Back at ya, John Oliver (and Rob Gramlich).  The Pennsylvania farmer whose video comments you edited to make him "sound like a d*ck" on national TV simply doesn't care.  This definitively makes John Oliver and "information provider" Rob Gramlich look like the true d*cks.  You two attacked a man who wasn't bothering you in the least and called him a d*ck on national TV, which was the real d*ck move in this continuing story.

The York Daily Record, a newspaper from maligned farmer Tim Jordan's area, published a story on the d*ckish event recently.  And guess what?  Tim Jordan simply doesn't care.

What's Jordan doing these days?

Gosh, that's exactly the same thing Tim was doing in 2017 when Heritage Unprotected was filmed.  He's probably even wearing the same sunglasses that tweaked a bunch of liberal keyboard warriors.

And he simply doesn't care.  He's got work to do.

It's a real shame that the insults of John and Rob, and those of their little sycophants who commented on the show's YouTube channel, failed to produce anything of substance.  Nobody is intimidated.  In fact, Tim would probably oppose another transmission project routed through his farm for the exact same reasons.  No other farmer or rural landowner has been shamed into accepting transmission lines across their land, either.  The opposition will continue, despite the insults hurled and the dirty games played by these arrogant d*cks.

I'm calling this one for Tim Jordan.  He showed more class than the best of his critics.  Carry on, Tim!

Follow up on the story about an arrogant TV host calling landowners who oppose new transmission "d*cks."  New information has surfaced today that points to the source of the misinformation and probably the creatively edited video as well.

Did you think that the writers on the John Oliver show actually researched and wrote a story about "our power grid?"  Of course they didn't.  The show was fed a bunch of misinformation which it arranged and then added the dirty jokes.  Sorry, but that's the illusion of TV.  It's all a giant fake, just like John Oliver.  He's just an actor with great timing to deliver the dirty jokes his producers feed him.  Yay, you, John Oliver, funny little puppet!

The source of the misinformation about transmission and nasty attack on a Pennsylvania farmer is Americans for a Clean Energy Grid.  They just couldn't help bragging about it.

Featuring "contributions" made by ACEG's Rob Gramlich.  Gee, which part do you think he "contributed?"  Do you really think HBO went on a hunt for a landowner video, watched the whole 40-minute film, and then harvested a clip of one landowner who fit their presumption that landowners "sound like d*cks?"  Of course they didn't.  What I want to know now is who edited the video to make the landowner "sound like a d*ck?"  Was it HBO, or was it Rob Gramlich?  Will HBO take the hit and protect Gramlich when the lawyers show up?  Or will they throw him under the bus, sort of like how Gramlich threw that landowner under the bus to suit his own purposes?  When you play dirty games, they always catch up to you.  You've got to get up pretty early in the morning to fool a farmer.

So, what is Americans for a Clean Energy Grid?  It started out as a group of dingbats pretending to be a grassroots group.  But it was nothing but astroturf.  Use of the word "Americans" in their name is a dead giveaway.  All the best astroturf groups are "Americans" for something or other.  I could delve into the long and interesting history of astroturf groups here, but I won't belabor this post.  Really interesting reading, if you want to go down that rabbit hole.  I attended one of ACEG's first little forums, and it was hard to keep from laughing at them.  It reminded me of a bunch of junior highschoolers playing "business", not a slick, professional organization.  Guess they didn't have a lot of money in those days.  The best part is where several of the invited speakers pooped all over their "clean grid" agenda.  And I think there was like free food or something.  Made a fun little jaunt.  But somewhere down the line in more recent times, this front group got bought up by something called The MacroGrid Initiative, and Rob Gramlich was installed as its figurehead.  This guy has more personalities than a Chinese spy.  He's the "Executive Director" of ACEG.  He's founder and president of a company called "Grid Strategies LLC."  His name shows up affiliated with the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) and the WATT Coalition.  Go ahead, google him.... he's everywhere.  He also stumps  for The MacroGrid Initiative, a joint effort of the American Council on Renewable Energy and Americans for a Clean Energy Grid (ACORE and ACEG).  Rob's a really busy guy who seems to have his dirty fingers in every "clean" pie currently being baked.

What's The MacroGrid Initiative?  I did a little research on that earlier this year.  In a nutshell, it's a front funded by Bill Gates and his rich globalist pals who want to invest and make a bundle building "clean" energy infrastructure.  Read more about that here.

So why the vicious attack on a Pennsylvania farmer?  The media has been full of transmission opposition success stories lately.  First there was the citizens' victory over the Transource project in Pennsylvania when it was denied by the PA PUC.  There was a great story featuring one of the landowners that was run in numerous outlets around the country.  Then there was the successful citizens' referendum in Maine that will stop the New England Clean Energy Connect transmission project, designed to cut though Maine to deliver Canadian hydro power to Massachusetts.  Big headlines nationwide from that.  Then there was the court injunction to stop the building of the Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission project in Wisconsin.  That also made national news.  And then the "clean" bandits began to worry... transmission opponents were winning and they had no good ideas to stop transmission opposition in its tracks.  I guess someone must have had a brilliant idea.  Make the landowners "sound like d*cks" so that the headline reading keyboard warriors would continue the assault until the landowners were just "d*cks" that everyone hated.

Because of a pair of sunglasses?  It seems like someone got stuck on that farmer's sunglasses.  Did you know that amber colored sunglasses are best for outdoor activities that require depth perception, contrast, and judging distance?  You know, things like driving a combine as big as John Oliver's NYC apartment (and probably more costly) through a standing crop that covers obstructions until just about the time you run over them?  But for some reason the urban keyboard warriors think wearing such sunglasses make you a d*ck.  Actually, they make you a hard-working farmer producing the food these ungrateful idiots shove in their pie holes.

Is this the first volley of our coming culture war?  Rob Gramlich has certainly showed his true colors by viciously and falsely attacking one Pennsylvania farmer.   "Clean" he isn't.  He's made himself our enemy.

My money's with the farmers in this culture war.  Hunger happens pretty quickly.  No more sh*tty casseroles for you, Rob Gramlich.  If he hates farmers so much, perhaps he should begin growing his own food?

We all know that the media is uninformed about transmission, and that they carry the water for "clean energy" companies and progressive politics.  The whole "green is good" thing has been slowly changing our thinking for decades through the use of propaganda.  Most people don't even think about it anymore, they simply accept it and believe that "green" can do no wrong.  Except, what happens when some pundit pretends to take a deep dive into "our power grid" but ends up spewing misinformation and ad hominem attacks?

It's not like it's mainstream news, however it was broadcast on HBO.  Millions of people saw it.  And it's complete and utter crap.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver did a story about "the power grid" on Sunday.  I didn't watch it.  I don't watch HBO.  But, someone who did tipped me off about it.  I found a video of the show on YouTube.  Here it is.

*Warning*  Extremely salty language and jokes.  If you're going to be offended, perhaps you should skip it.

Before I get into the really offensive part of this stupid propaganda, let's briefly go over the points he got wrong.

Now let's get to the most offensive part of this whole video.  John attacks one grassroots transmission group and says they are maddening and "sound like d*cks".  He also criticizes the landowner's attire, as if that ad hominem attack could make his point?  He selectively edits the video he appropriated to make it appear that the landowner made a stupid point that serves John's narrative that these people are selfish d*cks.

The opposition group he attacked is the Stop Transource folks from the eastern part of the route.  The video he appropriated is this one:

John focuses on one particular landowner who was obviously involved in harvest.  He wasn't dressed in a fancy suit for the job.  He was working hard to harvest the food John puts in his sh*tty casseroles.  The crack about what he was wearing was arrogant and stupid.  Compare John's video story at 16:16 to the actual footage at 36:49 on the Heritage Unprotected video.  At 16:34, John edited out something that causes a jump in the video.  What was edited out was this:

That part didn't fit John's narrative that landowners are selfish d*cks, so he edited it out.  That part actually proved that the selfish d*cks are the folks in the city who want cheap fossil-fueled power from Pennsylvania because it's cheaper than running their own "clean" generators.

These people do not deserve this smear job from the very pretentious John Oliver, yukking it up at someone else's expense while filling his pie hole with the food they work so hard to produce.

These people are actually RIGHT.  It seems that John didn't bother to compare the video to the present day state of the Transource transmission project.  Maryland regulators required Transource to cancel this part of the project and simply add new wires to existing transmission towers.  If he had bothered to watch the whole video, he might have noticed that this idea was mentioned by landowners.  Turns out they were right all along.  They did not have to compromise or be flexible.  Transource did.  Also, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission denied the project because it would increase electric rates in Pennsylvania, instead of lowering them for Washington, D.C. and Baltimore.  Turns out that the transmission congestion that was the basis for this project had managed to evaporate on its own.  There was no economic, market efficiency, need for this project after all.  The landowners were right about that, too.

Seems like John should apologize to the folks he maligned.  But, guess what?  A show that exists to spew propaganda and malign folks for a few laughs doesn't actually have a place where the viewers can send their comments.  Information is a one-way street at Last Week With John Oliver.  HBO doesn't care what you think, or if you were offended.

Too bad, really.  John is quite funny, but this story has revealed that his topics are nothing more than created propaganda.  Nothing actually funny about that.

I hope a pigeon poops on his head.

This article is about the citizens' referendum in Maine that killed the New England Clean Energy Connect... or is it?  Although ostensibly about the adventures of Massachusetts to get "clean energy" at the expense of neighboring states, it has a broader lesson.

Two words:  Merchant Transmission.

The article says:

Merchant transmission is an entirely different animal than transmission built by regulated public utilities and states must end treating it the same when it comes to eminent domain.  Although the regulators who approve these projects know the difference, hardly anyone else does, including legislators, local governments, the media, and sometimes even the landowners affected by it.  It's up to you to educate these people and work to update your state's eminent domain laws to protect the people of your state from speculative energy projects without a public purpose.

First, let's talk about regulated public utility transmission.  It's something most people are familiar with.  For this kind of transmission line, there is a public purpose.  Numerous independent regional electric grid planners across the country study the system's needs to determine whether new transmission is needed to keep the lights on.  When a need is found, the grid planner approves a new project, which is then sent to the appropriate state utility commission(s) where the line would be built for subsequent approval.  All transmission must be approved according to the state's laws governing transmission before it may be built.  If a state also finds the project needed, it grants a permit and eminent domain authority to the utility in accordance with the state's law.  This allows the public utility to condemn land for the project, if necessary.  However, regulated public utilities use this power sparingly and prefer to coerce landowners to sign voluntarily.  A public utility historically uses its eminent domain authority on less than 5% of the needed easements.  Public utilities are heavily regulated, and the rates they charge for public purpose transmission are what's known as "cost of service" rates.  As you might have guessed, the public utility can only charge electric consumers for its cost of the project, plus a return (profit) set by regulators.  The return allows the public utility to recover a reasonable profit on its investment in the project, which is slowly paid for by electric consumers over its useful life, usually 40 years.

While not ideal for affected landowners, who must sacrifice their property for the general public good, it's what was historically developed to allow for electrification of our country in the last century.  But the historical public purpose for condemnation has been reimagined in the past 20 years, and state laws granting eminent domain authority to public utilities have not kept up with these changes.

It's time for change!

The biggest reason for change is the development of merchant transmission.  Merchant transmission is, at its most basic, a speculative transmission line proposed solely for investor profit.  The idea behind it is that there is a market need for additional transmission beyond that needed for a public purpose.  A group of investors may determine that there is a market for one of these supplemental projects, although there is no public purpose for it.  If a merchant proposes a new transmission project, it must find voluntary customers to pay for it.  Because there is no public purpose, the cost of a merchant line cannot be involuntarily allocated to captive electric consumers.  Investors put their own money up for the project and hope that they can attract enough voluntary customers to pay for the line, plus an attractive profit.  A merchant is granted authority to fairly negotiate rates with prospective customers.  If the merchant charges too much, it won't have enough customers.  The rates it can negotiate are set by the market for transmission capacity.  If a potential customer believes the rate it has negotiated is economic and will supply a need for its customers, in turn, then a contract is signed and the customer is on the hook to pay the contracted rate.  The need here is a market need, not a public purpose need.  The lights will still stay on for everyone if the merchant project is not built.  The merchant takes a risk that a supplemental market for its project will develop.  If it does not, then the merchant will not build the project because there is nobody to pay for it.  A merchant cannot get a loan to build a transmission line without a guaranteed stream of revenue that comes with negotiated rate contracts with its customers.

And let's talk about merchant transmission rate contracts.  A merchant cannot charge more than its voluntary customers are willing to pay.  A merchant rate is set by market, not its cost of service plus regulated, reasonable profit.  Whatever the market is willing to pay determines the profit.  If a merchant can build its project for less than the market rate, then whatever amount leftover above its cost of service is pure profit for the merchant.  There is no reasonable cap on its profit.  As the linked article above points out, a merchant profit can be enormous, which makes these kind of speculative transmission projects so attractive to investors.  But keep in mind, if the profit that remains after contracts are negotiated with voluntary customers is not enough for the investors, they are not committed to building the  project and can simply fold while absorbing the loss for money spent to date.  Losing a small investment is better than losing a larger amount of money over time selling a service that costs more than the market will pay for it.

So, why are merchant projects a problem when it comes to eminent domain law?

Because states are in a position to either approve or reject the project based on speculation.  If a state approves a merchant project, it must grant it public utility status under current laws.  Public utility status determines that the project serves a public need and grants the utility eminent domain authority.  Not such a problem for a regulated transmission project ordered to serve a public need.  The public utility is under orders to build the project if approved.  It can't decide afterwards that there is not enough profit in it and cancel its plans.  If approved, the project will meet a public need, and any land acquired using eminent domain is only used for a public need.  But public utility status is a problem when granted to merchants.  Because the merchant has the option to cancel the project at any time, it may never serve a public purpose.  But a private investor in the project may have still acquired land "for a public purpose" using eminent domain.  There's no provision requiring a merchant to actually use the land it has acquired for a public purpose.  In that case, the land will have been acquired through eminent domain without the required public use, or public purpose.  Our Constitution prevents the acquisition of land by private parties for a private use.

The tragedy currently unfolding in Missouri illustrates why public utility status and eminent domain authority for speculative merchant transmission projects must end through modernization of state eminent domain laws.

The Grain Belt Express merchant transmission project owned by private investor Invenergy has been approved by Missouri regulators and granted public utility status and eminent domain authority.  But it still doesn't have the approval it needs in Illinois, and its Kansas approval is tied to future approval in Illinois.  The only state where GBE currently has the authority to condemn property is Missouri.  The entirety of the project has not been approved in other states, and it does not have enough voluntary customers to pay for the project.  It's only known customer is a small group of Missouri municipalities who signed a contract to pay an amount less than it would cost GBE to provide the service.  This "loss leader" contract was only signed so that GBE could tell the Missouri utility commission that it was providing "benefit" to Missouri in order to schmooze its way to approval.  GBE has still not reached the point in its development where it has enough customers and permits to build.  GBE is still only a SPECULATIVE transmission project.  There is no guarantee that it will ever be built.

But GBE has been asking Missouri landowners to willingly sign over their land now for a project that may never be built or used for a public purpose.  The landowners who resist are being threatened with eminent domain, and GBE has made good in its threat against one landowner in Buchanan County.  It has made a court filing to take this person's property using eminent domain.  In the event that GBE is successful, then it will own property for a project that it may never build.  What happens to that property if GBE does not find enough customers, or is denied the additional permits it needs to build the project?  GBE will still own an interest in that landowner's property, an interest it has acquired that may never serve the public.

Until GBE has signed enough customers, received all its necessary permits, and committed to build the project, there is no "public use" or "public purpose" for the speculative taking of private property.  Our Constitution does not allow the taking of private property without public use, but that's exactly what's happening in Missouri.  Right now.  GBE is threatening condemnation on more than 50% of the property it *could* need for its speculative project.  Remember, regulated public utilities typically condemn less than 5% of the easements, and only then when construction is imminent.  Regulated public utilities only use eminent domain as a last resort on a project that they are committed to build.  GBE is condemning NOW the majority of the property it *could* need later, when it may have customers and permits necessary to complete the project.  There is no "public need" to condemn property now for a speculative project.

State utility commission conditions that attempt to prevent a speculative merchant from hurting landowners by beginning construction before they have customers and permits for the entire project do not work.  Missouri requires GBE to have funding for the complete project before beginning construction, but not before using eminent domain.  Kansas, too, prevents construction until all permits have been granted, but it doesn't prevent eminent domain.  State eminent domain law needs to be updated to rein in eminent domain authority for speculative merchant projects.  Updates to state law to prevent the granting of eminent domain for merchant projects until they have necessary permits, customers, and have legally committed to building the project are  desperately needed to protect citizens.  If you haven't yet been put in the position to have your land condemned for a speculative private profit purpose, count yourself lucky... and hurry down to your legislator's office to make sure it doesn't happen.  Congressional "infrastructure" legislation will light a fire in investor circles to propose more merchant transmission in exchange for taxpayer-funded financial reward.  Missouri is teaching the lesson right now and should be first to protect its citizens from eminent domain abuse.

Only one state has updated its laws to deal with merchant transmission.  Several years ago, Iowa passed legislation that prevented above-ground merchant transmission.  Think that ended merchant transmission?  It did not!  Another speculative merchant transmission project is in the works that complies with the new law.  SOO Green Renewable Rail is proposing a merchant transmission project that is buried on existing rail rights-of-way.  Changing state law to rein in merchant transmission did not make Iowa undesirable for merchant projects.  It did not scare anyone away.  It simply ensured that future merchant projects are less invasive for the state's citizens. 

Why doesn't Missouri require GBE to be buried on existing easements like the SOO Green project?  Doing so won't make the project impossible.  But what it would do is cut into Invenergy's enormous profits.  Building underground is more expensive, which siphons off some of Invenergy's profit.  Invenergy wants to build the cheapest project it can so that its profit is bigger.  The negotiated market rates for a merchant project won't change if the project is buried, or uses eminent domain to acquire land cheaper.  GBE's rates would still be set by market.  But if SOO Green is risking its money betting that even a buried project will create a profit, then it is possible, even for GBE.

Ask your legislators what will happen to the easements GBE condemns now, if the project is cancelled later due to rejected permits and lack of customers?  Will GBE have to restore the land and return the easements?  There's nothing requiring that.  GBE can keep the land it condemned without a public use, and then use it for any private purpose it likes.  What good is a linear easement across 200 miles of Missouri?  It could be used for a number of things such as  a pipeline of some sorts, including one of the new-fangled and extremely dangerous CO2 pipelines.  It could be used for a private toll road.  It could be a private railroad.  It could be sold at a huge profit to someone else for any of these projects, and more.  There is no guarantee that it will be used for a public purpose.  And our Constitution states: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."  There is no provision that allows the taking of private property for a private use, but that is exactly what Missouri is allowing to occur today.

GBE's use of eminent domain is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

And I don't mean transmission opponents.  They've been awake forever.  They never sleep.  I'm talking about the "clean energy" cheerleaders who love new transmission "for clean energy" simply because it is NOT IN MY BACK YARD.  We know that these people would feel differently if it were.  Case in point -- Howard Learner and the Environmental Law and Policy Center, who thought "clean line" transmission in someone else's back yard was a fabulous idea... until one of the lines got proposed for his back yard.  Howard has since woken up and doesn't think this is a such a great idea anymore.  Woke Howard has gone on to do great things, such as the recent injunction to stop construction of the Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission line in Wisconsin.  Way to go, Howard!

The powers that be and the mainstream media have just woken up to the fact that transmission opponents have the upper hand over new energy policy designed to build more "clean" transmission because every community targeted with a new overhead transmission line on new rights-of-way will oppose the project.  Every.Last.One.  And, as this article points out, opposition methods are getting really creative and... *gasp* transmission opposition is winning!

As this country stupidly plows ahead trying to construct enough new transmission to "circle the Earth about 10 times" it's going to wake a whole bunch more people by dropping a transmission line in the places they hold dear.  Mass will slowly build until trillions of dollars are wasted trying to build projects that are ultimately stopped by their opponents.  Is this really the path forward?

One company is proposing new "clean" transmission that will be buried on existing rights-of-way for its entire length.  This project has not attracted the expensive, time-consuming opposition that kills projects.  Its effect on landowners would be short and minimal.  Landowners have been offered the equivalent of "good neighbor" payments to accept the project.  And for the vast majority, that's good enough.  It does not obstruct the use of their land, and it doesn't create a perpetual visual burden.

Other projects that don't cause project-killing opposition include rebuilds of transmission on existing rights-of-way, even when above ground.  Simply changing out one existing transmission line for another doesn't bother people as much as a new right-of-way across their property.

What if we designed new transmission to modern standards so that it did not bother landowners and incite opposition?  We'd save a lot of money, for starters.  Although the buried on existing rights-of-way transmission can be more expensive at the outset, it quickly balances out because it does not require hugely expensive outlays to fight opposition.  For instance, the Maine referendum that finally woke up Forbes cost nearly $100M, and the project still faces additional costs to continue to try to fight off the opposition that has killed it.  It is likely to be cancelled anyhow, and at great expense.  Stupid, stupid, stupid!  We would also save time because buried transmission doesn't face delays caused by opposition. 

It's time to hit pause on this idiotic idea to pass new laws meant to thwart opposition to new transmission.  The new laws won't work.  Not by any stretch.  Opposition will just find new ways to kill transmission projects that they don't want.  Giving up is never an option for transmission opposition.  The battle just gets more creative.

Big government can never silence the people, no matter how hard it tries.  We always win.  Deal with it, little NIMBYs.

Maine citizens delivered a historic upset to invasive merchant transmission line New England Clean Energy Connect at the polls yesterday.

NECEC, a merchant spin off from Central Maine Power, is under contract to deliver 1200MW of "clean" hydropower from Quebec to Massachusetts.  The project would be paid for by Massachusetts electric consumers, if they can ever get it built, including the nearly $100M spent on political nonsense that tried in vain to stop the referendum.

This hard won grassroots victory has been in the works for several years.  The first project Massachusetts contracted with to buy hydro from Quebec was routed through New Hampshire, however that state defeated it through the regulatory process and the courts.  Next, Massachusetts stupidly set its sights on a different overhead transmission project through the pristine woods of Maine.  After all, what does Massachusetts care about the environment of any other state but its own?  It also had no money on the table.  The merchant transmission utilities were falling all over themselves to build the project because it could be wildly profitable, all paid for by Massachusetts consumers.  But only if it actually delivered power.  Power cannot be delivered from a line that is never built.  Has Massachusetts finally learned its lesson?  No other state wants to sacrifice its environment so that Massachusetts can virtue signal about "clean energy."

The NECEC project was widely opposed by the citizens of Maine who would have to live with it.  The citizens opposed the project through the regulatory process, however Maine's governor inked a deal with CMP to distribute a few trinkets to the citizens in exchange for their sacrifice and put her thumb on the scale for regulatory approval.  But the citizens persisted.  They successfully passed legislation to stop the project, but their governor vetoed it.  But the citizens persisted.  They gathered enough signatures for a referendum to stop the project in 2020.  However, CMP battled it in court and the referendum was dubbed unconstitutional before it could even be voted upon.  But the citizens persisted.  The citizens gathered enough signatures for a second referendum with different, constitutional wording and CMP was unsuccessful in stopping it from going to a vote.  CMP and its foreign-based parent company, along with Hydro Quebec, poured nearly $100M into a political campaign to defeat the referendum.  But the citizens persisted.

Yesterday, the referendum passed with a resounding 59% of the vote.  The citizens persisted and were victorious!

In the wake of their spanking from the voters, CMP once again claimed the referendum was unconstitutional.  But I gotta ask... if CMP was so certain the referendum was unconstitutional and would be set aside by a court, why did they spend nearly $100M to attempt to defeat it?  If they were so certain, they should have saved their millions for the court battle.  CMP's money is not where its mouth is today.  In fact, CMP wagered against itself with a hugely expensive campaign to defeat something they now claim is unconstitutional.  So, the battle will continue in the courts.  And the citizens will persist.  At what point will this project become too expensive for CMP?  When will they wake up and quit throwing good money after bad?  Because NECEC is a merchant transmission project, CMP will never recover the money it has spent on this project.  And it's a bundle.

CMP began construction of its project earlier this year, even when the referendum campaign was in process.  That was pretty stupid.  But the trees will eventually grow back, because the citizens persisted.

What does this mean for the transmission opposition world?  We have a new tool in our toolbox!  Appeals and legislation are no longer the end of the road for transmission opponents.  A referendum is now a possibility.  Of course, the referendum was also hugely expensive to the citizens of Maine.  However, they had a little help from some generation owners in the region who ran their own separate campaign to pass the referendum.  And we all know that in the transmission opposition world the enemy of our enemy is our friend.  This begs the question of whether other generation owners will step into other transmission battles to pull off a similar victory?  The rest of this story has yet to be written.

Meanwhile... CONGRATULATIONS to the citizens of Maine on this historic victory!  Their persistence and hard work to preserve their environment is nothing less than heroic.

And let's end with another foundational maxim of transmission opposition...

I've spent the past week hopelessly wading through 165 different comments on FERC's proposed transmission rulemaking (at least the media says there are 165, I haven't counted them).  Average size of the filings are probably around 50 pages, but it seems like the "clean energy now" folks are trying just a bit too hard by submitting filings hundreds of pages long that include additional coma-inducing appendix reports (of course these "reports" are all paid for by special interest $$).

Some commenters agree with us, and some don't.  But some are just downright offensive.  That's where we're going to concentrate right now because there's a big ball of steam building that needs to be released before I take a deep breath and calmly wade back in.

It's the special interests that claim to speak for landowners.  Who the heck are these people and where do they get off claiming to speak for people they have never met, never spoken to, or interacted with in any way?

We'll start off light with what I'm going to call the "Big Green" comments.  These were signed by the typical environmental advocacy industry sycophants (yes, it's an industry since it supports itself with grants from corporations that will financially benefit from the ideas pushed forward.)  Just to name a few:  Sierra Club, NRDC, EarthJustice, Conservation Law Foundation,  and Acadia Center.  These self-serving blowhards commented:

So, let's boil this down.  A landowner is to be "meaningfully addressed" but ultimately dismissed because she's standing in the way of the environmental utopia?  What the heck is "meaningfully addressed?"  It means absolutely nothing.  They also think that landowners would "benefit" from earlier interaction with the transmission developer.  Seems to me that the longer this power struggle goes on, the more the landowner hates the transmission developer.  What may initially be a mild and overly polite granny can turn into Nannie Doss (go ahead, look it up, I'll wait) if you give it enough time.  Don't mess with old ladies... they're generally all out of shits to give.  Trust me on this.

Who are Big Green to tell FERC how we shall be "addressed"?  Moreover what makes them think this will be successful?  It won't.  Big Green doesn't know crap about opposition to transmission.  In fact, they've recently been showing up in state permitting proceedings as cheerleaders for more transmission.  Would any landowner in his right mind let The Sierra Club represent his interests in a transmission line siting case?

Think you're mad now?  Think again, because the Niskanen Center puts the Big Green blowhards to shame.  If you're a regular blog reader, you won't be surprised in the least to find out that Niskanen is pretending that it represents landowners affected by new transmission.  Niskanen has had ZERO interaction with any transmission opposition groups.  That's probably because, like Big Green, they are cheerleading for more transmission.  Also stuff like this:

That's right... if Niskanen was in charge (and maybe they are if they make the right political moves) Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Connecticut, Kentucky, Tennessee Taxachusetts and another minor state would be filled end to end, border to border, with wind and solar installations (and little else).  This is not workable, financially or otherwise.

But not knowing squat about transmission opposition doesn't stop Niskanen from being an expert at it.  Why, Niskanen devoted a whole half-day to a workshop discussing ways to build an equally astounding amount of new transmission in the shortest time possible.  Wow!  A whole half-day?  I've been doing this for 13 years now, and I still haven't learned everything, but I have learned a damn site more than Niskanen.  Niskanen's plan is completely pointless when it comes to landowners and will do nothing but create more layers of delay.  But don't let that stop them...

Here's one particularly annoying passage from their "report."

What's missing from this urban-focused list?  Impacts and obstacles to farming, which is likely the biggest factor for rural landowners who use their land to make a living.  But, what can you expect from a band of burghers who probably think vegetables are manufactured in factories?

Here's another:

Not once in 13 years has any group I've worked with asked for any of these things.  Who are these communities?  And, even if they did, giving a library to a town in exchange for privately-held land owned by someone who lives nearby is not compensation.  The town doesn't own the land being sacrificed.  It has no skin in the game.  If you don't believe me, there's this bridge in Brooklyn that I will sell to you for $10...

There's more... lots more... infuriating comments that could only be made by someone with their head shoved so far up their own keister that the oxygen levels are getting low.

What else could explain how their prattle about Clean Line Energy Partners is in need of a serious fact check?  For example:

Some?  Try ALL, sweetcheeks.  ALL of Clean Line's rights of way were new.  That's one of the reasons opposition was so emphatic and widespread, but not the primary one.  Two words:  Eminent Domain.

How about this?

Financial support?  No.  The government wasn't giving Clean Line a dime.  It worked the other way... Clean Line was giving the DOE money for its "participation."  The partnership was REVOKED not because of the changing administration, but because CLEAN LINE COULDN'T FIND ANY CUSTOMERS and the partnership agreement required Clean Line to have sufficient customers to pay for the project before it could move forward.  Clean Line collapsed because it could not find any customers.  End of story.  Niskanen got the whole DOE thing wrong because it was not involved and has not talked to any landowners who were.

Which bring us to the conclusion... Niskanen does not speak for landowners affected by new transmission, and never will.  Shut up, and sit down, you bombastic blowhards.

Okay, I feel better now.  I'm going back in... if you don't hear from me for a while, toss me a rope.  I may have gotten lost in there.

It's been a pleasure to work with a bunch of different consumer groups to craft comments on FERC's advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to reform transmission planning, cost allocation and generator interconnection.

Our group comments were docketed today.

Wait... do I see your eyes rolling back into your head?  Stop... don't go away.  Perhaps you'll enjoy reading them almost as much as I enjoyed writing them.

No complicated, technical stuff this time, I promise.  Just a little common sense speaking truth to power.  Isn't that something we all need to do more of lately?

S&P Global tells us that some transmission owners and former energy regulators aren't exactly gung-ho over the congressional infrastructure thing.  Two things stick in their craw... federal siting and permitting and taxpayer-funded anchor tenant contracts.

Strike up the band... it's not every day I agree with some transmission owners and former energy regulators!

On the possibility that FERC could take over siting and permitting of new transmission

Oh yes, I've been fomenting since I was knee-high to  grasshopper and have big plans for my fomenting future.

Clark continued:

And so it shall be.  If FERC thinks it's finally gotten a handle on the gas pipeline protestors that have been disturbing their processes and haunting their headquarters for years, they've got another think coming.

And why would FERC want to attract this kind of attention when it could, instead, make transmission better and less likely to be opposed?  You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar, FERC.  More on this coming soon....

On the issue of taxpayer-funded anchor tenants:

That's right... regulated companies that build regionally planned transmission projects are protecting their golden goose from unregulated, unplanned merchant transmission that would be the sole beneficiary of the completely misguided anchor tenant proposal.  In brief, this proposal would make the federal government purchase transmission capacity from a merchant project that doesn't have enough customers to become viable.  Of course, the government wouldn't USE the capacity, but the merchant transmission developer would USE the cash provided by the anchor tenant contract to finance its project.  But fake government customers do NOT make a merchant transmission project needed.  Merchant transmission is a market-based concept where transmission is built in response to a market need.  If there is no market for a particular merchant transmission project, then it should not be built.  These roads to nowhere should not be artificially propped up using taxpayer funds.  The whole idea is idiotic.

This entire article demonstrates that perhaps the "clean energy" crowd has proposed too many conflicting "good things" to encourage more electric transmission construction and that all these different goodie bags banging together are creating so much friction, it's going to blow the whole idea of new transmission off the map. 

They don't realize that they're killing their golden goose.

What's happened to our society when a political group can actually say this to Congress with a straight face?

So, since landowners have been treated badly by the feds under the Natural Gas Act, let's expand federal control of electric transmission line siting so that even more landowners can be treated badly by the federal government?  Do they even know how hypocritical they sound?

This is what happens when your "concern" for landowners is really, deep down, just concern for your own environmental and political goals.  It's not about the landowners... it never was.  Groups like Niskanen use landowners like a battering ram to get their own way because they don't have any compelling supporters of their own.  Landowners are mere pawns in a political game, but yet they allow it because they need the money and political power wielded by these hypocritical institutions to win their own, personal battle.  So while gas pipeline opponents allow Niskanen to "represent" them, electric transmission opponents do not.  Niskanen wants to toss these folks under the bus.  Therefore, who is Niskanen to ask Congress to make electric transmission siting a federal affair?  They need to butt out and shut up.  This is not their battle.

Considering how they have not interacted with any electric transmission opposition group, it takes a lot of chutzpah for Niskanen to tell Congress that new legislation will "protect" landowners.  Niskanen has NO IDEA what issues are important to landowners in electric transmission battles.  Go ahead, read about all the "protections" Niskanen thinks are beneficial to you.  For the most part, they are nothing more than the protections currently available under state law, and we all know how little those do to actually protect landowners.  It's just another slate of "landowner protections" that are created by the folks who seek to take advantage of landowners.  No landowners were consulted in their creation.  It's self-serving dreck about as useful to landowners as a screen door on a submarine.

Oh, but wait... these folks have come up with a new "protection" that actually puts landowners at greater risk.  See Section (j) Other Landowner Rights and Protections on page 27.  Here an energy company is required to return property taken using eminent domain if the project is not in operation by the date on its certificate.  Of course, an energy company need only apply for an extension if it fails to meet the drop dead date, so this provision is unlikely to ever be used.  But, say it does come into play...  In order to have his property returned, a landowner must REPAY the energy company up to 50% of the amount he received in the taking.  That's right... those "compensation" payments cannot be used by the landowner to compensate for the damage done until AFTER a project is completed, less the landowner is given the option to purchase his property back before the project is completed.  Where would a landowner get the money to buy his own property back if not from the original award?  This also overlooks the fact that any part of the compensation described as "damages" is most likely taxable.  The landowner would have to give a great big chunk of his award to the government up front, then bank the rest as insurance in case the project gets abandoned and he wants to buy his property back.  In every instance of an abandoned electric transmission project, the transmission owner has been required to return the easement to the property owner at no cost.  Why should this be changed to put landowners at a disadvantage?  Landowner protections?  Hardly!  This is what happens when the energy project owner writes "protective" legislation for landowners.

Niskanen Center does not represent landowners in electric transmission siting situations.  It does not represent us.  Their shameless audacity in pretending to do so is repugnant.