Transource Releases Routes... and Propaganda

Transource hit the media up with its proposed routes for its Independence Energy Connection early this week.  Transource included lots of propaganda designed to pacify the opposition beast as well.  I don't think it's working.  The route announcement only served to incite even more opposition, as people who maybe thought they were safe, or hadn't paid much attention to the problem before, came out of the woodwork to voice their opposition.

What was it Transource said about its project?

The goal is to alleviate congestion on the high-voltage electric grid, and benefit customers in the region, including parts of Pennsylvania and Maryland, Transource said in a news release. 

But who exactly will benefit from the project, and to what extent?

Regional grid operator PJM Interconnection has already done the math and assigned project cost commensurate with benefit.  80.5% of the project costs will be paid by ratepayers of Baltimore Gas & Electric, PEPCO, and Dominion, therefore 80.5% of the benefit will be realized by those ratepayers.  However, 100% of project impacts will be realized by landowners in communities in Pennsylvania and Maryland that will receive just 6% or less of the project's benefit.  Although Transource continually attempts to gloss over this fact, it doesn't change the math.  Communities along the proposed route are not receiving benefit commensurate with their sacrifice.

New transmission projects dreamed up by PJM to "alleviate congestion" and promote the increased use of certain types of power generators have a long track record of failure.  "Congestion" is a fleeting economic concept used to justify building more transmission for export across the region.  You'd think PJM might have learned its lesson about manipulating markets from the crashing failure of its Project Mountaineer initiative, but obviously that's not the case.  After retreating to its lair and licking its wounds for 10 years, PJM is at it again.  And the victims of its latest scheme are having none of that.

Transource also says:

Abby Foster, a community affairs representative for the company, said typical farming practices in both counties will be able to continue in the rights-of-way. She also said that based on the feedback from the community, Transource will use a monopole structure for the towers, instead of the lattice structure which was in the original proposal. 
“By including community members in the siting process, rather than engaging them after decisions were made, we were able to consider and accommodate many landowner requests,” said Transource Director Todd Burns.

Abby Foster is a public relations spinner employed by The Bravo Group, under contract to Transource to put a nice face on its transmission proposal.  Abby says:  "My experience and strengths include targeting audiences with well-crafted messaging using both traditional and new media to gain exposure, persuade and motivate. Whether it be a product, campaign, event or reputation management and exposure, I can develop the campaign from strategy, to content and graphics, to launch. I will work with you to set benchmarks, track progress and achieve your campaign goals."   What does Abby Foster know about "typical farming practices"?  Any farmer who relies on Abby Foster to educate them about "typical farming practices" may find themselves in a bit of a bind.  And what about that "feedback" she received about monopoles?  I don't know of anyone who opposes this project whose opposition would be ameliorated by the use of monopoles.  In fact, I haven't heard one opponent even mention a preference for monopoles.  The preference for monopoles is parent company AEP's preference, touting what it characterizes as its revolutionary "BOLD" design, a rather flaccid attempt to make people believe everyone else loves smartly designed transmission structures.  How can Abby say that they're making some accommodation towards the public when those people have not indicated a preference?  It's like asking people how they want to ingest poison... would you like to drink it or chew it? 

Todd Burns is another poison purveyor who tells the community how they were included in the decision making, but that's not entirely honest.  The community doesn't just want to be "included" in the siting of the project, the community wants to be included in the decision to build this project in the first place.  That's where community involvement should have begun.  Instead, Todd asks the community how it would like to ingest its poison, without asking them if they would like to be poisoned in the first place.

Transource must think the communities are really gullible, pretending to make concessions so that the company appears reasonable.  Transource's concessions are imaginary and not what the community asked for at the "Open House" meetings.  I'm pretty sure the communities asked for no transmission project at all, not one with monopoles that encourages the community to fight with itself over placement.  The monopoles and "community inclusion" are nothing but a smoke screen.

Then Abby asks the community to get into the Kool Aid line:

Foster added that over the next couple of weeks the company will contact  landowners with property on the proposed route. She said during this time, owners can raise issues like potential crop loss during construction or access roads that need to be built, and negotiate compensation.
 
"They're really looking to minimize and reduce any impacts that might occur to any agricultural practices," Foster said on behalf of Transource.

Maybe landowners don't want to talk to land agents this early in the game.  After all, this project isn't a sure thing until it's been carefully examined and approved by state regulators.  Chances are that one or both states will deny the application, or simply delay it until the project collapses underneath the weight of its own hubris.  Why purchase easements when a route has not been approved?  Because Transource is guaranteed to collect its sunk costs, even if the project is later cancelled.  And if it is cancelled, who wants to be left with an open easement across their property that can then be used for some other project?  Landowners should also consider how easements are typically purchased for transmission line projects.  A company may pay up to 10% of the purchase price at signing, with future small payments made over time as indicated in the contract, with the balance paid at the time construction begins.  Once signed, a landowner (or his heirs) must honor the contract until the easement is released.  This project could be tied up by regulators and courts for years. 

Any landowner who even considers talking to a Transource land agent should first consult with an attorney.  Although Transource will tell you that you don't need an attorney, remember that the contract the land agent presents to you was written by Transource's attorney, for the benefit of the company.  Don't you think you should protect your interests, too?

Transource seems to be in an all-fired hurry to get folks "managed" to go along with its project.  It's your land, it's your choice.