Of course FirstEnergy had to have the last word in the WV Public Service Commission General Investigation into its billing, meter reading and customer service practices.

FirstEnergy's latest attempt to pretend there's no problem was entitled "Status Report."  ???  Is there some legal requirement for a "status report" in a general investigation that's waiting for an order that nobody but FirstEnergy knows about?  Or maybe it's just cover for the PSC to also pretend that nothing's wrong so they can dismiss the investigation, after wasting everyone's time for the past year?

FirstEnergy's "Status Report" is a rendition of all the super-de-dooper changes the company has made to the crappy way they treat you, the customer, ever since the PSC started giving them the hairy eyeball.  Let's see if this makes people who receive gigantic bills they can't pay feel any better:

There, all better.  FirstEnergy will give you some "options" to prevent that kick in the gut feeling you get when opening an electric bill hundreds or thousands of dollars more than you expected.  You still have to pay the bill, but reading some canned message in tiny print should make you feel all warm and fuzzy and avert the panic attack.  Right.

This list of FirstEnergy's "accomplishments" is crap.  Most of it is old stuff they already "accomplished" that either didn't do anything, or screwed things up even further.  Customers STILL received huge bills they couldn't pay this spring, just like last year. 

FirstEnergy's plans for future improvements include more tiny print "messaging" on your bill.  Because, don't you know, the whole problem all along has been that you're just stupid, and FirstEnergy has done nothing wrong. 

FirstEnergy also promises to continue to screw around with its estimation algorithm.  *NOOOOOOOOOOOO!*

I have a couple of "improvements and evaluations" for FirstEnergy that might actually make a difference.  They're really quite simple.

1.    Apologize.
2.    Accept responsibility for your actions.
3.    Make amends to your customers.

But I don't see that ever happening.... because the WV PSC probably wants to pretend there is no problem just as badly as FirstEnergy does.  Once again, the customer gets tossed under the regulatory bus.

Did any of these chuckleheads pause to consider the effect of an unsatisfactory conclusion to the general investigation on the FirstEnergy base rate case?  The hoi polloi haven't had an opportunity to get over the billing & meter reading issues before they got hit with a gigantic rate increase.  What do they see?  They see FirstEnergy being rewarded for complete and utter failure.

FirstEnergy better get comfy curled up in the fetal position.  It's going to be a rough year.

Well, they've finally done it.  The cost of electric capacity is now the same in Washington, D.C. as it is in the poor, southern West Virginia coal fields.  This is what PJM's markets have been shooting for -- to make everyone pay the same price for energy, no matter which community shoulders the biggest burden to produce it.

PJM looks at it as sufficient generating capacity being available where it's needed, whether through physical location or with the help of new high voltage transmission.

PJM shared the results of its annual base residual auction for 2017/18 on Friday.  The annual auction secures needed capacity three years in the future and determines the price winning generators will receive just for existing.  Bids are stacked by price until the capacity target is reached, and the highest bid in the stack is the common price all winning generators will be paid.

New this year is a common RTO-wide price, except for the PSEG zone in New Jersey, which is still "constrained" and must run higher priced generators to meet capacity.  For many years, other east coast locations also separated at a higher price because they were "constrained" and "needed" to import "cheaper" generation from places like West Virginia.

The RTO-wide price for 2017/18 is $120 MW-day, and the PSEG price is $215 MW-day.  The PSEG price really didn't change from the prior year, but the RTO-wide price doubled.  So now most of the RTO can pay more.

I'm not going to hyperventilate over incumbent generator manipulation of the market with new regulation in order to raise prices.  I think that part has been covered elsewhere, ad nauseam.  Big deal.

Most of this report is about as exciting as watching paint dry.  I did find it interesting that PJM applied a capacity factor of only 13% to land-based wind resources bid into the auction.  That means wind is counted on to actually generate when called at a rate of 13% of its maximum available capacity.  How many wind farms would be needed to produce a reliable, base load resource when they can only be counted on at 13% of their name plate capacity?  Big wind is not the answer.

Solar fared much better, with a 38% capacity factor.  *hint, hint*

Blah, blah, blah.

Oh, but wait....  The DC Appeals Court dropped a turd in PJM's punchbowl on Friday, vacating a FERC Order regulating demand response.  Demand response was one of the capacity resources that cleared in PJM's auction.

Well, ut-oh.  Just one more day in the regulatory cesspool.

Barclays downgraded the entire electric sector this week.  The bank's reasoning?  Traditional electric utilities are on their way out.

As I've been pointing out for the last two years, and joined by electric sycophant Edison Electric Institute last year, consumers are remaking the electric industry by becoming producers.

Investment houses are getting nervous, and making reference to other industries that went the way of the dinosaur in the face of a technical revolution that they chose to ignore.

It's high time for traditional electric utilities to get over their fear of the future and embrace the brave new world by making themselves relevant in this new paradigm.  Regulatory campaigns to secure a revenue stream for stranded investment will only be successful if they are based on reason and fairness, and if the utility makes an honest transition.  Building more centralized infrastructure in the face of today's reality shouldn't be supported.

Likewise, distributed energy producers also need to base their regulatory arguments on reason and fairness.  If your generator is going to be connected to the grid, you need to pay for it.  Pretending that your net metering arrangement that may add up over time to net zero means that you shouldn't pay any of a utility's costs to maintain its infrastructure is unreasonable.

The real challenge here is putting the brakes on continued investment in centralized generation and transmission, and successful negotiation of a fair transition plan.  Entrenchment and pitched battles over cost responsibility is just a waste of time.  Let's get with it people... the future is here!

by Sharon Bean, a small Kansas family farmer

To the Center For Rural Affairs--

I’m afraid I cannot get a few puzzle pieces to fit properly, even after several attempts.  The pieces that perplex me are marked “Our Mission”, “Our Values”, and the other is marked “SPDC”.  Perhaps you can help me out here.  I am assuming you took ample time and tremendous  research efforts to decide that SPDC is such a great thing for all of us.  So I’m sure you wouldn’t mind taking your Mission Statement and your Values and explaining to me exactly how those puzzle pieces can ever fit right with your glorious SPDC scheme.

My understanding of a good mission statement is that it gives assurance to members, clients, and the public that you are credible and always will be.  I also thought it was a tool, perhaps a compass, that would keep any potential new idea or plan to stay in line with your original vision.  In other words, simply put, keeping all the dots connected properly.  I thought a mission statement was put into place to help you achieve your goals and not lose sight of why you started your organization in the first place.  While you may believe your mission statement may be your “touchstone”, it looks to me like it is becoming a tombstone for your values.  I have been under the impression that values don’t change regardless of whether or not the world is changing.  It is my understanding that they remain steadfast even when undue pressures may be felt from external sources or when temptations arise to grab at the bright, brilliant, blinding light from a bunch of dangling carets.  Isn’t it true that while purpose may change, values should NOT change?

Might I ask, when was the last time your organization bothered to take the time to read (not skim) CFRA’s “Our Mission” and “Our Values”?  As I mentioned earlier the puzzle pieces just don’t fit and the SPDC piece is, without doubt, the culprit.   

To be frank, it appears to me that you, Center for Rural Affairs (an organization of conscience) has lost your vision, passion and direction and our rural communities, our society, our environment, and our future generations will pay the ultimate price.  That’s quite a legacy you and your grand plan, SPDC, will be leaving behind.

Would you trust this guy ?

Me neither. 

Where's Waldo?  He seems to have dropped out of the public eye, lately replaced by this other guy who smirks when he tells the people of Missouri that there are no health effects, no property devaluation, no impediments to farming.

Clean Line has a public relations problem.  They're running out of project managers and executives.

Waldo (aka Mark Lawlor) has been thoroughly trounced in the Missouri media by the forthright and personable Block GBE spokeswoman, Jennifer Gatrel.  People like Jenny.  They trust her.  Can't say the same for the Clean Line representatives.

Because Grain Belt Express is in so much trouble in Missouri, Waldo has been replaced by Clean Line president Michael Skelly.  Oh, brother!  That's like putting out a fire with a bucket of gasoline!  Where Waldo was awkward, uncaring and shifty, Skelly is arrogant, arrogant and arrogant.  This man simply doesn't care what you think.  He gets an attitude when questioned, and provides flippant answers.  Was "the President of Clean Line answering questions in Missouri" supposed to help or hurt the project?

Send this guy back to Skellyville, and bring on the next personality.  Or maybe Clean Line could try some more costumes to cheer everyone up?

Whither goest thou, Waldo?

Block Grain Belt Express Missouri, Block RICL, Block Grain Belt Express Illinois, and Arkansas Citizens Against Clean Line Energy are urging all landowners to approach a newly introduced proposal for transmission line land acquisition with caution.  Today's release of a report by the Center for Rural Affairs, "Landowner Compensation in Transmission Siting for Renewable Energy Facilities," has not been vetted or approved by the Block organizations.

Touted by its authors as a "better deal" for landowners, the report urges formation of Special Purpose Development Corporations (SPDCs) to assemble land for transmission corridors.  The report claims SPDCs will provide faster, cheaper land acquisition for developers.  However, Block leaders are putting the brakes on this approach to land acquisition that presumes landowners will sell if the price is right, and leaves no options for landowners who do not wish to sell.
 
"I will not be on board to support the high voltage transmission line at any price.  My property rights and the ideology of my farm are priceless to me. No amount of money is going to buy me into alliance with Clean Line. I am even more repulsed by this company now. This is just another avenue to deceive people. They are not going to entice me with shares of a company I want nothing to do with," said Shan Christopher, impacted Missouri landowner.
 
The report calls for state public utility commissions to form the SPDCs, after first receiving the power of eminent domain from their respective legislatures, and to get into the business of condemning private property and managing its sale to transmission developers.  Other report suggestions for SPDC formation and management include state agencies with eminent domain authority, local governments, or even the transmission developers themselves.

"We have constitutional rights, existing laws, and procedures that merchant transmission projects are already attempting to slide by which is the real reason that there are epic eminent domain cases looming.  This report advocates a drastically different approach that circumvents the protections we have in place protecting ratepayers from unnecessary transmission and homeowners/landowners from the abuse of eminent domain. This new, corporation approach raises major issues about whose best interests would really be served.  Truly ‘voluntary' land acquisition is being able to say 'No, go away,' without the threat of coercion. Whether it's by eminent domain or some corporation, the facts don't change that our private property rights are under attack," remarked Mary Mauch, co-founder of Block RICL, Illinois.
 
The Block groups, who collectively represent the interests of thousands of landowners across the Midwest currently being courted to sell rights of way to transmission developer Clean Line Energy Partners LLC, were not consulted in the creation of the report, and are unaware of any landowner groups who might have participated in its development.
 
"This attempt to align the financial interests of transmission developers and landowners will not decrease opposition to transmission projects," said Jennifer Gatrel of Missouri.

Joel Dyer, a member of Arkansas Citizens Against Clean Line Energy, remarked, “This SPDC idea seems to be an added layer that is intended to insulate the Clean Line investors and executives from the consequences of their actions.  My father, a World War II combat vet, Pacific theater, never asked for or expected any kind of recognition or special treatment because of his service, but Clean Line has shown their gratitude for his service by threatening him with the eminent domain authority of the federal government.  Where is our sense of moral decency when private investors can ruin a veteran's life work, his farm, and distance themselves from his pain with the help of SPDCs?”

The Preservation of Rural Iowa Alliance Board President Carolyn Sheridan stated, "We advocate for the right to control the use of our land. PRIA is a powerful grassroots resource that researches latest trends, public policies and documented impacts related to the RICL project. Our mission is simple: to empower communities and all landowners so that educated decisions, and not fear, can drive action to protect the land they rightly own. Extensive research and discussion with qualified legal counsel is necessary to determine the impact that SPDCs would have on landowners."
 
Landowners are confused by and wary of the Center for Rural Affairs recent support for transmission development, and some believe CFRA has lost its focus on representing the interests of small, family-owned farm businesses.

"The Center for Rural Affairs continues to champion corporate interests to the detriment of struggling farmers.  I don't believe they are representing my interests anymore," said impacted Kansas farm owner John Broxterman.
 
The idea of SPDCs shifts political responsibility for massive eminent domain takings from transmission developers to state and local governments, making them the "bad guys," and pitting neighbor against neighbor.
 
"I don't think Grain Belt is good for Clinton County or any Missouri resident. I don't want them to take my land and give me shares of a company I don't believe in or trust. Clinton County is supporting Block GBE one hundred percent. Two of the commissioners have promised residents we will invoke section 229.100 to prevent Grain Belt from coming across Clinton County," said Larry King Clinton County Missouri Commissioner.
 
The Block leaders view the report as just one more attempt by corporate interests to dictate landowner and agricultural priorities in order to further their own pocketbooks.
 
Link to CFRA report
 
For more information please visit:
 
Block RICL
Block Grain Belt Express MO
Arkansas Citizens Against Clean Line Energy

FirstEnergy held its Annual Shareholders' Meeting the other day.  It lasted 12 minutes.  Hardly anyone came.

Our hero Tony "the Trickster" Alexander's NEO compensation is now even further bound to the company's stock price.  Heads will roll and wallets will empty.  When it's all about Tony getting his performance awards, it's no longer about providing an essential service in a safe, reliable and cost effective manner.  It's about cutting expense and increasing dividend "performance."

Well, gosh, this could really impact happy hour at the Casa de Alexander, don't you think?  It would be rather unfortunate if this actually happened...

Tony:  "I'm home!  Where's that cocktail waitress with my martini?"

Mrs. Becky Alexander:  "I had to fire her.  She was simply too efficient and we need to cut down on expenses now that your pay is tied to your performance.  I know how hard it is for you to perform."

Tony:  "Have you been making unauthorized donations to charities again?  I told you, all our giving must provide a return!"

Mrs. Becky Alexander:  "Tony, who are those people on our front lawn?  I fear they may trample my petunias and cause extra work for our strapping, young gardener.  Can you make them go away?"

Tony:  "Call the police!"

Mrs. Becky Alexander:  "The peasants are revolting!"

Tony:  "You said it!  They stink on ice!"

Mrs. Becky Alexander:  "I think they might be your employees, dear.  Why don't you run out and say hello?  I think I have a bag of stale chocolate Kisses left over from Halloween that you could toss to make them move along."

Tony:  "Don't feed them!  It only encourages them to ask for ridiculous things like fair wages and benefits.  If you feed them once, they'll never go away.  What's for dinner?"

Mrs. Becky Alexander:  "Reservations, of course!  Can you have your public safety personnel clear us a path to the country club?"

The tenacious, but doomed, Northern Pass transmission project now has another nail in its coffin.

Imagine that... respect for the communities traversed by a transmission line!

Environmentalists seem to like it, and Northern Pass opponents seem to like it.  What if it sailed through permitting with community support, instead of expensive and time consuming opposition?

Transmission developers who whine about the cost of burying transmission need to take a lesson.  What's the true cost of opposition?

RTO Insider has a special report about yesterday's Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on the nominations of Cheryl LaFleur and Norman Bay to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Bay has been publicly criticized by twin investment fund managers Kevin and Richard Gates, who have been under investigation for market manipulation by Bay in his capacity as Director of FERC's Office of Enforcement, without being officially charged.  The Gates have recently made their case public in an effort to stymie Bay's nomination.

In LaFleur Cruises, Bay Bruises in Confirmation Hearing, RTO Insider reports:

There's even a photo.  It looks to me like the Gates brothers attempted to make Bay slap himself during the hearing through the power of telekinesis.  Go see the picture for yourself! 

Meanwhile, West Virginia's Joe Manchin used his time to talk about his master, coal.  I wonder what coal thinks about Norman Bay?

Carol Overland, transmission slayer of the great north, brings us the story of an apparent transmission line routing goof that has transmission opponents all over wiping away tears of laughter.  It seems that American Transmission Company's Badger Coulee 345kV transmission project got routed through the "back yard" of the CEO of Alliant Energy.  The spouse of the CEO has intervened in the Wisconsin Public Service Commission case to try to save his million dollar property from having transmission nasties constructed on it.

No, really.

Read more about it on Carol's blog here.