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

Clean Up in Aisle 5!

7/11/2018

0 Comments

 
AEP shell company Transource sure is wasting a whole bunch of my money chasing rainbows in Pennsylvania.  A company without a federal guarantee to recover its investment in a poorly-planned transmission project would have surely given up by now.  But not Transource.  Transource received a guarantee from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that it may apply to recover its prudent costs for the Independence Energy Connection when the project is abandoned.

And it will be abandoned.  Like a rickety supermarket cart with two locked wheels, one pointing horizontally, and the fourth missing, Transource keeps attempting to shove its project toward the check out counter.

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission held a second pre-hearing conference for the parties this week after Transource asked to consolidate its east and west cases, shelter its new substations from local zoning regulations, and that the commission find eminent domain necessary for the IEC on 133 separate properties.

133!

That's pretty much the entire route, right?  Transource thinks its going to build a transmission project on new right of way composed almost entirely of property taken by eminent domain?  Unlikely.  Very unlikely.  Also unlikely is a future scenario where landowners cave in under the threat of eminent domain and voluntarily sign easement agreements.  Affected landowners have been steadfast in protecting their properties from Transource's invasion, even in the face of earlier threats and court proceedings.  They are unlikely to capitulate under future threats.

The PUC also added discussion of Pennsylvania's new Act 45, which prohibits the use of eminent domain on preserved land.  Much of Transource's route impacts conserved farmland.  Transource believes it is not affected by the Act due to an exclusion for public utilities.  However, that exclusion is not entirely clear.

Jana Benscoter of the York Dispatch reported on Monday's pre-hearing conference.
Barnes, one of the administrative law judges, said the commission has an interest to "reduce the impact" on landowners, and she’s “hard pressed” to approve the currently proposed project. 

Not only did she mention that some of the existing transmission lines in Franklin and York counties are “underutilized” and “defunct,” but Barnes also emphasized that the cost of the $320 million market efficiency project is concerning.

We haven't even gotten to administrative hearing yet (now scheduled for Feb. 2019) and at least one of the PUC judges seems to have concerns.  Not exactly promising for Transource...

York Dispatch also reported extensively on the comments of electric utility PPL, who owns an existing transmission line that parallels IEC's east segment in its entirety.
During a second prehearing conference before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Monday, July 9, a PPL Electric representative said the company's existing infrastructure could accommodate the goal of moving more power from the northern U.S. to the south.

In response to a question, PPL counsel Amy Hirakis told administrative law judges Elizabeth Barnes and Andrew Calvelli "it's feasible to use existing PPL right-of-way and facilities for the market efficiency project identified by the PJM Interconnection."

Joe Nixon, PPL strategic communications manager, also confirmed "our existing transmission lines in the York County area has the capacity to carry additional circuits." 
"PPL proposed an alternative market efficiency project to address the issue identified by PJM, but ours was not the selected solution," Nixon explained. "PJM awarded the project to Transource. We always look at the least impact to landowners in developing solutions."

And not to be outdone, FirstEnergy affiliates in Pennsylvania said they also proposed an alternative project "which largely used existing transmission rights of way" that was not selected.

Why, PJM, why?  Why did you select the most expensive, most invasive, riskiest, project to relieve congestion?  Someone didn't have their thinking cap on!  You can blame it on an inaccurate "constructability" study, but really anyone who has even remotely been involved with transmission opposition could have told you a greenfield project across "undeveloped" land in southern Pennsylvania would be overwhelmingly opposed.  The smarter decision would have been to select a re-build or non-transmission alternative that would receive little or no opposition.  Did PJM select Transource because it was AEP's "turn" to win a project?  Perhaps the IEC looked "more robust" or something, but it's never going to be built, so perhaps a lesser project that CAN get built is the better choice.

By the way, FirstEnergy is also a bit perturbed that one of Transource's 133 eminent domain petitions affects West Penn Power property in Greene Township.  FirstEnergy says, "Transource lacks legal authority to condemn the used and useful property of another utility."

And that's where Transource's crippled grocery cart topples over and spills its load.  Because if the PUC determines that re-builds or additions to the transmission lines of other utilities are the preferred alternative to a new project on new right of way, Transource is done.  It cannot condemn the existing transmission lines and rights of way of others to build a version of the IEC.  If the PUC makes that decision, then the project has to go back to PJM to be re-bid and re-evaluated as a rebuild.  And there the idea will die a quiet death.

So, let's cut to the chase, shall we?  What PJM giveth, PJM can taketh away.  Considering that all PJM's "need" findings are created by magic math, it's probably only a matter of dropping in a few new variables to create a finding that the IEC isn't needed after all.  Stopping now will end the runaway expenditures that ratepayers will be on the hook for later.  Cut me a break, won't you?
0 Comments

New Jersey Regulators Say "NO" to FirstEnergy and PJM Interconnection

6/22/2018

3 Comments

 
There will be some celebrating going on in New Jersey tonight after the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities adopted the recommendation of one of its administrative law judges and denied the transmission application of JCP&L this morning.  JCP&L, a FirstEnergy affiliate, had filed an application to build an insane transmission proposal inside a commuter rail right-of-way and just feet from thousands of homes.  It called its project the Monmouth County Reliability Project.  As if it was ever about "reliability."

Although one news outlet called today's decision "stunning" and claimed "State boards often approve such requests from utility companies. Friday's unanimous rejection by the New Jersey BPU was stunning to many who follow energy markets and the energy industry," it's not at all surprising to transmission opposition leaders.

Today's victory is the just result of hard work and determination by Residents Against Giant Electric (RAGE).  RAGE completely owns and deserves this victory!  I'm not sure when I've ever seen a citizens group work so hard and so cohesively toward a common goal.  They are an inspiration to transmission opponents everywhere!  Although they'll never get back the two years and half a million dollars they spent in pursuit of their goal, they achieved something invaluable -- a sense of community and the knowledge that a small group of committed individuals can change the world.  The next generation who watched their parents wage this battle will grow into adulthood with the knowledge that they can win if they stand up and fight.

Today's rejection of JCP&L's plan is not only a defeat for FirstEnergy, but also a rejection of PJM Interconnection's planning process.  PJM insisted the project was needed, and even provided witnesses to support it.  JCP&L continually hid behind PJM and used PJM's claims of need like a shield to deflect criticism.  Perhaps that's why the industry might be so "stunned."  Does the industry believe if they can coerce PJM to work a transmission project into its regional transmission expansion plan that will ensure the approval of state utility regulators?  It doesn't.  Not even.  The only and final judge of whether a transmission proposal gets built is the state utility regulator, not PJM.  The days of state utility regulators following meekly in PJM's footsteps are over.  PJM has been wrong, dead wrong, about numerous transmission proposals that found their way into its regional plan.  MCRP is just another to add to the growing list.  And you know how that old story goes about the boy who cried "wolf?"  At what point will PJM's credibility about transmission planning tank completely?  The more unneeded transmission projects PJM orders and continues to support, even in the face of better alternatives, the more damage it does to its credibility.  Pull yourself out of the gutter, PJM, and start doing your job impartially and with the best interests of electric consumers in mind, instead of the financial interests of your utility members.

Bravo to the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities for being brave enough to agree that, yes, the emperor is naked.  PJM is a paper tiger.  PJM's endorsement of a transmission project is not proof of its necessity.  The BPU is a shining example for other state regulatory commissions that may be faced with other PJM-ordered projects that are unnecessarily costly and damaging to the citizens they serve.

The citizens saved the day in New Jersey.  They didn't wait for someone else to act, they didn't hope that someone else would represent their interests, they didn't bank on someone else providing the funds necessary to wage this war.  In this case, the citizens found that the someone who could stop this project resided within each one of them.  Congratulations, RAGE!

3 Comments

Citizens Pan Transource at Public Hearing

5/14/2018

0 Comments

 
The Pennsylvania Utility Commission is holding public hearings on the Transource Independence Energy Connection proposal to build two transmission lines on entirely new right-of-way in York and Franklin Counties. 

The first day of hearings occurred last week in York County, where many citizens spoke out in opposition to the project.  The citizen opposition was bolstered by comments from local elected representatives.
State Rep. Kristin Phillips-Hill, R-York Township, said the project doesn't show that it will provide "long-term, significant benefits to our local Pennsylvania communities economically, nor preserve our tremendous agrarian heritage and scenic beauty."

She said, "York County is proud of its strong preservation heritage with nearly 42,000 acres and 282 farms."

Phillips-Hill said the question of why two existing high-voltage power transmission lines that run parallel to the proposed route and are not operating at full capacity aren't being utilized hasn't been satisfactorily answered.
Indeed, Rep. Phillips-Hill!  Why is this company proposing a transmission line on new right-of-way when existing infrastructure through the community is only half-utilized?  Can we blame the company, PJM Interconnection, or federal energy planning procedures?  All of the above!  The Feds encouraged competitive transmission projects, where companies compete to build the best project at a bargain price.  And PJM ran a competitive transmission contest to see who could propose a project that alleviated a congestion concern from 2014.  And PJM selected Transource, a new entrant without any existing assets in the geographic area.  And Transource can only build new assets because it doesn't own any existing ones that could be upgraded or rebuilt to economically alleviate the constraint with minimal intrusion on local landowners.  All three of these entities have since conspired to continue to push this outdated idea, even though better alternatives have been recognized.  What good is competition when it costs communities and ratepayers more than upgrading existing assets?  It's nothing more than an exercise in trying to force a solution that is no longer economical because a project looked good on paper once upon a time.  And it's proof that PJM's competitive process does not work on economic projects because the entire exercise takes too long and is subject to public input.  PJM's "market efficiency" competitive transmission planning process is an abject failure that should be abandoned in favor of better, cheaper, less invasive ideas.

I considered the name of this project recently, and the irony is laughable.  "Independence?"  Making Washington, DC, Northern Virginia, and Baltimore dependent upon electrical generators in Pennsylvania rather than generating electricity locally is "independence?"  Independence for whom?  There's nothing "independent" in a transmission project that serves as nothing more than an intrusive leech, sucking resources out of one state to serve a more economically prosperous and politically connected geographic region at the expense of one not so well positioned.  That the economic prosperity of the big cities is proposed to gain at the expense of the economic prosperity of small Pennsylvania communities is wrong, just wrong.

It's up to the Pennsylvania Utility Commission to protect Pennsylvanians, not toss them under the bus in order to provide benefits for citizens of other states.  And you need to tell them so!  The second York public hearing is scheduled to take place today, beginning at 1:00 and 6:00 at the Airville Volunteer Fire Department.

Two additional public hearings will take place next week in Franklin County.
Picture
Please come out and support your community, whether it is giving oral comment, submitting written comment, or simply showing your opposition from the audience.  This may be your only opportunity to have your say, please don't miss it!

See you there!
0 Comments

AEP Treats Landowners Badly

5/9/2018

1 Comment

 
AEP wants to increase its corporate profits by building a transmission line through your property?  Bad news.  AEP has been increasingly disrespectful to landowners and actively seeks to coerce and bully landowners into submission long before its projects are even approved.  It's high time this company's abysmal treatment of landowners is reined in by regulators.  It's coming: AEP's "relationship" with landowners is speeding down the track on its way to a spectacular wipeout.
AEP likes to pretend it is "working with landowners."  As if saying it makes it so.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The reality is that AEP is working AGAINST landowners.

AEP's huge dilemma is that it is engaged in several transmission projects with compacted time lines.  If AEP cannot get its projects approved and built by certain dates, the projects will be cancelled.  And what's the first thing that goes by the wayside when AEP is in a big hurry?  Landowner relations.  AEP simply doesn't care about establishing a cordial relationship with landowners it proposes entering into a co-tenant relationship with in perpetuity.  Instead, AEP is simply attempting to mow down landowners on its path to profit.  Logically, this just can't end well for AEP.  There's going to be a huge price to be paid for each minute, incremental "victory" AEP believes it has won along the way.

A transmission company files an application at a state regulatory commission, hoping to ultimately receive approval for its project.  The regulatory process takes a long time, especially in states with no statutory deadline for a decision on the application.  Transmission companies have dealt with this long lead time by attempting to perform surveys, environmental studies, and engineering work during the regulatory process, with the goal of getting as much pre-construction work accomplished as possible before the regulatory decision.  However, this requires cooperation from landowners who may grant permission for the company to enter private property to perform its pre-construction work.  When landowners refuse, the company has no choice but to put this work on hold until after the regulators make a decision on the project.  When all pre-construction work has not been performed on a project that a regulator approves, the transmission permit is conditioned upon such work being performed before construction begins.  It's simple.  And it works.  And, most importantly, it avoids the kinds of power struggles AEP has recently engaged in with landowners.  As well, it avoids the extra expense of pre-construction work for a project that is ultimately denied by regulators.  Since many transmission projects approved by regional transmission authorities such as PJM Interconnection come with abandonment incentives that reimburse transmission companies for project expenses in the event that a project is subsequently cancelled or denied by state regulators, the money transmission companies like AEP spend on pre-construction activites comes out of the pockets of electric customers across the region.  Having to wait for approval before engaging in expensive pre-construction work can save ratepayers a lot of money on an abandoned project.

But AEP didn't want to wait on its Transource Independence Energy Connection.  Because PJM Interconnection put such a tight timeline on the project, AEP is attempting to get as much of its project built as it can before regulators make a decision.  After all, it doesn't cost them a thing... except goodwill.  And AEP is going to need a lot of landowner goodwill if it expects to actually build this project someday.

So AEP lied to landowners who refused to grant access.  AEP told them they would be arrested.  AEP told them they would trespass on private property after giving 10-day notice under Pennsylvania law.  Except the law wasn't really as clear as AEP tried to make everyone believe.  AEP threatened to sue landowners for access. 

None of this made any impression whatsoever on landowners (except to further anger them and create entrenched resistance).  AEP filed a whole bunch of confused legal actions against landowners.  Lengthy court processes ensued.  And the court processes have gone on just long enough to ensure AEP's time sensitive turtle hunts can't possibly take place this year.  Awww... that's really too bad.  But were turtles really the reason?  I'm sure there's plenty of damage AEP can do to landowner property cutting down trees, running over freshly planted crops, drilling holes, propagating invasive weeds, compacting soil, encouraging erosion, creating drainage issues and generally impacting farm operations for the entire growing season.  Sadly, all these activities can be performed any time of the year, perhaps even after harvest, when their effects will be somewhat mitigated.  But AEP is a bully, and destroying farm operations for this year is supposed to intimidate landowners into agreement.

That's not going to happen.  The more AEP tries to bully landowners the more determined the landowners become to resist.  This battle is far from over.
AEP also did not want to discuss specific eminent domain cases. However, AEP spokesperson Melissa McHenry specified that as of this past spring, the company had more than 3,200 easements on projects, including more than 903 miles of transmission line. Out of the 3,200 easements, only 41, or 1.28%, required eminent domain filings, she said. In some of those cases, eminent domain was necessary “because the land was without clear title, and, therefore, condemnation by publication was necessary,” she said.

According to McHenry, when AEP constructs or upgrades a transmission line that requires the use of a landowner’s property, easement negotiations begin with property owners after state regulators have approved the project. The negotiations are based on the fair market value of the property needed for the ROW, she said. Appraisals and market data studies are conducted to determine market values and a basis for acquisition negotiations. Negotiations will continue “as long as practical” to reach a voluntary agreement.

If it becomes clear that a voluntary agreement between AEP and the property owner cannot be reached and other viable alternatives do not exist, the company will then exercise the right to eminent domain to secure required easements.
AEP uses eminent domain only 1.28% of the time, you say?  The more AEP enrages landowners, the less they fear the company, and the higher that percentage climbs.  Has AEP ever built a transmission project that required eminent domain for 98% of the project?  Of course not.  That's absurd.  Those kinds of projects never get built.

And how successful will AEP be asserting involuntary entry on Pennsylvanians when the Maryland portion of its project is not subject to such abusive laws?  And what about AEP's transmission projects in other states that don't have laws that allow trespassing prior to condemnation?  Does AEP think that pretending it does have such authority will actually be enough to intimidate landowners into allowing involuntary entry?

The only thing it does is fill landowners with a terrible resolve to resist AEP completely.  Resistance causes project delays.  AEP's timetable is not a landowner priority.  It's not a regulatory requirement.  The more desperate AEP becomes, the more resistance it creates which will ultimately result in prolonged delays... and project failure.  The price of victory in one small battle oftentimes results in losing the war.  Pretty dumb stuff, AEP.  What idiot there thought that was a good idea?  If I was in charge, I'd fire that person.

So, what if AEP involuntarily forces its way onto your land?  Fully document the condition of your land before the invasion using pictures and video.  Keep a running visual diary of AEP's actions on your land, both during and after the invasion.  Don't sign any voluntary permission forms that abrogate your rights.  Have damage professionally remediated and keep all receipts.  Don't settle for less than it costs to restore your property to its original condition.  This bully deserves to be treated the same way it treats you.

And remember how you were treated by AEP during the next legislative session.  Abusive laws need changing.

Having a reputation as a landowner bully really isn't a good thing in the long run.  It squanders goodwill for no  reason.  Nobody likes a bully.
1 Comment

Transource Economic Impact Study Flops

3/30/2018

4 Comments

 
What do you call an "economic impact study" for a transmission line that doesn't impress anyone?

FAILURE!

Worse yet, Transource wasted OUR money on this biased trash.

Who was this study supposed to impress?  Local economic development folks, county government, maybe the state regulators? 
Transource spokeswoman Abby Foster said "...the study was requested by Transource to provide the community answers for the benefit related to the company’s role in this project. If the study is requested by the PUC, Transource will provide it."
The community wasn't impressed with Transource's "answers" to a question that hasn't been asked.
Nobody's been asking about these trumped up "benefits."  Instead they want to know about the electric bill savings Transource insists they're going to get.  With more than 80% of the economic benefits going to the Washington, D.C. and Baltimore areas, there's not much left to go around "the community."  How much exactly will each individual landowner in Franklin or York county receive in electric bill savings to balance out the huge sacrifice Transource proposes they make with their land, their heritage, their productivity, their financial security, their peace of mind?

Transource's economic impact study is not balanced.  While it makes grandiose claims of jobs, tax payments, and economic riches, it recognizes absolutely no detriments that will come with the project.  Land devalued by the transmission project will result in a decreased tax burden for the landowner (because, hey, landowners, Transource only wants an easement across your land, you still pay all the taxes for the land Transource uses!).  Where is the lowered tax revenue produced by lower assessed values added into Transource's economic study to balance against the unsubstantiated claims of increased tax revenue?  It's not!  Soil compaction and construction work can impact crops for years to come.  Less revenue from crops, less money the farmer has to spread around hiring help, purchasing new equipment, and spending in his own community.  Where is this decreased local spending and fewer jobs added to the study to balance against Transource's claims of new jobs and local spending?  It's not.  Transource's economic impact study is a one-sided picture of how things could be if the detrimental economic impacts of the transmission line on the community were not considered.  It's complete and utter crap.

Transource's press release said...
An independent economic impact analysis projects the Pennsylvania and Maryland counties involved in the Transource Independence Energy Connection (IEC) project will benefit from construction of the estimated $230 million project.
Independent?  Hahaha ha ha.  Surely you jest, Transource.  There's nothing "independent" in a "study" you bought and paid for (with my money, I might add).  You hired a company to produce a study that only included economic "benefits" without any of the known and substantial economic detriments.  You're absurd!

If you can find the actual study, you can be informed that Brattle created it using IMPLAN software.  What's IMPLAN?
NOW ANYONE CAN CALCULATE ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Oh, I get it now.  Even a monkey could plug some numbers into your software and it would calculate some pre-programmed amount of "benefits."  Like Brattle says, "The model estimates the direct, indirect and induced economic stimulus benefits associated with the planned transmission lines."  Benefits, only benefits.  This is garbage.

Since it has completely failed to convince the communities of anything, I guess Transource plans to use it on regulators.  Except the regulators are looking for an actual need to construct the project.  I mean a real need, not some made up "benefits" that the community doesn't "need."  Do we build transmission because a community needs a certain number of jobs or a certain amount of tax revenue?  No, we only build transmission when there is an electrical NEED for the project.  Jobs and tax revenue don't create NEED for a transmission project.

Maybe there really wasn't a NEED for this economic impact study.  But how else was Transource going to create a set-up to trot out the union guys?  The union guys show up on every transmission project.  They are a transmission company's "go to" to create false advocacy for a project.  What occurred behind the scenes that suddenly inspired union guys to make videos shilling for this transmission project?  Was there a project labor agreement?  Did the union guys get some contract perk in exchange for their support?  If not, they should.  Other union guys have gotten these things in the past in exchange for their advocacy for a transmission project.  Don't sell yourself short, union guys.  You can make AEP pay dearly for your support. 

Not that it does much good either.  Because a short-term job for a union guy also isn't a need to build a transmission project.  Are we supposed to build things we don't need just to create jobs?  I admire people who work hard for a decent living, and I support union workers who band together to demand better working conditions from giant corporations.  But this -- selling yourself out to support a giant corporation intent on destroying your neighbors and your community?  Doesn't that go against everything you fight for on a daily basis?

And the sad part is that Transource will use one of a handful of specialized transmission construction contractors in the U.S.  These construction companies have their own workers who will be imported to your community to fill the jobs that are created.  Now maybe these workers are union, but does it provide local union guys with a job?  Nope.

And one final word about all the "tax revenue" this project will supposedly create.  Not that I believe your numbers at all, Transource, but who ultimately pays your taxes for you?  I do.  Every electric ratepayer who will get a bill for the cost of this project pays a share of any local "taxes" you pay.  So it's not like you're actually paying the counties anything, you're merely proposing to redistribute the wealth of others.

Maybe this kind of idiocy works on other communities, but it doesn't work on the Transource Independence Energy Connection.

Quit wasting my money, Transource!

4 Comments

NJ Judge Denies FirstEnergy Transmission Plan

3/9/2018

3 Comments

 
Congratulations, RAGE!  You did it!

Residents Against Giant Electric (RAGE) formed several years ago to fight FirstEnergy affiliate Jersey Central Power & Light's insane plan to construct a 10-mile, 230kV transmission line in a narrow commuter railroad right of way abutting dense residential development in Monmouth County.  As the judge recognized in her decision handed down yesterday, "RAGE took up the predominant oar in mounting the opposition to the MCRP, understandably, in light of the fact that the Project is in the back yards of its members."  This victory is yours, RAGErs!  The citizens group was incredibly well-organized and managed and its members worked incredibly hard toward denial.  The effort put forth was nothing less than stellar, but effort alone cannot always guarantee victory.  RAGE also worked an incredible strategic game and left no stone unturned, no task undone, and no decision left to chance.  They worked this case in an aggressive, take no prisoners fashion.  They assured their own victory.  Bravo, RAGE, well done!

JCP&L's response to having their ass handed to them whined:
"We strongly disagree that JCP&L failed to prove the need for the Monmouth County Reliability Project," the utility said. "The initial decision contradicts the findings made by the regional grid operator and industry experts."
Clearly, the judge did not feel that the regional grid operator and "industry experts" were credible.  Is that going to be JCP&L's thing on exceptions to the BPU?  That the judge who spent hours and hours evaluating testimony and exhibits failed to recognize the superiority of utility arguments?  That the BPU should disregard her "in the trenches" view of the case and substitute their own judgment of whether or not JCP&L met their burden?  That is truly unlikely.  Judge Cookson was very thorough, carefully evaluated the evidence, and made a reasoned decision.  JCP&L couldn't even point to an error she made, it simply whined that it didn't win.

PJM was not credible.  RAGE presented evidence that JCP&L had begun working on this project, and its preferred route, months before PJM even found a "problem" for it to fix.
I FIND that the preponderance of credible evidence proves that JCP&L commenced studies to justify the MCRP as its preferred route months before any “problem” was even identified as needing a solution.
PJM and its utility members suffer from a serious case of chicken/egg.  This isn't the first time a utility came up with a solution for a problem that PJM had not identified and then used PJM's planning process as a "vehicle" to advance a utility plan by finding a "problem" for it to fix.

Judge Cookson also recognized that failure to kowtow to PJM as an omnipotent grid planning oracle who must be obeyed isn't really a big deal at all.
During the hearings, PJM concurred that JCP&L will not suffer any financial penalties if the Board rejects the MCRP. Both PJM and JCP&L agree that if the MCRP is not approved, they will return to the planning stage and find another way to solve the P7 contingency.
Bravo!  This is the first time a state has recognized that denial of a PJM transmission proposal won't make the lights go out.  Such a simple thing, buried under mounds of rhetoric and projections of doom and gloom.
New Jersey can be a shining example in recognizing that states have the ultimate say in whether or not a RTO planned transmission project is constructed.  Instead of cowering and simply accepting regional grid plans as beyond question, states can say "no."  A regional grid authority was never intended to be the final arbiter of transmission plans.  If it were, there would be no purpose to state transmission permitting authority.  States need to stop acting like a rubber stamp and assert their authority under the law.

The judge also questioned the veracity of every RTO and utility's favorite word, "robust."  Personally, I hate that word.  It means nothing.
There were four alternative 230 kV lines into Red Bank on the narrowed list but apparently no technical studies were undertaken of them because they were considered by JCP&L to lack the appropriate level of “robustness.” Palermo could not find any definition for that term and was unfamiliar with its use generally in the transmission industry.
Let that term go back to the world of salad dressings.
Picture
Now let's talk about those "industry experts" JCP&L wants us to believe.  Because I knew the outcome of this Order before I read it, I didn't have to skip to the ordering paragraphs first.  I was able to start at the beginning and read through the synopsis of the evidence before getting to the judge's conclusions.  There was some pretty ominous foreshadowing in the way the judge presented her statement of the evidence.  And once I got to the findings, there were no surprises.  As far as JCP&L's "expert," who found no effect on property values, the judge opined:
Applying these standards, I FIND that Dr. Moliver’s expert opinion is entitled to greater weight than that of McHale. I FIND that McHale’s credibility was undermined by his careless quotation of synopses of studies he never read. He utilized a general search engine that returned results for terms “effect of HVTL at 15 ft” and followed a link to a New Hampshire Siting Commission webpage, copied the summaries, and deleted the attribution footer from his reprint. As reluctant as I am to express this, in my opinion, such “scholarship” by a student would produce an “F” and subject one to claims of plagiarism. It is certainly not the work product of a professional entitled to much weight to count the number of supportive studies versus the number of unsupportive studies without regard for the study criteria and quality. The merits, depths, sampling size, and commonality must be taken into account before a study can be cited as persuasive to a novel setting. I also FIND that his opinion as an expert witness was blended with several lay perceptions that fell outside the scope of his presentation for the Company and were unverified.
The utilities need to quit using this guy.  It sure appears that he put little effort into his testimony, but yet he most likely billed the utility thousands for his "work."  Because utilities believe their expert's opinions are beyond question, apparently some of the "experts" believe likewise.  JCP&L should ask for its money back.  Of course, it's not really JCP&L's money... they paid this guy with funds they will recover from ratepayers.

While the judge did not make a finding on the EMF issue, I got the distinct impression that maybe she believed that the industry has influenced science and that "experts" like Dr. Bailey make a tidy living being utility "experts" and making the same denials over and over.  Perhaps Bailey made a grave error by trying to make the opponent's witness look like a quack.  The judge mentioned that she didn't find him "eccentric" at all.  All those delicious ad hominem utility arguments tossed out to avoid any real debate of the EMF issue... wasted!

The best expert witness overall was clearly RAGE electrical engineer Jeffrey Palermo.  It's obvious that he developed an early rapport with the judge that the other engineering witnesses just couldn't touch.  The technical aspects of electric transmission are extremely difficult for laypeople.  Utility witnesses are usually more about complicating things with unfamiliar words and technical terms in an effort to make the judge give up and simply just trust his opinion because they can't put everything together to devise their own.  From reading this decision, I surmise that Palermo approached it differently and was able to explain the technicalities in a way the judge could understand and equip her to make an informed decision on the technical merits of "need."  He also presented a workable alternative that could be much cheaper and less invasive to the community.  And he clearly explained this alternative to the judge, who adopted it as a possible future solution.  Well done!

JCP&L needs to take a look at its own failed regulatory strategy at this point.  It didn't work on this judge.  She saw right through it all.
The evaluation directed by JCP&L was both pre-emptive in the timeline of the “need” for the Project and created an unlevel playing field tipped in its obvious favor. This is not a close case of general public interest versus parochial interest, with a tie going to the public utility company. I CONCLUDE that JCP&L’s application for municipal waivers pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-19 must be denied because the Company has not supported its application by the preponderance of the relevant and admissible evidence. The MCRP is not a safe or reasonable response to the potential P7 violation.
Any transmission opposition group that seeks to have a transmission regulatory application denied has to show up and play ball.  RAGE played hard, but more importantly it played smart.  It gave the judge the tools to deny this application.

But the regulatory process isn't the only game transmission opponents need to play.  Public opinion and politics also play a huge role in driving a denial.  RAGE rocked this game as well.  In her summary of the public hearings, the judge remarked:
The prepared summary of written statements indicates that eighty-three (83%) percent were opposed to the MCRP; and, seventeen (17%) percent in favor. Approximately twenty-five (25%) percent of the statements opposing the Project were form letters; and ninety-two (92%) percent of the statements in favor of the Project were form letters, of which eighty-eight (88%) percent were not from the impacted area.
And where did those 92% favorable form letters come from?  The judge elaborated:  "Those backing the MCRP primarily based that support on reliability and economic concerns, and were primarily from businesses not in the five impacted municipalities on a form letter prepared by the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce for its members."
The utility popularity contest was a flop in this instance.  Regulatory public comment hearings are intended to give voice to the community.  The utility's opportunity to make its opinions known comes during the hearing process.  But yet utilities consistently attempt to intrude in the public's opportunity by coercing supportive statements from entities who care little about the project.  It's strictly a numbers game to the utility -- how  many supportive comments can they coerce, and how "important" are the supporters?  RAGE completely drowned these shills out by showing up in record numbers and making honest, heartfelt, personal testimony opposing the project.  Perhaps JCP&L had a hand in its own defeat here by enraging the community to counteract JCP&L's underhanded efforts to set up its numbers game.  Utility efforts to coerce supportive comments from the community is a tactic that has backfired on more than one occasion and it needs to be jettisoned from the utility bag of tricks.

RAGE's victory should be celebrated and admired.  They not only accomplished their goal, but they provided an example that will be studied over and over by transmission opponents on other projects (and dare I say utilities, if they ever pull their heads out of their own behinds long enough to recognize they have a serious problem with opposition groups).
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.  --  Margaret Mead
Well done, RAGE!  You changed the world!
3 Comments

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

3/1/2018

3 Comments

 
Transource Urges Court to Deny Due Process for Landowners
Transource has sunk to new lows this week.  Hard to believe they could go any lower, right?

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

I couldn't think of a more certain way to demonstrate to landowners how little they matter and how much this company disrespects them than this statement in a court filing:
Defendants will suffer no damage as a consequence of granting immediate possession, because any damage to the land will be remedied by the payment of money, per the statute.
Money can't put 100 year old trees back where Grandpa planted them.  And it probably can't fix compacted and mixed soil, not really.  And if your horse steps into a random drill hole and breaks a leg, maybe you can buy a new one with your free Transource horse voucher.  It's just a possession, right?  It's almost as useful as getting a free $10 meal voucher for having to spend 11 hours at an airport waiting for a cancelled flight to be rescheduled.
So what's the problem here?  The problem is that Transource has no legal authority to enter private property to "survey," and landowners have refused to voluntarily give permission to enter.  Transource is in a big, giant hurry to get its project built.  In fact, they're in such a hurry that they can't seem to wait for the state public utility commissions to find their project necessary and they want to pretty much "move forward" on building their project ahead of state approval.

​Transource spokespuppet Abby Foster tried to pretend it's just a few landowners holding up progress:
Transource appreciates that many landowners have granted them access to conduct surveys, Foster said. 
​
"Transource and its representatives are committed to treating landowners and their properties with respect," Foster said. "While reaching a voluntary agreement with property owners is a high priority, it is imperative for Transource to continue through the phases of the project as the company seeks regulatory approvals. The approval of this filing will allow Transource to proceed with field work for those landowners who have not yet granted the company access.”
How many landowners have granted them access on the proposed Eastern right of way?  Well, Transource's application says there are 38 owners in York County.  The media says filings were made against 36 landowners.  Two out of 38 is "many?"  No, it's not.  If it was only a few landowners, Transource could go around them and wouldn't need to file these desperate, reaching petitions.

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

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

In fact, Transource PA has invested more than $6.0 million to date in siting, design and engineering. The foregoing harms would also result if Transource PA's access is obstructed by Landowners, or other unauthorized and untrained third parties who are present on the Property in the vicinity of the work corridor at the invitation of Landowners
Suffer?  The public will suffer?  How about those landowners whose property you've commandeered?  I mean, it sure sounds like you want to take over the place and make sure no "untrained parties" are allowed to use their properties while you are surveying.  Hey, guess what?  I read Transource's attachment on how to survey for bog turtles.  Complete instructions included.  Maybe landowners can do their own surveys?  Seems simple enough.  Either you see one or you don't.  And, by the way, can you define "electric gridlock" and list the actual harms that will be experienced by the public because of it?  You make it sound like people are going to drop dead if you're not allowed to trespass on private property.

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

But you know what's most galling of all?  Transource's attempt to prevent due process for affected landowners in Maryland.
Accordingly, this Court may issue an Order, granting this petition and authorizing Transource MD to enter onto the Subject Property to conduct surveys, and obtain information in connection with the acquisition and project, without the need for a hearing prior to the issuance of the Order.
Not only is Transource's legal pondering in its petitions unsound, but they want a judge to wave his magic wand and grant them the right to trespass without the landowner being able to question the company's facts and legal conclusions.  Only a lawyer who knows his work is shockingly wrong would insist that no other parties be allowed to participate and expose him for the corporate shyster that he is.

This just can't happen.

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

Tick tock, Transource!
3 Comments

Quit Wasting My Money, PJM!

2/27/2018

2 Comments

 
Dear PJM Interconnection,

Stop wasting my money on the Transource Independence Energy Connection! 

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

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

They've formed StopTransource bat groups. 
They've roosted at the Pennsylvania PUC (Docket Nos. A-2017-2640195 and A-2017-2640200) and the Maryland PSC.  Some of them have even acquired representation by bat lawyers.
They've gotten the support of their bat legislators.  Pennsylvania Representative Kristin Phillips Hill writes,
The PUC should question if the applicant has fully evaluated the use of existing transmission lines in Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection (PJM's) regional planning process before proposing a new line, which will be constructed parallel to three established high-voltage transmission power lines operating in York County. Since the intention of the applicant is to relieve congestion on the energy-grid, why not utilize transmission lines that are not operating at
full capacity? I strongly encourage the Administrative Law Judge to modify this application to use these existing transmission lines, thereby minimizing the impact of this project on the community and preserved open space, as well as protecting private landowners from being subject to the oppressive use of eminent domain actions when other utility-owned infrastructure
is available.
Why, PJM, why?  Why are you trying to build a new transmission line with my money when there are parallel lines with available capacity?  Why? 

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

Meanwhile, the important bats of the community are opposing the project.  L. Michael Ross, president of the Franklin County Area Development Corporation writes:
PJM/Transource has managed to unite virtually every constituent group in Franklin County in opposition to the project. 

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

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

I guess Transource spokeswoman Abby Foster "assumed" Mr. Ross's comments meant that nobody was buying Transource's fake economic claims and vague assertions of benefit to target communities.  So she responded:
Transource officials believe the project would alleviate congestion in the high voltage grid and would create an economic benefit locally. Abby Foster, community affairs representative with Transource, released a statement saying in part: 

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

People are scratching their heads this morning.  How could construction of something like 16 miles of transmission line require 50-60 permanent full-time jobs in Franklin County?  Are 50-60 people going to be climbing the poles in people's backyards and physically squeezing the electricity through the lines so that it may reach the Washington, DC metro area and save those city folks twenty cents a year on their bills?  What would that look like?
Picture
In the photo above, one of Transource's full-time permanent, local Franklin County workers discusses where he will place the ladder when he climbs the pole to squeeze electricity through the brand new transmission line. Other workers look on in awe, so grateful they have jobs that they don't mind climbing a ladder to the top of a transmission tower and manually squeezing electricity through the wires.
Silly, isn't it?  However, it's no sillier than Abby's job claims.  Where did she get those?  From some economics computer program where you plug in a price tag for your project and then it spits out some wacky numbers based solely on the price of the project?  Probably.  Fact is there will be few local jobs during the year or so Transource is planning to build the project.  Maybe some ground clearing or some concrete.  If you own a company who does that, perhaps you think it's okay to toss your community under the bus to make a few bucks.  It takes very specialized labor to construct a high-voltage transmission line.  Transource's contractor will import the workers with the right skills for the duration of the project.  Transource will not be cruising the K-Mart parking lot looking for day labor.  There will be zero permanent jobs created by the proposed project.  If it is ever constructed, it pretty much does its own thing unassisted.  Repairs and maintenance will be handled by crews who already have a job.  Trust me, maintaining 29 miles of new transmission is not a full-time job for anyone.

I think Abby should spend her time improving Transource's website instead.  Perhaps she can find the missing number that belongs here.
Picture
Are easement owners supposed to guess or make up their own number?

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

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

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

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

Shame On You, Transource!

1/13/2018

4 Comments

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

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

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

During the past week, Transource poured the gas on their fruitless efforts to get landowners to sign legal documents giving the company permission to "survey."  Landowners are never required to sign survey permission forms.  While Pennsylvania law allows a public utility to access private property, there's a lot more to it that Transource presumes landowners don't know.
Furthermore, the Transource letter sent to landowners  dated January 5, 2018 is inaccurate  and misrepresentative of the proper procedures set in place  under the Eminent  Domain  Code and public  codes of the Commonwealth. In  the letter, your company  stated it  has obtained utility status by Pennsylvania. While the Public Utility Commission (PUC) approved Transource's application for utility  status on December 21, 2017, your company  has yet to obtain  the appropriate certificate  and orders from  the PUC to  operate as a public utility  and conduct land surveys/assessments. Moreover,  even after obtaining the appropriate approvals,  Transource must follow the Eminent Domain Code  and issue a  10-day notice to all landowners before  accessing private property. As of today, Transource cannot  send such a notice until the proper certificate and approvals from the PUC.
And Transource is going to pretend, with all its lawyers and legal support staff, that it didn't know these things?  I don't believe you!  And even if Transource was completely unaware of Pennsylvania law, there's absolutely no excuse for threatening to have landowners arrested on their own property.  You went too far, Transource.

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

Numerous landowners on the eastern portion of the project reported a rash of strong arm tactics by Transource land agent Western Land Services last week.  Landowners received threatening phone calls demanding that they sign the survey permission form or the sheriff would come and arrest them.
I have received numerous complaints from constituents in my legislative district who experienced threatening behavior from your contracted land  services agent, Western Land Services. In communication with landowners,  agents from Westem Land  Services threatened to call the sheriff's office  and arrest residents who did not  sign letters granting access to their properties. This type of coercive behavior and  harassment by your contracted  agent is unacceptable  and illegal  at best. I  am requesting punitive actions be  taken to  ensure this type of disrespectful behavior  does not  happen again during  the remainder of  the project.
The sheriff isn't going to arrest these landowners for failing to sign a permission form.  At best, if Transource receives all its permits from the PUC the most it can do is issue a notification that it will be access the property in 10 days.  Such notice would need proof of delivery.  Only if Transource had accomplished all the necessary legal steps and had some sort of legal order to present to the sheriff, and the landowner physically threatened or interfered with property access, would the sheriff even be interested in wasting his time on this issue.  Your sheriff works for you, not some company in Columbus, Ohio.

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

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

Do not make false or misleading statements.

Do not misrepresent any fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

​Shame on you!
4 Comments

Tone Deaf Transource "Listened" But it Failed to Hear

12/12/2017

2 Comments

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

Transource claims to have "listened" to your community, and wants you to know:
We heard about the valuable role agriculture plays in this region and our engineers worked to ensure typical farming practices in **INSERT COUNTY NAME HERE** County, from crops to orchards, could continue to exist within the right-of-way.
See York County version here.
See Franklin County version here.
Same op ed, only the county names were changed.  It's like getting a "personalized" piece of junk mail in your newspaper.
What does an electrical engineer in Columbus, Ohio, know about "typical farming practices" in Pennsylvania?  Transource "heard" what it wanted to hear  -- that its project could be built without impacting farmland.  But that's not what the community was telling Transource.  In fact, as a wise person pointed out, if Transource really heard what the community was saying, there would be a few electrical engineers tiptoeing around quite gingerly because they'd have a monopole shoved where the sun doesn't shine.

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

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

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

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

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

The real listening has only just begun.

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

2 Comments
<<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.