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

Out-of-Control Barriers Unite!

1/27/2022

1 Comment

 
They're talking about you again.

Barriers to transmission development.

Things outside the developer's (and government's) control.

Of course they mean landowners and community opposition to unneeded new transmission corridors.  They don't even think of you as people.

DOE wants to let transmission developers have free reign to take whatever privately owned land they want to install new transmission.

DOE also wants these transmission developers to build a whole bunch of new transmission roads to nowhere.  I'm talking about merchant transmission, where developers put up their own capital to build projects based on market need.  The "market" would be voluntary customers who think the project is so useful that they are willing to pay for it.  There is no "market" without voluntary customers, that's where the risk to merchants comes in.  If they spend a bunch of money developing a project that does not attract customers, then the project is never built because there's no need for it.  The merchant loses his investment (just like Clean Line Energy Partners, who blew $200M on a suite of projects that never attracted customers).  But wait... DOE is going to use YOUR tax money to sign up as a customer on all these projects that have attracted no customers.  DOE isn't actually going to use the transmission, it's not going to take any electricity from the project.  It's just going to sign up as a customer and then try to unload the capacity on real customers at some point in the future.  But what if no customers show up... ever?  You'd think if there was an actual market need, the real customers would have shown a prior interest in the project and DOE would never have to step in.  What makes DOE think that these uninterested customers are going to develop a sudden need for this transmission once it's propped up with your tax dollars?  Common sense says this isn't going to happen.  In that instance, the transmission project will never be used.  What does the developer care?  He's only in it for the money and DOE is paying handsomely.  And the transmission line will become a literal road to nowhere.  Just an eyesore that nobody ever uses.

Are we actually trying to build used and useful transmission here?  Or are we trying to build transmission for transmission's sake alone?  Is transmission going to become the next boondoggle profit center for investors who want to take over the world?

Sure appears that way.  Market-based transmission without a market.  Roads to nowhere.  Billions of your tax dollars simply wasted.

I think these people are quite insane.
Round and round they go, never once acknowledging the biggest threat to their crazy plan to take over the world; the people and property they plan to conscript.  Oh, sure, they know we're here, and they're totally terrified.  I guess they think if they don't actually mention us or look us directly in the eye they can engage in the fantasy that there will be no opposition to their plans.  They talk in hushed tones about "barriers" and "things they can't control," but never about the actual people.

Sorry, it's not going to be that easy.  Your plan is going to fail... because of us.
1 Comment

Two Words That Should Never Appear In The Same Sentence

1/27/2022

1 Comment

 
Ruthless.
Bureaucratic.
ruthless |ˈro͞oTHləs|
adjective
having or showing no pity or compassion for others: a ruthless manipulator.

bureaucratic |ˌbyo͝orəˈkradik|
adjective
relating to the business of running an organization, or government: well-established bureaucratic procedures.
• overly concerned with procedure at the expense of efficiency or common sense: the plan is overly bureaucratic and complex.
Bureaucrats should never be ruthless.  They serve to work for us, not against us.

Why does Niskanen Center think ruthless bureaucrats are a good thing?
How a little ruthlessness in the bureaucratic interest could advance electric corridors in the national interest....
Just a little out-of-control ideological posturing funded by ruthless corporations and investors.

Niskanen Center is ruthless.  Also probably a lot of other words that end in "less."

Niskenen continues to pretend it is representing the interests of landowners burdened by eminent domain for new electric transmission corridors.  Nothing could be further from the truth!  Go away, Niskanen.  Your contentions and fake concern for landowners is revolting.  Niskanen has not consulted even one landowner transmission opposition group before coming up with its own ideas to ruthlessly run over landowners in the interest of "clean energy."  None.  Zip.  Zero.  Niskanen has NO IDEA what landowners want.  Shut up and go away, Niskanen.  How many times do we have to tell you to butt out?

Your brain fart opinion piece isn't the solution to any perceived problem.  In fact, I find it to be completely ignorant, inaccurate and bordering on fantasy.  It could only be the source of future problems... and litigation.  Lots of litigation.

We're perfectly capable of speaking for ourselves and representing our own interests. 
1 Comment

School's In - Utilities Should Pull Up A Chair

1/17/2022

1 Comment

 
Picture
When did we decide that remote, industrial scale solar and wind were our energy future?  I don't actually remember this happening.  What happened to energy efficiency?  Distributed generation?  Community-based renewables?  Storage?  Nuclear?  Natural Gas?  New technology?  Or even the meaningless "all of the above" energy strategy?  At some point all these ideas were put neatly on a shelf and the United States put all its energy eggs into the remote, industrial scale solar and wind basket.  How did this happen?  Was it because investors and the energy industry recognized that this was the energy "solution" that put the most money in their pockets?  Our Big Government is nothing but a lackey for moneyed interests anymore.  Any claims to care for people are pure posturing of the most despicable kind.

Utility rag T&D World asks, "Are utilities forgetting some key aspect of successful project development, or has the world changed, or both?" in a new piece entitled, "A Teachable Moment Regarding Transmission Development."

The article asks
Are we not doing an adequate job of incorporating the input of all stakeholders or resolving major conflict during the development stage? If parties remain opposed to a project after a final decision is made, have we reached a time in our society that the risk of proceeding with a project may be too great even if an approval has been granted? In the project sited above (NECEC), the primary benefits appear to accrue to one state and most opposition as well as the agency suspending construction are from another. In fact, the issue on the ballot in the opposing state, which could permanently enjoin the project under construction, supports local transmission while increasing the difficulty of gaining approval for EHV and DC transmission that does not directly benefit the local communities it impacts.
The simple answer is "no."  Utilities are no longer even pretending to care what the impacted population wants.  There's too much money in it for the utility.  As utility power increases, so to does its preference for simply running its opposition over with a bulldozer.  Case in point... the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.  T&D says
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (the Act) passed in November 2021 grants FERC broader transmission siting authority within national interest transmission corridors and allows the DOE to become an anchor tenant for new transmission projects.

Frankly, we do not know if the Act will help get new transmission built. Unquestionably, it has never been more difficult to obtain consensus regarding major new long distance, interstate, and international transmission projects. Such projects should be designed to deliver demonstrable benefits outweighing the impacts for all affected parties.
And there's the problem.  When you build across wide swaths of the country for the purpose of delivering power from Point A to Point B, without any benefit for all points in between, it's impossible to deliver demonstrable benefits to the fly over country between A and B. 

These benefits cannot be created as a handful of colorful beads.  Fly over folks aren't that stupid.  We know we're not getting anything and condescending offers of measly bribes just aren't going to cut it.  Take your bribes elsewhere... we know they're nothing but crumbs from your taxpayer-funded feast.  We're not so dumb that we're going to pay to bribe ourselves while utilities laugh all the way to the bank.
Transmission developers may need to borrow from other energy business segments to provide compelling economic strategies for landowners, host communities and other stakeholders to support new projects. The outright purchase of the required land for a project as opposed to a one-time purchase of a ROW is one example utilities have employed. Offering a production-based payment to landowners and providing a community stipend or other benefits has proven successful in the gas exploration and wind industries. Applying these methods to transmission projects would ensure those living with the project will receive continuing tangible benefits.
Well, gosh, none of these things actually provide a demonstrable benefit to affected landowners.  Selling of land or easements under threat of eminent domain taking may only result in "just compensation."   It's compensation, or payment, for something taken from the landowner.  It's not a windfall or benefit.  Also note that the author is trying to borrow bribery techniques from projects in which landowners may voluntarily participate and applying them to projects where landowner participation is mandated by eminent domain.  In an eminent domain situation, there is no balance of power... the landowner must acquiesce or else their land is taken involuntarily.  There is absolutely no comparison.  In a voluntary situation, the benefits must be good enough to inspire participation.  They must rise to a certain level to attract participation.  In an involuntary situation there is no line at which participation is inspired by monetary bribes.  The utility doesn't have to try that hard when it has eminent domain at its disposal.

Also, providing impact payments does absolutely NOTHING to remove the impacts.  It's a payment in exchange for being impacted.  Would the utilities spend more money trying to force participation than they could by creating projects that have no impacts?  Certainly.  How about not creating those impacts in the first place?

Transmission buried on existing rights of way does not create community or landowner impact.  It's  more expensive up front, but it produces a wealth of ratepayer savings over time.  Such savings include not only the cost of battling opposition and the time saved in being unopposed, but also saves the costs of community bribes and outsized payments for obtaining land voluntarily. It also saves future vegetation maintenance costs (because an existing right of way is already being maintained), costs of land agents, legal costs for obtaining land through eminent domain, as well as the legal costs of contested permit proceedings.  It saves costs of frequent repairs because underground lines fail less often since they are not subject to damage from weather, fire, or sabotage.  Building underground will likely fully pay for itself if it prevents just one blackout.

Unopposed transmission can be built quickly, and spending more increases utility returns over the long term.  A long slog to build opposed "cheap" overhead transmission on new rights of way would not end up being cheaper in the long run.  When are these folks going to wake up?

Transmission opposition is not going away until transmission impacts go away.  Shouldering the burden of new impacts is particularly maddening for landowners when the transmission project is driven by policy and politics, and not by need for the new transmission.  Policy does not create physical need.
The power industry is operating in a new era of public activism complicated by policy driven as opposed to strictly need based infrastructure development goals. Successful future projects will require in depth collaboration to get all stakeholders on board and rowing in the same direction.
If you want landowners and communities rowing in your boat, you need to set sail in a new boat.  Technology provides a way to get this done.  Stop rowing the wrong way in an antique boat!
1 Comment

Cardinal-Hickory Creek Transmission Project Can't Cross The Mighty Mississippi

1/17/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin blocked the Cardinal Hickory Creek transmission project from crossing the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge on a new right of way.

News reports say

Judge William Conley’s ruling throws the fate of the Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission line into question just months after utilities began construction on the $492 million project.
The Court's Opinion revealed an old utility trick for ramming through electric transmission projects.
Given these facts, plaintiffs contend, and the court finds credible, that the Utilities are pushing forward with construction on either side of the Refuge, even without an approved path through the Refuge, in order to make any subsequent challenge to a Refuge crossing extremely prejudicial to their sunk investment, which will fall on their ratepayers regardless of completion of the CHC project, along with a guaranteed return on the Utilities’ investment in the project. Thus, if the court does not treat consideration of the essentially inevitable re-proposal for a Refuge crossing as ripe for consideration now, the Utilities will have built up to either side of the Refuge, making entry of a permanent injunction later all the more costly, not just to the Utilities and their ratepayers, but to the environment they are altering on an ongoing basis.
Judge Conley wasn't fooled.  Just as the courts in Maine shouldn't be fooled by CMP's recent building up to either side of a disputed crossing in that state.

Utilities will press forward with building the parts of a transmission project that are permitted because in the past it has helped them by making their project too expensive to fail.  Utilities, take notice!  That no longer works.  The cat is out of the bag.

The Judge also takes on the issue of deference.  In many cases, the Court must defer to an agency's expertise.
Certainly, although a refuge manager has some deference in deciding which uses are compatible, the court is not compelled to take the agency’s final word when all factual findings weigh against it. In this way, “deference” does not become the unlimited, get-out-of-jail-free card that the Utilities seem to suggest...
Obviously the utilities and the governmental entities were in cahoots to provide for a new crossing, even though it was not compatible with the refuge's purpose. 
Before granting a right of way through the Refuge, Fish and Wildlife must confirm that the proposed project comports with the purposes of the Refuge under 16 U.S.C.A. § 668dd. Fish and Wildlife originally finalized its “Compatibility Determination for the Case ... on December 20, 2019. Because the Utilities already had a prior right of way through the Refuge, where a 161 and 69kv transmission line had been previously installed and the Utilities had agreed to transfer back that right of way, Fish and Wildlife found the proposed CHC line was compatible with the purposes of the Refuge as “a minor realignment of an existing right-of-way” and granted a permit to the Utilities.
On March 1, 2021, however, the Utilities contacted Fish and Wildlife and asked for a slightly amended right of way through the Refuge, ostensibly to avoid Ho-Chunk burial grounds. Then, before Fish and Wildlife could issue a decision on the proposed amendment, the Utilities again contacted Fish and Wildlife on July 29, 2021, this time asking for an expedited land exchange instead of an amended right of way, ostensibly because approval for a new right of way would take too long. Specifically, in exchange for a land exchange in the Refuge, the Utilities were now proposing to transfer a 30-acre parcel to Fish and Wildlife.  On August 3, 2021, Fish and Wildlife confirmed receipt of the Utilities’ latest proposal, indicating that its response to such a land exchange “may” be “favorable.”
Then, on August 27, 2021, less than a month after Fish and Wildlife responded favorably to a proposed land transfer, and less than a week before summary judgment motions were due in this case, Fish and Wildlife “withdrew” its entire original Compatibility Determination, stating it “learned that an error had previously been made regarding the 2019 Compatibility Determination when identifying the existing rights-of-way proposed for re-alignment.” 
As a result, any approved right of way through the Refuge was rescinded, along with the compatibility determination. However, in its letter of withdrawal to the Utilities, Fish and Wildlife did note that the agency “is committed to working with you toward timely review of the land exchange you have proposed in lieu of your March 2021 application for an amended right-of-way permit . . . [and] concurs that a land exchange is a potentially favorable alternative to a right-of-way permit.”
Judge Conley found the parts of this case that stink to high heaven.

Warning to utilities and their Big Government lackeys:  You can't put your thumb on the scale to permit Big Transmission that is opposed by affected communities.  Opposition is knowledgeable and creative and will not stop fighting for what's right.

Congratulations to the folks in Wisconsin who have spent so much energy fighting the good fight!  Cardinal-Hickory Creek needs to be chucked on the scrap heap of failed ideas.
0 Comments

Grain Belt Express Changes its Plan... AGAIN!

1/17/2022

1 Comment

 
First it was going from Kansas to Indiana... then it was only going from Kansas to Missouri... and now it's apparently back to the first plan.
In accordance with 2020 ILCS5/8-406, Invenergy Transmission LLC, an affiliate of Invenergy LLC, hereby provides notice to the Shelby County Clerk of the first of three phases (“Phase 1”) of public meetings for the Grain Belt Express project.
Remember, Invenergy re-wrote the Illinois public utility statute last year to benefit itself.  It granted itself eminent domain authority for GBE.  It required the ICC to find the project in the public interest without the taking of evidence.  I guess the Illinois legislature is like a horse without a rider unless it has the guiding hand of a greedy utility corporation.  Good thing Michael Polsky took the reins from ComEd to guide the vapid stable of legislators!

Of course, none of this is even remotely constitutional.  Remember when Invenergy told the Missouri legislature that its proposed legislation was unconstitutional?  Meanwhile, Invenergy was busy putting unconstitutional laws in place in Illinois.  Invenergy wouldn't recognize the Constitution if it jumped up and bit them on the ankle.  It's all about what gives Invenergy more power and profits, not what's constitutional.

So, after proposing to change its plan several years ago to only serve customers in Kansas and Missouri, Invenergy has suddenly developed a wish to extend its project over 200 miles of Illinois and sell power into PJM Interconnection, the grid serving the Mid-Atlantic and Ohio Valley.  However, that's not a done deal.  A different merchant transmission project that wants to connect to PJM is having issues and is being delayed for years.  What makes Invenergy think that its project is so special that it will be welcomed?  Chances are slim to none.

And speaking of a different project, Invenergy is a partner on a new transmission project recently approved in New York.
...a new 175-mile, underground transmission line, will enable the delivery of more than 7.5 million megawatt-hours of emissions-free energy into New York City every year.
What?  Underground?  If Invenergy can build a transmission line underground in New York, why can't it build a project underground in Kansas, Missouri, or Illinois?  What's the benefit of undergrounding the project?  It's so impacts on local landowners and communities are ameliorated.  Why are the communities and landowners in New York afforded respect and deference that Invenergy refuses to offer in the Midwest?  Invenergy has some serious questions to answer about its economic and environmental justice practices.

Where are the customers, Invenergy?  A merchant transmission project cannot be financed and built without customers.  Or was Invenergy waiting for more legislative changes at the federal level?

Our Big Government is just starting to plan how to administer the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

DOE is authorized to serve as an anchor customer on new and upgraded transmission lines in order to facilitate the private financing and construction of the line. Under this authority, DOE would buy up to 50 percent of planned capacity from the developer for a term of up to 40 years. A purchase of capacity will not be considered a “major federal action” that would trigger environmental review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). DOE will then market the capacity it has purchased to recover the costs it has incurred once the project’s long-term financial viability is secured.


Well, isn't that convenient?  A market-based merchant transmission project no longer needs a market of customers.  Our Big Government will become an artificial "customer" and prop up these transmission roads to nowhere with our tax dollars.  This is not market based.

TROUBLE AHEAD!

Can a government declare its actions aren't governed by NEPA?  Seems more like an issue that a court would have to decide.  Federal agencies cannot exempt themselves from federal law when it's convenient.

TROUBLE AHEAD!

Any "new" old plans for GBE are on the long, slow road to never happening.  Certainly not at the point of condemning land, which GBE has recently filed to do in Missouri.  Invenergy is going to condemn  50% or more of the property it needs to build a transmission line at some point in the future, maybe, if it can get approved and find customers?  Why would Invenergy need to condemn land NOW for a project that cannot be built for years and years?  Is it really about a transmission line?  Or is it more about power and taking things from others just because you can?

TROUBLE AHEAD!

Grain Belt Express is just as hated as always, and just as far from success.
1 Comment

New Transmission Disasters Ahead!

1/13/2022

2 Comments

 
Picture
Yesterday the U.S. Department of Energy released its initiative for Building a Better Grid.

What they apparently mean is building an enormously profitable grid of dubious purpose that puts money in big energy pockets.  It's not about benefiting you.  It never was.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today launched the “Building a Better Grid” Initiative to catalyze the nationwide development of new and upgraded high-capacity electric transmission lines, as enabled by President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
It's the boot on the neck of rural America that I've been warning you about.

It prattles on...
Building a Better Grid will work with community and industry stakeholders to identify national transmission needs and support the buildout of long-distance, high voltage transmission facilities that are critical to reaching President Biden’s goal of 100% clean electricity by 2035 and a zero emissions economy by 2050. This program will make the U.S. power grid more resilient to the impacts of climate change, increase access to affordable and reliable clean energy, and create good-paying American jobs across industry sectors – boosting transmission jobs which employs over one million workers across the country.
Did she say community stakeholders?  Oh, that's just for show.  If you dig down deep into the guts of this bureaucratic plan, you will find that community stakeholders are not actually mentioned as having a seat at the table.  The role of the community is to play a bit part they have written for you that only comes onstage AFTER a transmission line has been planned for your community.  Until then, you're supposed to remain blissfully unaware.

Many will.  However, there's a huge army of the "transmission woke" that have been affected by previous plans that ended in disaster.  Whether it was disaster for the community when a transmission line was actually permitted and built, or disaster for the transmission company when their transmission line was cancelled, it was still a disaster.  It takes an enormous outpouring of time, energy and funding to beat a transmission line.  When the battle is over, many of the weary may re-engage in their "pre-transmission" lives, but they are still "transmission woke."  Once you see the horror of unneeded, unwanted, invasive transmission in your community, you can never unsee it.  Together, we are a force to be reckoned with.

The folks who have wrestled with unwanted transmission in the past are sitting ducks.  If your community, or property, was targeted by past transmission projects, then you are ground zero for new proposals.  What looked attractive to the last transmission company for siting its project will still look attractive to a new company.  Or perhaps the same old company, acting out of pure spite.  Would they like another chance to engage with you and win because they have been given a bigger sledgehammer by Congress and arrogant bureaucrats?  Perhaps.

WHOOP!  WHOOP!  WHOOP!  RED ALERT!!!  This is not a drill!  I'm sounding the alarm.  We all need to come together now to get a seat at the table and use our combined muscle to shape the implementation of this new law to build sensibly without causing undue impact in our communities.  We have a plan.

Watch this space for a big announcement coming soon!

When our government gets out of control, we can't simply sit back and say, "Someone needs to do something!"  We're all someone.  Even you!
2 Comments

What's Really Driving Up Energy Prices?

1/13/2022

3 Comments

 
Picture
A group of Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to FERC Chairman Richard Glick last week.  In it, they urge FERC to crack down on market manipulators because they believe that's what's driving up energy prices.
Under its statutory authority, FERC has the power to influence retail rates for natural gas and electricity, including by preventing market manipulation in wholesale natural gas and electricity markets and enforcing gas spot market transparency. We urge the Commission to use its existing regulatory authority to ensure that households’ energy bills are not driven up by manipulation, obfuscation, or other malfeasance from regulated entities, and to work collaboratively with other agencies to address energy debt.
Right... the corporations are evil.  Energy prices would be low if there weren't any corporations involved.  I can sort of see the point because investor owned utilities are all about raking in the dough by whatever means they can get away with.  But pretending that the high energy prices are due solely to market manipulation is a false premise.  It's an effigy erected to shift attention from the real problem.  The real problem is the new energy policies and laws that are spewing forth from these same hypocrites.

High profile market manipulation cases tell the real story.  Actual amounts allegedly obtained through market manipulation are small in comparison to the fines FERC attempts to levy on these supposed manipulators in order to get them to accept blame and settle.

Case in point - Powhatan and Alan Chen.  Actual amounts Powhatan supposedly pocketed from "market manipulation" totaled $3,465,108.  Actual amounts Alan Chen and his two funds supposedly pocketed from "market manipulation" totaled $1,253,676.  That's a combined total around $4.7M in supposed "higher energy costs" shared by the low-income households these Congressional posers claim to care so much about.  However, FERC also added fines totaling $16,800,000 to the Powhatan amount, and $13M to the Chen parties.  When Chen settled last year, he paid only $600K in disgorgement (amount supposedly stolen, plus interest) and zero in fines.  He was rewarded for dropping his defense by paying only half of what he supposedly stole and zero in penalties.  Will that $600K recovered do anything to offset the energy bills of low-income households?  Of course not.  It's a fart in a windstorm.

Can FERC's outsized assessment of penalties for supposed market manipulation actually become a source of income for offsetting low-income energy bills?  Of course not.  The penalties are just for show... a carrot on a stick to encourage accused manipulators to give up and accept responsibility, whether they did anything wrong or not.  FERC's overly aggressive enforcement  is supposed to result in settlements like Chen's, which pays back little.  It's more about the optics for FERC.  Yee Haw, cowboys!

Attempting to lower energy bills by becoming even more aggressive is not a solution to high energy bills.

Any why is it that FERC so aggressively goes after these traders, instead of its stable of investor owned utilities?  When a utility steals money from ratepayers, they just have to say, "Oops, my bad," and everything is forgiven.  It was just a terrible mistake.  They didn't mean to do it.  But, yes they did.  And there's a lot more money to be saved for low income consumers if FERC would aggressively audit these utilities and assess gigantic fines for "mistakes."

Is there actually such a thing as an accounting mistake that favors big utilities?  My experience says no... they do it on purpose because getting caught results in no penalties whatsoever.

So, is there a mistake where traders make money in the energy markets?  Probably the biggest mistake is the plain fact that traders are so much smarter than the ones who are supposed to be minding the store.  Markets are so poorly designed that it's easy to find the sweet spot.  When a trader does find the sweet spot, new rules are made.  Great... but FERC prosecutes the traders who found the sweet spot in the first place.  FERC thinks they should have known that making money in the electric markets was bad and avoided it. 

If traders are so manipulative and bad for energy consumers, why does FERC allow them into the market in the first place?  It's because the competition they bring lowers energy prices overall and makes the market function.  Without traders, those big energy corporations the Democrats hate so much would create a market cartel and drive energy prices way up.  So, what's to be gained by scaring traders away from energy markets with gigantic fines and aggressive prosecution?  What if they all really did get discouraged and go away?  It would be a veritable $$$ feast for utilities.  And that would drive up energy prices for everyone.

It's not competitive energy markets that are driving up energy costs.  It's the failed policies and bad laws enacted by the very same Democrats who are complaining about high energy prices.  The "Building a Better Grid Initiative" is chock full of profitable handouts to big energy corporations.
  • Deploying more than $20 billion in federal financing tools, including through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s new $2.5 billion Transmission Facilitation Program, $3 billion expansion of the Smart Grid Investment Grant Program, and more than $10 billion in grants for states, Tribes, and utilities to enhance grid resilience and prevent power outages, and through existing tools, including the more than $3 billion Western Area Power Administration Transmission Infrastructure Program, and a number of loan guarantee programs through the Loan Programs Office.
When you add up all those billions, it's a whole lot more than any trader ever "stole."  And its being paid for by energy consumers, even the low-income ones.

But, wait, there's more!!!

(1) Transmission Facilitation Program. The IIJA establishes a new $2.5B revolving fund to
facilitate the construction of high capacity new, replacement, or upgraded transmission lines. This program will prioritize projects that improve resilience and reliability of the grid, facilitate inter-regional transfer of electricity, lower electric sector greenhouse gas emissions, and use advanced technology. DOE is authorized to do so through three separate tools.
• DOE is authorized to serve as an anchor customer on new and upgraded transmission lines in order to facilitate the private financing and construction of the line. Under this authority, DOE would buy up to 50 percent of planned capacity from the developer for a term of up to 40 years. A purchase of capacity will not be considered a “major federal action” that would trigger environmental review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). DOE will then market the capacity it has purchased to recover the costs it has incurred once the project’s long-term financial viability is secured.

DOE is authorized to make loans for the cost of carrying out eligible transmission projects.

DOE is authorized to enter into public-private partnerships to co-develop projects that are located in a National Corridor or that are necessary to accommodate an increase in demand for interstate transmission, among other criteria. Such co-development can entail the design, development, construction, operation, maintenance, or ownership of a project.
Such a big giveaway of our tax dollars that they can't even put a price tag on it.  That's what's driving up energy costs.

So, why are they posturing like this?  It seems like my creative adjective penning and name-calling buddies at Marcellus Drilling News have pinpointed the answer.
“Anti” in MDN’s parlance means “anti-fossil fuel.” Being anti-fossil fuel is a wholly insane philosophical position to take, yet many in the Democrat Party have taken that position. (Yes, we’re calling some Democrats insane.) People like Sen. Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren, Sen. Ed “Lackey” Markey, and Sen. “Crazy” Bernie Sanders, and others in Congress, bash away and demand the end of fossil fuels. Yet those same antis who demand an end to fossil energy have just sent a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) demanding FERC do something to lower the price of oil, natural gas, and electricity in their blue states. Why? Because they don’t want to be voted out of office for their obviously failed policies.
Maybe traders should abandon energy markets where they are so unwelcome and become merchant transmission developers?  There's lots more money to be made there... PENALTY FREE!  In fact, filling your pockets at the expense of low-income energy consumers is actually encouraged!
3 Comments

News Flash:  Skelly Admits He Is Full Of Crap

1/12/2022

1 Comment

 
Finally, an admission!
Skelly said markets and mechanisms are critical, “so that private actors can come in and compete and beat the crap out of each other and bring costs down.”
Well, you can't beat the crap out of someone who isn't composed of crap in the first place. 

Touche'.

We also get one of those almost analogies that Skelly spews.  The ones where he tries to make an analogy, but in the same breath ends up tripping over it.
“It’s not a gale-force wind, but it’s a little bit of momentum out there in the world for us to tap into,” said Michael Skelly, the CEO of Grid United, a Houston-based transmission developer.
Compare to the famous Ironman/triathlon/decathlon/marathon that wasn't.
You would think in eight years, you would have sort of a lull, but it’s a sort of a mad dash every day to move these projects forward,” Skelly said. “It’s more like an Ironman [Triathlon], not a marathon. It’s more like a decathlon, but it goes on for eight years.”
Blah, blah, blah.  Why does anyone think this guy is relevant anymore?  He's admittedly full of crap.  He has no relevance to the story here, but that never stops him from making failed analogies to the media.

What this story is about is the eagerness of energy companies to help themselves to the taxpayer buffet of free cheese legislated into existence by a biased and uninformed Congress.  Case in point:
That “could accelerate everything we’re doing in our clean energy transition and probably provide some pretty nice [cash flow] features to fund additional capital investment,” said James Chapman, the chief financial officer at Virginia-based Dominion Energy Inc. “So it all seems pretty good.”
Right.  Pretty nice cash flow.  The utilities are raking it in... and it all comes from our pockets.  They wouldn't be interested in "clean energy" at all if they weren't making money hand-over-fist building it.  It's not about climate change, equity, or the future of our planet.  It's about
Picture
It's about
Picture
Gale Klappa, executive chairman of Milwaukee-based WEC Energy Group, said he expected that extensions of renewable tax credits would happen. “It’s such a sausage-making machine in Washington as you know, but if I were a betting man, I think something will pass,” Klappa said, referring to the “Build Back Better” plan under consideration through the budget reconciliation process.
I'll take that bet and raise you $20, Gale.

When you put out the cheese, the rats will show up.

So much crap, it smells like an overflowing manure pit on an August afternoon.  Also an analogy... correctly presented.
1 Comment

When Will FERC Start Protecting Ratepayers?

1/7/2022

0 Comments

 
Once upon a time, I likened a group of lawyers within FERC to wild west cowboys.
Picture
Bunch of guys who are more interested in waving their gun around than they are in justice or the best interests of the ratepayers they are paid to defend.  As time has wound forward from that blog post, I've seen a lot more of that side of FERC's litigation team, and it's not a flattering picture.  Are certain FERC employees, or perhaps entire little teams within specialized offices, more interested in winning than they are in justice for ratepayers?  At what point do a bunch of government functionaries get so power drunk that they think they're swaggering down Main Street in Deadwood?

Here.

Or perhaps here.

In the first example, FERC tries to excuse the misbehavior of its employees as not material to its pursuit of the estate of a man it accused of market manipulation.  Accused manipulator Andrew Kittel jumped off a bridge rather than face these guys.
In the second example, the pursued have thankfully stayed off bridges, but have been dogged by FERC for more than a decade now.  And still Powhatan has not had its day in court.

FERC's cowboys are quick to pounce and eager to hound any accused manipulator into a settlement rather than face FERC in court.  Sometimes their bullying works.  And sometimes it doesn't.  But how far will they go just to win, and why are energy market outsiders, like traders, always the targets?  Allowing the supposed "manipulation" to go on until stunning amounts of supposedly illegal cash are obtained, which nobody can ever repay, seems as bad as the manipulation itself.

Why are the PJM and Market Monitor guys excused for allowing GreenHat to get so overextended?  I think they share just as much blame for allowing it to happen in the first place.  In an ideal world, someone who begins to overstep gets a stern talking-to and falls back into line before much damage is done.  But when the traders are smarter than the "authority" who is supposed to keep them in line, do these "authorities" save face by shifting all blame to the trader who supposedly manipulated the markets, in order to cover up the authority's own stupidity?  Wouldn't ratepayers be better served if the authority stepped in immediately when the supposed illegal trading began and put a stop to it?  If that happened, these ridiculously unenforceable  disgorgement amounts would never accumulate in the first place.  And nobody would have to step off a bridge.  When something like that happens, it's time to take a step back and reevaluate your job performance.  And maybe your personal ethics as well.

The problem in Deadwood is that one of FERC's decisional employees sent some case law to one of the attorneys for use in the GreenHat case.  It was sent to his personal email, not his FERC email.  The attorney was instructed to keep the origin of the cases a secret.  Sounds like decisional manipulation to me!  Where's the cowboy for that?  The idea was that if the attorney used those cases he had received by email in his briefs, he might win the case.  This is the same as a judge emailing helpful case law to a litigant before him.  You can't do that!!!

The Estate of Andrew Kittell had asked FERC to end its pursuit because its hands were not clean.  Once you find out FERC's ethics are in the toilet, how could they ever be trusted again?  Hasn't the Kittell family suffered enough already?  Is FERC really the hero in this situation?  The GreenHat charges have long since filtered down to the electric bills of regular consumers and been absorbed.  In whose pockets would any money they manage to shake out of Kittell's widow end up?  Who's going to ensure it ends up in consumer pockets, and not on investor owned utility balance sheets?  Of course, FERC denied the request.  No sympathy for widows and children when there's some swaggering to be done in Deadwood.

The Powhatan guys have apparently been watching the GreenHat spectacle.  Powhatan recently asked to see if these same two FERC cowboys might have also been discussing their case on their personal email accounts.  It all gets explained in this motion.  FERC claimed that there was nothing to see there.  It allowed the cowboys to search their own emails, redact whatever suited them, and pass on a few meaningless documents.  If these guys were doing something shady, do you think they would willingly release it?  Clean hands, you know.  They did do something shady in a similar case.  Powhatan has asked for a court order to obtain basic email data from the private email accounts.  FERC objects.  If they weren't doing anything wrong, why would they object so much?

Meanwhile, Powhatan's day in court could actually be approaching this year, once all the process has played out to create the evidentiary record for the court.  A dozen years of their lives overshadowed by this relentless hounding that they'll never get back.  I imagine by now any allegedly ill-gotten goods have long since been spent on lawyers.  What good is a judgment to pay FERC if the defendants don't actually have the money?  It could be nothing more than a notch on some FERC cowboy's gun belt.  Yee-haw!  Another life destroyed!  It's why I come to work each day! 

When is FERC going to start putting the ratepayers it exists to serve first?  I'm not feeling particularly protected right now.  And how can any cowboy feel good about himself if he knows his victory was obtained using illegal means?  If you want to win so badly that you're willing to lie and cheat, perhaps this isn't the job for you.

Kudos to Powhatan for standing up to FERC's bullying.  Although federal agencies are eternal, they have no soul.
0 Comments

Reaching into History

1/5/2022

1 Comment

 
Picture
The folks who stand to make a bundle building unprecedented amounts of new electric transmission are busy trying to tell everyone what citizens affected by said new transmission want.  They think they can define you, marginalize you, and take what's yours to serve themselves.

We saw these same arrogant suggestions in comments on FERC's transmission planning rulemaking recently.  But we fought back.  Now they're taking their arrogance to the media.  Well, sort of media... as if we can take biased "Climate News" as any kind of real media.

According to these arrogant shysters, a brand new "investigation" reveals the answer to transmission siting was determined 50 years ago.  They are now promoting a 1970's transmission line siting battle as the answer to contemporary transmission opposition.  Their "investigation" supposedly reveals that the only mistake made in that battle was not notifying affected landowners early enough in the process.  The take away is supposed to be if today's transmission developers engage with landowners early in the process that opposition can be avoided.
One of the lessons was that power companies need to engage the public early and be willing to change course in the face of well-reasoned criticism, as opposed to ramming through a project.
Perhaps most objectionable about the article's contentions is that they are taking great liberty with the history.  The First Battle of America's Energy War is a story that has been studied extensively by today's transmission opposition.  It's a lesson in what not to do.  Do not get bogged down in governmental processes designed to distract your attention.  Do not let the transmission company and their governmental lackeys set your agenda.  Do not play the part they have written for you.  That part ends in defeat because it's designed to run you over, take your property, and build a transmission line there whether you object, or not.  Earlier deployment of the highway to hell will not change the outcome.  It will not result in a docile, happy, affected community.  It doesn't change the fact that land use, prosperity, health, heritage and economic impacts will be visited on the few for the benefit of the disconnected and ungrateful many who believe they can use "stupid" rural America to serve their needs.

Transmission opposition to overhead lines on new rights of way is going to happen.  There is no way to avoid it.  Pretending a 50-year old battle holds the key to today's transmission opposition is nothing more than creative fantasy.  Perhaps they should spend more time studying today's opposition.  If they did, perhaps they'd realize that we've come a long way, baby.  What happened with the PATH project?  The Monmouth County Reliability project?  SWEPCO's Kings River project?  AEP's Windcatcher?  Transource's Independence Energy Connection?  New England Clean Energy Connect?  Cardinal Hickory Creek?  All the Clean Line Energy projects?  I'm probably forgetting a few, and for that I apologize.  The cancellations of hotly opposed Big Transmission projects over the past decade have been too numerous to rattle off the top of my head.  (Somewhere I have a list that I prepared several years ago for an event where I was speaking... somewhere I can't put my finger on right now.)  What would happen if someone studied all these cancelled projects to find the common denominator?  I suppose it would depend on who does the study.  But the only ones who can arrive at the right answer are the transmission opposition groups who won the cancellations.  Collectively, I'd say that the common denominator is overhead transmission on new rights of way.  If you poke a stick into the lion's cage, you're going to piss off the lion.

Maybe the solution is not to engage the lion in the first place.  How can transmission developers do this?  Buried transmission on existing rights of way.  As the developers of the SOO Green project have proven, if you don't create new rights of way using eminent domain, the lion simply doesn't care all that much.  SOO Green has found the secret sauce...
...new transmission can be sited and routed with broad support from the public and the communities most impacted by it.
When transmission opposition and transmission developers agree on something, maybe it deserves a second look?  Instead, the shysters doggedly insist that it isn't a solution at all.
Power companies can reduce conflict by building transmission lines in existing corridors, like along highways and railroads, but those options can be more complicated and costly.
They're not more complicated.  The technology to bury electric transmission along existing rail corridors exists.  It's probably a lot less complicated that engaging in decades-long battles with affected communities.  Costly?  Yes, it may have a higher upfront cost, but it also saves an enormous amount of money the developer would otherwise spend battling opposition, not to mention the time involved.  Time is money, and the environmental groups clambering for new transmission say we don't have the luxury of time.  Why, then, do they insist on doing things the hard way when SOO Green provides the true "shining example" of how to avoid expensive, time-consuming opposition?

One of the first things a community does when notified of a new transmission proposal is find a way to shift it elsewhere.  Sorry, it's just the knee jerk reaction.  However, in all successful opposition groups realization of the true enemy (transmission company) quickly follows.  Then attention may shift to ways to mitigate the impact upon their collective group.  Burial is a favorite.  Out of sight, out of mind.  However, because transmission projects are always presented as fully formed ideas, the developer will always try to shut that idea down because it's not in their plans.  Excuses are usually cost, with a promise that if the community pays the extra (estimated at 10 times the cost), then the project can be buried.  That's no mitigation offer.  It's a dead end.   And why should a community pay to mitigate the impacts of a project from which they will not benefit?  This also applies to crazy ideas to financially bribe local communities to accept impacts.  When ratepayers are picking up the tab for the project, that community will be paying to bribe themselves!  And why is it that financial bribes should be the responsibility of beneficiaries in other areas, while the cost of burying the project and not incurring the impacts of the project in the first place gets left on the doorstep of the affected community?  This is not logical... at all.  Transmission developers also whine that buried projects are harder to maintain and faults are unable to be seen, leading to longer repair times.  WRONG!  Buried projects are completely unaffected by weather, fire, sabotage, and accident.  They fail less often.  But when they do, modern technology can pinpoint the location of the fault to a very small section of line, which can be accessed for repair via regularly spaced maintenance vaults.  Underground transmission is designed to provide for easy detection and repair of faults.

Oh boy... how did I get so far afield?  I've got things to do today, other than this blog.  Let's cut to the chase here...

These arrogant greedsters will continue to push their narrative that only a boot on the neck of rural America can usher in a renewable energy future.  Instead of working with rural America to find a solution, these folks continue to push for more authority to simply take what they want.  Case in point... I emailed the author of this piece 2 days ago.  No response.  They don't want to find an acceptable solution.  They just want more power to control the lives and land of folks in rural places by pretending they know what you want.

Ultimately, it will fail.  Whether it's quickly, courtesy of  those who thoughtfully make public policy, or in a long slog punctuated by protests and violence reminiscent of the 1970's, is up to them.

We have a voice, and we will continue to use it.
1 Comment
<<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.