Corporations Don't Have Feelings, Especially AEP's Transource Shell

It's surrebuttal testimony time in the Pennsylvania PUC Transource proceeding, and the testimony filed by intervenors is direct, logical, and to the point.  It sort of looks like earlier Transource and PJM rebuttals were an exercise in obfuscation.  Apparently there's nothing PJM and its transmission owner pets like better than attempting to change the testimony of other parties by "misunderstanding" it, then restating it incorrectly in their rebuttals *wink, wink*.  Gosh, I wonder if anyone has discovered just how much the utilities direct what PJM says in rebuttal by asking for a privilege log?  It's almost like PJM is nothing but a shapeless puppet that only comes to life when utility counsel has its hand up its shirt (or inside another opportune orifice) and inside its head.

At any rate, intervenor surrebuttals were a joy to read (and soon to be a joy to write about as well).  I'm going to start with the Surrebuttal of Dolores Krick because it cuts through all the crap like a razor, and it makes me smile.

I think my favorite part might be where Dolores shares her opinion that corporations don't have feelings, in response to a Transource witnesses' claim about how Transource "feels."

Mr. Baker testifies that "Transource PA feels that transmission line corridors are a common element in the landscape and that the presence of these features does not diminish the scenic aspects of an area for visual enjoyment from public rights of way."
Transource Statement No. 4-R at 37.

HOW DO YOU RESPOND?

As an initial matter, I am not aware that a corporation can have feelings. However, to the extent that Mr. Baker is expressing his own personal feelings, he is wrong. The proposed project would wholly diminish the scenic aspects of southern York County. The outpouring of opposition from the local community shows how the construction of another transmission line corridor would adversely affect the landscape in a damaging and permanent way.

First a court makes the mistake of making corporations people, and the next thing ya know, they've got "feelings."  And who cares about Transource's opinions anyhow?  They can't see York County from their corporate headquarters in Columbus, Ohio, where the fat cats sit and count their money.  Spot on observation, Dolores!

She also makes a key point over and over.  While Transource claims it will "mitigate" the worst detriments of its project in various ways, it cannot mitigate them all.  It's kind of like asking if you'd rather be kicked in the face, or the shin, without acknowledging the kick in the first place.  This basic statement appears over and over again to rebut Transource's claims that a kick in the shin is much better than a kick to the face.

Regardless of what efforts Transource may have undertaken to minimize the impacts of
the project...  the fact remains that the project would have significant and adverse impacts on...

It makes perfect sense to me!

And then there's Transource's less than honest relationship with the landowners whose property it desires to occupy in perpetuity.

Q.  WHAT IS THE PRIMARY TOPIC OF MR. SCHAFFER'S REBUTTAL TESTIMONY?
Mr. Schaffer testifies about Transource's interactions with landowners, explaining that
the approach to these interactions is described in its Internal Practices for Dealing with the Public on Power Line Projects, which is Attachment 13 to the Siting Application. He claims that "Transource PA strives to be honest and act in good faith with landowners."
Transource Statement No. 6-R at 1-2. Mr. Schaffer further suggests that in most cases,
"the negative interaction is the result of a misunderstanding" and that it makes additional information available in these situations. Transource Statement No. 6-R at 2. He also explains what Transource does when it learns of a negative interaction between one of its representatives and a landowner and describes some of the key elements of its internal practices. Transource Statement No. 6 at 2-3.

Q.  PLEASE RESPOND.
While Transource may have an approach to interactions with landowners that is documented in a manual, landowners have been subjected to numerous instances of negative interactions, including situations of dishonesty and acting in bad faith. Attached as Citizens Exhibit No. 1 is a letter stating that many landowners had already granted Transource access to the property to conduct surveys. That was an untrue statement, as the opposite is actually true. In other instances, agents who were seeking permission and right-of-ways told landowners that many of their neighbors had already consented when in fact only one has signed to this day, of which I am aware. As Transource prepares to conduct drill tests on the land, the agents are telling landowners that they only have to give 24-48 hours' notice, when Section 309 of the Eminant Domain Code plainly states they are required to give 10 days' notice. 

Also, I note that Mr. Schaffer does not suggest
that any landowners received apologies as a result of a "misunderstanding." Nor does he
provide any data to quantify the number of negative interactions that have been reported,
offer any detail about the nature of the so-called misunderstandings or explain what additional information was subsequently provided to the landowner. It is also telling that Mr. Schaffer does not describe any disciplinary procedure that Transource has in place, much less discuss any actions that have been taken.

That's a real world response to some guy in another state waving around a piece of paper that means absolutely nothing on the ground.  And it astutely points out that Shaffer's talk about "misunderstandings" and his remedies to same are nothing but useless prattle.  Maybe the Transource landowners need to get his number, like the Wind Catcher landowners in Oklahoma did.  Better yet, how about the land agents he supervises get his number and put him on speaker phone while they're lying to landowners?  Dolores makes it painfully obvious that what Mr. Shaffer says does not translate into any sort of action where it matters (during interactions with landowners, not empty blather for public utility judges).

And then there's this guy, whose corporate fee-fees must have caused him to just blatantly insult the opposition.

HOW HAS MR. CAWLEY CHARACTERIZED THE THINKING OF OPPONENTS OF THE PROJECT?

Mr. Cawley has characterized the thinking of the project's opponents as "parochial," "self-interested," and "provincial." Transource Statement No. 9-R at 13-14.

HOW DO YOU RESPOND?
Landowners from York County have repeatedly testified that if the project was needed for reliability reasons and no other reasonable alternatives existed, they would not be in this proceeding - spending their personal retirement and college funds and committing vast amounts of their valuable personal time- to oppose construction of this high voltage
transmission line. But, it is not needed for reliability in Pennsylvania or in the region, and other reasonable alternatives do exist, in the form of currently underutilized lines running through the area. Frankly, given the way that the landowners of York County have united and organized their efforts to oppose the project shows the depth of their commitment to preserve the entire area's farmlands, businesses, environment, natural resources and viewshed - not only for their families but for future generations and for visitors to the region. Their attitudes are far from "parochial," "self-interested" and "provincial."

I guess I'd rather be parochial, self-interested and provincial than to be guided by Transource's pecuniary, self-indulgent, and greedy motivation.  Nobody's buying the magnanimous act, and name-calling belongs in kindergarten, Mr. Cawley.

Dolores proceeds to poke holes in just about every Transource witness with plain old common sense (horse sense, if you will).  I'm pretty sure Dolores knows more about horses than any veterinarian learned in a book, especially one who makes his living as an expert witness for corporations.

And that's it for this blog... more to come on this topic!