NIMBY this and NIMBY that. People love to throw that term around. Its use is born out of fear. It is always used to refer to someone else, never the one using it. It's easy to use it to refer to someone else who doesn't want their castle invaded, as if by the mere act of slinging ad hominem insults we can somehow save ourselves. After all, if we can put something in a NIMBY's back yard, it won't end up in ours. The true NIMBY is always the one who likes to point at others as NIMBYs.
This is clearly illustrated by a recent success story from Hershey, Pennsylvania. When residents saw the reality of new taller electric transmission towers through their town, they quickly organized and objected. Their hard work paid off, with transmission owner PPL ultimately agreeing to dismantle the objectionable and unsafe towers, and re-route the project underground on a different route. However, this course of action will come with higher costs, and the costs will be spread across all the beneficiaries of the project. Nothing shocking there... all transmission is paid for by its beneficiaries.
But when this story was reported, the real NIMBYs showed up to complain. This news article is chock full of self-interested comments from angry townsfolk who haven't paid any mind to this story while it was developing, but now are full of concern and suggestions (demands?) regarding the project.
There's one group who object to paying for the underground project and the cost of dismantling the newly erected towers that are no longer going to be used. One genius suggested that the people who objected to the taller towers should pay this cost. Another shared that the utility should cover this cost. The first genius is completely wrong, the second is wrong in a different, but related, way.
This transmission project will serve the entire town, both the folks who objected to the original project, and the ones who now object to paying for it. Those who will benefit must pay for it, all of it, and if the cost of the transmission project includes measures to make it less objectionable to the people who live in proximity, then that's the cost of the project. Would these same people object to paying landowners for new right-of-way for a transmission project that serves them? It's bad enough that anyone has to make a sacrifice for transmission projects, but those that must should not be required to make a bigger sacrifice than required in order to save the people who make no sacrifice at all some money. You want service? Then pay the ones who make the sacrifice for your service. The cost of the transmission project includes whatever it costs to route it. The majority of the folks who will benefit from the project do not have to sacrifice their home, peace of mind, and property value in order for it to be built. But someone has to sacrifice, and that person should be paid adequately for their sacrifice, not made to pay outrageous costs to make the project less objectionable. You pay them for their sacrifice, not the other way around. And it's not like these folks who objected volunteered for the project and then changed their mind. They've always been the victim, not the aggressor.
As far as making the utility pay these costs... good luck with that! Yes, the utility miscalculated what its project would actually look like and it will be costly to have to change course now. And where do these people think the utility gets its money from? From customers through cost of service rates. Cost of service. Building this transmission project is service, whether above or below ground. Any costs the utility incurs securing right of way are paid for by the ones receiving service, and that includes the cost of underground projects. If you don't want to pay these costs, then you're free to disconnect from the grid and generate your own power. What you don't get to do is demand someone else pay for your service.
And then there's the people who are upset that the new underground route goes through different properties. We can presume these are the newly affected. They don't like it! Not In My Back Yard! They want the project to be built on the original route, through someone else's back yard.
And then there's the class warfare types who just want to stick it to anyone who they believe has more than them. They bellyache that the project has only been re-routed because the ones affected are rich and powerful. Class has nothing to do with this... even poor and disenfranchised folks object to gigantic transmission towers in front of their house. I'm pretty sure none of these whiners would think the gigantic towers were a good idea in their own front yard.
But my favorite is the one who dictates what must be done to challenge the new rates. By whom? Does this person think that a superhero is going to show up to challenge utility rates and will be glad to have such a list? "Somebody" needs to do this, right? You're somebody! Quit bleating online and just do it, why don't ya? Nothing's quite so simple as when "somebody" is doing it for you!
What do all these reactions have in common? Fear. Fear that by not naming someone else as the NIMBY that YOU may become the NIMBY! These people are the true NIMBYs... finding every excuse they can think of to keep it right where it is and not in their own back yard. It's self-interested ignorance at its finest.
When a utility shows up and tells you that they're going to wreck your castle, of course you're going to fight to defend it. If there is an option to make the destruction less, say only knock down half your castle or fill in your moat, should you have to pay the difference? Why should you pay more to have your sacrifice lessened? Instead, the cost should fall equally on those who are receiving the benefit of your sacrifice. These people are nothing but a burden, demanding your sacrifice without making one of their own.
The idea that sacrificial lambs should pay extra to ameliorate their own sacrifice is absurd, and it's one the transmission industry should stop encouraging. Shouldn't we all carry the cost of our own burden on others?
This is clearly illustrated by a recent success story from Hershey, Pennsylvania. When residents saw the reality of new taller electric transmission towers through their town, they quickly organized and objected. Their hard work paid off, with transmission owner PPL ultimately agreeing to dismantle the objectionable and unsafe towers, and re-route the project underground on a different route. However, this course of action will come with higher costs, and the costs will be spread across all the beneficiaries of the project. Nothing shocking there... all transmission is paid for by its beneficiaries.
But when this story was reported, the real NIMBYs showed up to complain. This news article is chock full of self-interested comments from angry townsfolk who haven't paid any mind to this story while it was developing, but now are full of concern and suggestions (demands?) regarding the project.
There's one group who object to paying for the underground project and the cost of dismantling the newly erected towers that are no longer going to be used. One genius suggested that the people who objected to the taller towers should pay this cost. Another shared that the utility should cover this cost. The first genius is completely wrong, the second is wrong in a different, but related, way.
This transmission project will serve the entire town, both the folks who objected to the original project, and the ones who now object to paying for it. Those who will benefit must pay for it, all of it, and if the cost of the transmission project includes measures to make it less objectionable to the people who live in proximity, then that's the cost of the project. Would these same people object to paying landowners for new right-of-way for a transmission project that serves them? It's bad enough that anyone has to make a sacrifice for transmission projects, but those that must should not be required to make a bigger sacrifice than required in order to save the people who make no sacrifice at all some money. You want service? Then pay the ones who make the sacrifice for your service. The cost of the transmission project includes whatever it costs to route it. The majority of the folks who will benefit from the project do not have to sacrifice their home, peace of mind, and property value in order for it to be built. But someone has to sacrifice, and that person should be paid adequately for their sacrifice, not made to pay outrageous costs to make the project less objectionable. You pay them for their sacrifice, not the other way around. And it's not like these folks who objected volunteered for the project and then changed their mind. They've always been the victim, not the aggressor.
As far as making the utility pay these costs... good luck with that! Yes, the utility miscalculated what its project would actually look like and it will be costly to have to change course now. And where do these people think the utility gets its money from? From customers through cost of service rates. Cost of service. Building this transmission project is service, whether above or below ground. Any costs the utility incurs securing right of way are paid for by the ones receiving service, and that includes the cost of underground projects. If you don't want to pay these costs, then you're free to disconnect from the grid and generate your own power. What you don't get to do is demand someone else pay for your service.
And then there's the people who are upset that the new underground route goes through different properties. We can presume these are the newly affected. They don't like it! Not In My Back Yard! They want the project to be built on the original route, through someone else's back yard.
And then there's the class warfare types who just want to stick it to anyone who they believe has more than them. They bellyache that the project has only been re-routed because the ones affected are rich and powerful. Class has nothing to do with this... even poor and disenfranchised folks object to gigantic transmission towers in front of their house. I'm pretty sure none of these whiners would think the gigantic towers were a good idea in their own front yard.
But my favorite is the one who dictates what must be done to challenge the new rates. By whom? Does this person think that a superhero is going to show up to challenge utility rates and will be glad to have such a list? "Somebody" needs to do this, right? You're somebody! Quit bleating online and just do it, why don't ya? Nothing's quite so simple as when "somebody" is doing it for you!
What do all these reactions have in common? Fear. Fear that by not naming someone else as the NIMBY that YOU may become the NIMBY! These people are the true NIMBYs... finding every excuse they can think of to keep it right where it is and not in their own back yard. It's self-interested ignorance at its finest.
When a utility shows up and tells you that they're going to wreck your castle, of course you're going to fight to defend it. If there is an option to make the destruction less, say only knock down half your castle or fill in your moat, should you have to pay the difference? Why should you pay more to have your sacrifice lessened? Instead, the cost should fall equally on those who are receiving the benefit of your sacrifice. These people are nothing but a burden, demanding your sacrifice without making one of their own.
The idea that sacrificial lambs should pay extra to ameliorate their own sacrifice is absurd, and it's one the transmission industry should stop encouraging. Shouldn't we all carry the cost of our own burden on others?
RSS Feed