The community IS using its land as a resource.  It's growing food for a profit!  "Undeveloped land" is fully developed to its best and highest purpose - agriculture!  Contrary to urban legend, not all land has to be covered with man made infrastructure to be useful.  Furthermore, it is up to the owners of the land in the collective interest of the community to determine the best use of their resources.  The last thing a farmer needs is some city folks coming in and telling them how to use their land.  This is a complete no-brainer and at the very heart of rural resistance to infrastructure intended to serve the cities.
Nimbys are being helped with outside organisers and money, much of it from incumbent energy sources.
Oh, for goodness sake!  Would you stop with the "dark money" lies?  True grassroots opposition raises its own money.  In more than a decade of working with grassroots opposition groups, I have NEVER seen ANY money given to these groups by outside organizers.  Grassroots money comes from the community, in small amounts.  Any opposition coming from industry is deployed by the industry in tandem with what the grassroots organization is doing.  Industry opposition attempts to siphon grassroots energy for its own purposes, but the two are not connected or coordinated.  Grassroots opposition is the independent leader and industrial opposition is simply an opportunistic parasite.  Industry opposition would never trust grassroots organizations to spend its money to best serve the industry.  They spend it on their own campaigns to oppose things, they don't give it to us.  Now, I know you think it bolsters your name-calling devices to say "NIMBYS" are financially supported and controlled by your corporate opponents, but it's simply not true and the only ones who believe it are the ones whose narrative it fits into -- namely the climate change shouters.  These folks don't show up in small towns to participate in individual infrastructure battles therefore they are irrelevant.  Enough already with the "dark money."  You have absolutely NO PROOF to back up this claim.
The good news? Among the IPP staff on the front lines of community engagement, there is a growing consensus that the industry must up its digital game by more proactively meeting community members where they are — online, not just across the table at the diner.
In a series of interviews with IPP staff, we found widespread agreement on the advantages of increased digital engagement, as well as basic best practices.
They shared nearly a dozen benefits the industry is missing due to digital constraints, including insulating persuadable community members against the predictable arguments of critics; profiling and amplifying supporters’ stories, and creating a credible alternative information source to Nimby Facebook groups.
Interviewees also collectively produced a list of digital best practices for their executive teams to consider, which included starting communicating early, before opposition groups form and gain momentum — it’s a race to define; showing wind farm benefits through supporters’ stories, captured on camera; and showing people the experience of those currently living near existing wind farms.
As Apex Clean Energy vice-president for public affairs, Dahvi Wilson said: “Opponents of one company’s projects can encourage and strengthen opponents to another company’s projects. Like it or not, we’re in the digital boat together. We need more companies to increase their investment in digital community engagement.”
At the staff level, the consensus for upping the industry’s digital game is solid and growing because, as Adam Renz, manager of business development for Pattern Energy, said: “Social media can de-risk projects.”

Insulating persuadable community members?  Insulating them from what?  Keeping them in their sterile corporate bubble where the only facts they learn are cherry-picked for their favorable opinions?  Do you folks even realize where you are?  You've invaded these people's community!  They live there!  They hear and see lots of stuff in their community.  They're real people with real lives.  You cannot digitally control real people.

Presenting "stories" of people who love wind or transmission does little to convince people to support it.  Everyone realizes those are paid-for opinions and dismisses them out of hand (sort of like how the NIMBY and "dark money" arguments are supposed to work).

In my 10+ years of grassroots opposition organizing and strategizing, I've seen nothing but failure from corporate social media campaigns.  They cannot be sanitized effectively, and that's the foundation of public relations.  If a corporation creates a Facebook page, the opponents will swarm it and post negative comments.  The corporation must delete comments and block people.  The tide of opponents is so strong though, that more keep coming.  The Facebook page is like a ghost town, with all comments deleted or not viewable (like where a post says it has 72 comments, but when you try to view them, only 1 shows up, and it's complimentary).  There's a certain look to infrastructure company social media campaigns that defies the very nature of social media.  They are a one-way street with no interaction.  Social media is about interaction.  Without that, it's just a webpage.  Essentially, infrastructure company Facebook pages are nothing but a website.  But they're a fun-filled website where opponents get to post their opinions for everyone to read (until they're removed by the corporation).  We have fun playing cat and mouse with you folks when we have free time, or just need a quick giggle to get through a difficult project.

Get ready, Tigercomm...  isn't it almost time for lunch?
1 Comment

The Transmission Tower Rodeo

6/11/2019

0 Comments

 
Transmission companies are terrible copycats.  When one of them comes up with some really stupid argument to support their proposed transmission project, others soon follow.  Mostly, this is just entertainment. 

Except for this... this one is just plain dangerous, both to the humans forced to live with transmission lines built across their farms using eminent domain, and to the rest of us who like reliable electricity and pay the costs of transmission in our electric bills.

The stupid argument goes like this... hypothetical U$ele$$ Transmission project will only take 12 acres out of agricultural production, if built!  (Or 9 acres, or even less than 1 acre).  This is calculated using the area of all proposed tower bases.  This assumes that farmers can farm right up to the base of the tower.  I'm talking snugly right up to the base, without any gap between the tower and the crop whatsoever.

Not only is this a lie, it risks safety and reliability of the transmission line. 

This happened last week.
Picture
A farmer tried to farm right up to the base of this transmission tower.  Slight miscalculation, and down it came, trapping the farmer in his tractor.  Luckily no one was hurt.  But who owns liability?  Who is going to pay to repair the tower and lines?  What if the resulting power outage caused damage to some other third party?  Is it the transmission company's fault because they made public statements urging the farmer to work right up to the base of the tower?  Or is it the farmer's fault because he actually tried to do so?

And this isn't a one-time event.  These kinds of collisions between farm equipment and transmission towers happen all the time.  In some instances, farmers have been sued for damages.  It's probably NOT a good idea to try to keep land in production right up to the base of the transmission tower.  A cautious farmer will give that thing a wide berth, causing a much bigger loss of productive farm ground than that bandied about during regulatory hearings.

The claim that the 500-mile Rock Island Clean Line would only take 12 acres out of production was ridiculous, and thankfully that project has been abandoned without being built.  But then the Grain Belt Express transmission line owned by Invenergy claimed that only 9 acres would be removed from production.  And the Missouri PSC repeated that same stupidity in its order approving the project.  Now American Electric Power's Transource IEC project is making similar claims, testifying to PSC Commissioners in Maryland last week that less than an acre will be taken out of production if the project is built.  It's not some silly public relations hogwash anymore.  Now it's documented, on the record.  If these projects are built (and that's a big IF), the transmission owner (and the Missouri PSC) should be held liable for any future transmission tower crashes.  Their stupid contentions that farmers can work right up to the base of a tower shift liability in a big way.

I'm still waiting for the transmission tower/farm equipment rodeo to happen, where transmission company executives and PSC Commissioners stand in the middle of a field and pretend to be transmission towers.  Farmers will compete with their equipment (some as big as the houses these people towers live in) to see how close they can come to the people towers without the people towers flinching, screaming, wetting their pants, and making a run for it.  When transmission developer big mouths and PSC Commissioners are willing to participate in such a rodeo, then they can make all the claims about loss of productive land that they want.

But I'm guessing they won't want to.

This stupid lie needs to be retired.  It's only repeated by stupid people.
0 Comments

Central Maine Power Steps In It

6/5/2019

0 Comments

 
CMP has been acting really crazy lately.  I mean really out there.  Unbelievable.  Totally nuts!

How can they expect that sane and logical people are being influenced to support their project while watching this crazy circus?

Watch this.
CMP sent out a glossy postcard last year promising 3500 new jobs if its NECEC transmission project is built.  Last week, they sent the same glossy postcard promising only 1600 new jobs.  The new postcard also changed the purported "investment" in Maine's economy into a totally different number "injected" into Maine's economy.

Original:  "NECEC will change this with close to a $1Billion investment in Maine's economy and support of 3500 jobs."

Revised:  "NECEC will change this with close to $573 million injected into Maine's economy and support of 1,600 jobs."

The postcards also differ with the name of the website recipients can visit "to learn more."  The original tells recipients to visit "3500mainejobs.com"  The revised version tells recipients to visit "goodformaine.org"

How bad is it when your revamping of your PR program makes your original website obsolete?  (Note, visiting the original redirects to the revised).  Does CMP think people are stupid?  That they have no memory at all?

Geez, CMP, your PR contractor completely screwed this up!  You weren't supervising them at all, were you?  Or maybe you were too busy fighting off the Russians?

Facebook group Say No to NECEC reports:
May 30 - Today at an energy conference in New York, Thorn Dickinson from CMP/Avangrid gave a presentation where he complained that corridor opponents are like the Russians trying to influence elections. https://www.spglobal.com/…/…/northeast-power-and-gas-markets
He complained of artificial intelligence used to spread fake news like the Russians.
Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be any transcript or intense power point featuring Boris and Natasha, just a report from a person who attended and listened to the crazy.

Somebody seems to be cracking up here.

To underscore this, listen to Thorn's excuse for the inconsistent postcards, when he insists that was an "on purpose."
The difference between these two numbers is easily understood by anyone familiar with this project and Maine's approval process. One refers to the average number of jobs supported each year over the six years of development, and the higher number is the expectation during the peak year of construction. Both mailers are accurate. These numbers have been consistent since the onset of the project and were confirmed by two, independent economic analyses using standard modeling techniques. -Thorn Dickinson, Vice President of Business Development, Avangrid
"Anyone familiar with this project and Maine's approval process."  Was this the target of the postcards?  Judging by their wide circulation, I don't think so.  They weren't sent to "anyone," but to "everyone," even those unfamiliar with this project and Maine's approval process.  This is the epitome of stepped in it.
Picture
What a clown!  Oops, I meant клоун.
When I'm done laughing hysterically at this ridiculous circus, I'm probably going to conclude that CMP is making crap up as it goes along.  And nobody is buying it.

Who's paying for this comedy?
0 Comments

There's Nothing Natural About Contrived Utility Talking Points

5/15/2019

0 Comments

 
Advice from a spinner: 
How about something like this...in you own, natural voice, and therefore maybe a little less contrived...
There is nothing less contrived about delivering the canned talking points written by public relations spinners.

Contrived - adjective - deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously.
Created or arranged in a way that seems artificial and unrealistic: the ending of the novel is too pat and contrived.

What is "your own, natural voice," and how does one master using it when delivering a contrived statement?

This is pure garbage, brought to you by Central Maine Power's paid public relations spinners as they advise officials from the Town of Jay on what to say at various meetings and hearings on CMP's New England Clean Energy Connect transmission project.
Picture
C'mon, either the Town of Jay naturally supports the project and can come up with their own talking points, or its simply acting as a shill for CMP and needs talking points handed to it.  Obviously the latter.

What kind of collusion is this?
Picture
CMP's spinners can "craft specific statements for anyone in Jay" that can be delivered by human puppets operating remotely without strings.  Isn't technology wonderful?  No strings!
Except that kind of stuff always appears to be the contrived nonsense it is.  But now we learn it can simply be overcome by using your own "natural" voice.  Easier said than done, Spinmeister Lady, easier said than done.

So, now Mainers find out that the Town of Jay has been nothing but a mouthpiece for CMP.  I don't think many of them are surprised, however they are angry, as they have every right to be.  Just two nights ago, the Town of Jay illegally rejected a citizen petition to allow a Town vote on the NECEC.  You have to wonder if that action was also orchestrated by CMP.  In fact, does the Town of Jay do anything of its own "natural" initiative?

While shocking, this kind of utility puppeteering of elected officials, regulators, and sycophantic business and community groups is nothing new.  It has happened so much in the past that it's been a regular part of the utility transmission approval playbook.  I'm sure Connie and Elizabeth know it well.  Front groups, advertising, closed-door-lobbying, and advocacy buys are how the utility tilts the playing field in its favor, and these same tactics have been used over and over again on different transmission projects.

It all costs money.  Lots of money.  Who pays for it?  The utility may wrongly believe that it is the consumers who ultimately pay the cost of the transmission project.  In a traditional cost-of-service project, that would be the captive ratepayers who benefit from the project.  In NECEC's case, as a merchant project, it will be the electric ratepayers in Massachusetts, who have voluntarily contracted to purchase transmission capacity on NECEC for a set price.

Do Massachusetts ratepayers want to pay for this kind of nonsense?  Is it legal to require them to do so?  Many states have strict rules regarding the kinds of costs that may be folded into cost-of-service rates.  Lobbying and advocacy buys are generally prohibited from recovery and must be absorbed in utility profits (shareholders pay these costs because they only benefit the company, not the ratepayers).  In addition, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an Opinion in 2017 prohibiting recovery of these kinds of costs in interstate transmission rates.  It's pretty cut and dried that the cost of advocacy programs shall not be recovered from ratepayers.

Except NECEC is a merchant project.  Its rates are voluntarily negotiated and a price is set in the contract.  The transmission owner cannot increase that rate later to cover the cost of advocacy buys.  CMP probably built in a fixed budget for advocacy in its contract with Massachusetts, and it has been spending freely.  Massachusetts ratepayers will pay that cost regardless, with any difference between the budget and actual costs either becoming additional profit for NECEC, or decreasing CMP's profit.

All the costs of CMP's advocacy buys end up in the electric bills of Massachusetts ratepayers.  Every last one of them needs to think about that every time they flip the light switch to use some of that great "clean" Canadian hydropower their government has mandated.  And it's going to get pretty expensive, because the citizens of Maine aren't backing down.  At some point, CMP is going to meet or exceed its advocacy budget, and then the cost of continuing this farce comes out of company pockets.  How might CMP decrease services elsewhere to make up for this loss?
0 Comments

When Nerves Overtake Truth and Logic

4/10/2019

2 Comments

 
This article says city utilities are "nervous" about new legislation that would prevent the use of eminent domain for above ground HVDC merchant transmission facilities.  Apparently their attack of nerves is so severe it has short-circuited their brains.  Or maybe they are merely attempting to defeat the legislation with fearmongering.  Pretty much none of what it has been reported that these "cities" said on a conference call  organized by the Missouri Public Utility Alliance is even remotely likely, and some of it is just plain old not true.

Such as this bit of fearmongering:
“My fear of that is the precedent it would set within the state of Missouri for any future developments,” Klusmeyer said.
Any utility system in the state, whether it’s water, sewer, electric or telecommunications, has the power of eminent domain, Klusmeyer said. The bill could be construed to limit the use of eminent domain for “pretty much any utility in the state,” he said, even though it’s limited to “above-ground merchant lines.”
“That can trickle down into just about any type of utility expansion that’s done, whether it’s through Missouri American, or maybe even Ameren or Associated (Electric Cooperative),” he said. “That’s my fear of what it’s going to do to any type of infrastructure improvement or expansion in the state.”
Your fear is baseless, Dennis.  In fact, it's completely manufactured.  The legislation is specific to private entities constructing above ground, high voltage direct current, merchant transmission lines.  It does not apply to buried merchant transmission lines (and, hey, this is a thing now!), water, sewer, telecommunications, or even any other electric transmission lines proposed by public utilities, such as Ameren.  The kind of project affected is specifically named in the legislation, and no in-state public entity will be affected in the least, now or in the future.  No utilities in the state are building above ground high voltage direct current (HVDC) merchant transmission lines.  The inclusion of HVDC pretty much limits its application to a certain kind of electric transmission line used mainly to transmit electricity long distances without intermediate connections to communities through which it passes.  HVDC has to be converted to AC power before it can be connected to the existing grid, and each DC/AC converter station costs hundreds of millions of dollars, making interconnection with this type of project cost prohibitive.  This legislation cannot apply to AC electric projects, buried DC electric projects, DC electric projects owned by public entities, DC electric projects owned by anyone that erect substations at least every 50 miles along the route, and any water, sewer or telecommunications project.  It says so right in the legislation:
Private entities shall not have the power of eminent domain under the provisions of this section for the purposes of constructing above-ground merchant lines. For the purposes of this subsection, "merchant line" means a high-voltage direct current electric  transmission line which does not provide for the erection of electric substations at intervals of less than fifty miles, which substations are necessary to accommodate both the purchase and sale to persons located in this state of electricity generated or transmitted by the private entity.
Statutes don't "trickle down" to apply to something not mentioned in the statute.  The final arbitrator of how a statute is applied is a court, and courts limit their opinion to what a statute actually says.  Courts do not add or substitute language or meaning to a statute.  There's simply no way this statute could ever apply to water, sewer, telecommunications, or other kinds of electric transmission projects.  It appears that Dennis's fearmongering is intended to incite opposition from entities to whom the statute would never apply.  Nice try, but I think people are smarter than that, especially utilities like Ameren and Associated.
There was also a lot of bogus information in that article that it's not clear was attributed to Dennis Klusmeyer, but was interspersed with quotes attributed to him, such as:
The bill, introduced by Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Frankford, would prohibit taking easements by eminent domain to make way for the Grain Belt Express, a planned $2.3 billion transmission line, which Chicago-based Invenergy bought last year. The line would carry electricity from the Iron Star wind farm in southwestern Kansas, across Missouri and Indiana, and into Illinois. The line would cross eight north Missouri counties, including Monroe and Ralls, which are represented by Hansen.

Targeted at the Grain Belt Express, the bill would also apply to similar projects. It bans all private entities from using eminent domain to acquire easements to build “above-ground merchant lines” if less than 12 percent of the power will be consumed by Missouri customers.
The bill wouldn't prohibit eminent domain or prevent a buried HVDC transmission project.  If GBE was buried along existing rights of way, it would not be affected.

Chicago-based Invenergy did not buy the project last year.  It signed a contingent contract to purchase if certain conditions are met.  Invenergy does not yet own the project. 

The line is proposed to carry electricity from a proposed converter station in southwestern Kansas, although no specific wind farms have signed on to be customers.  Any wind that wants to connect would have to sign a contract to purchase capacity.  That hasn't happened yet.  In addition, the project has no clear path through Illinois to Indiana, so it is not guaranteed to connect to anything.  GBE does not have a permit to construct the project in Illinois.  In fact, it has not even applied for one.

There are no other "similar" projects.

And that 12% figure is not in the legislation, but came from legislative public hearings where proponents of the bill mentioned that less than 12% of the electricity planned for this project could possibly be for sale to Missouri utilities.  The legislation contains no such threshold.

So, what was the point of spewing misinformation such as this to news reporters on a conference call? 

Fearmongering.

And then there's this logic bender:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has the power to regulate transmission, not the state legislature, said Mark Petty director of Kirkwood Electric. Every transmission project can be difficult for landowners to grapple with, which is why they are considered by a commission rather than elected officials who haven’t been reviewing all the facts, he said.

“It’s easy for an entity that objects to want to do an end run, even after all the other facts have been presented and laws been interpreted and reviewed,” he said.

So, let me get this straight, Mark.  You believe that FERC considered Grain Belt Express, interpreted and reviewed the laws, and "regulated" it?  I'm frightened to think you're the director of anything electric.  FERC jurisdiction extends only to the rates of interstate transmission.  FERC only regulates transmission RATES, which has nothing to do with Missouri law or HB 1062.  States have jurisdiction to site and permit electric transmission projects, in this case the Missouri Public Service Commission.  Where does the MO PSC get its authority?  From state laws.  Who makes state laws?  The legislature does.  The MO PSC is a creature of statute and must operate within the laws created by the legislature.  The MO PSC exists at the will of the legislature.  It defies logic to believe that an act of the legislature is an "end run" around a commission that only exists by legislative grace.  The commission does what the legislature says, not the other way around.  If the legislature is prevented from acting on GBE because it is FERC jurisdictional, then the MO PSC would also be prevented from acting.  I'm not sure what FERC has to do with this anyhow, because it has no jurisdiction over state eminent domain laws.  Federalism, it's a thing.  Look it up, Mark.

Mark also said this:
Since the electricity is still coming to customers through public utilities, customers will have the same low rates and price stability, Petty said. The wind electricity from the Grain Belt Express is also cheaper than the alternatives, and Kirkwood could save up to a third of what it currently pays for electricity, Petty said.
A non-public utility selling service (and we are talking about transmission capacity here, since GBE does not sell power) to a public utility does not make the non-public utility a public utility for eminent domain purposes.  A public utility buying service (and electricity from a non-public utility generator) can use any savings realized for any purpose, such as making system improvements, or giving themselves a raise.  All "savings" are not guaranteed to show up on consumer electric bills.  And if they did, Mark wants you to believe it will cut bills by 1/3.  That's a pretty high number, Mark.  So, if someone's bill is ordinarily $100, it will only be $67 if GBE uses eminent domain to build its project?  Who has been purchasing power for your city, Mark?  That person hasn't been doing a very good job.  Perhaps Mark was a bit confused about the actual dollar amount of the savings, and this guy tried to pull him out of the fire...
Cities served by the public energy pool will also see savings, but not as large as Kirkwood. Each city would save about 3-4 percent, said John Grotzinger, vice president of engineering operations and power supply at the Missouri Public Utility Alliance. Those savings would be passed on to ratepayers, he said.
Three to four percent.  But in Kirkwood it's 33.3%?  That's so ridiculous it can't be true.  Let's see... 3% of a $100 electric bill is a savings of... $3.  That $3 isn't going to change anyone's life.  However, using eminent domain to take land for GBE will take farmland out of production and impact yields, which directly translates into increased food costs for everyone.  Any "savings" from GBE are minuscule compared to the consequences of using eminent domain to increase the profits of non-public entities such as GBE.

HB 1062 has incredible support.  Use of fearmongering and misinformation to prevent its passage is a losing game.  Or maybe these city utilities and public energy pool folks really believe their own nonsense and have been taken for a ride by out-of-state investors seeking to increase their own profits on the backs of Missourians?  When someone offers you something at below their cost to supply it, there's always a catch.  Perhaps this is the real reason cities are nervous?  Their golden goose is on the chopping block!

May truth, logic and good sense prevail!
2 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    About the Author

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

    About
    StopPATH Blog

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

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


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

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

    RSS Feed

    Archives

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

    Categories

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

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.