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

West Virginia Public Service Commission Passes the Buck

5/14/2025

0 Comments

 
Picture
The West Virginia Public Service Commission's mission statement is:
The purpose of the Public Service Commission is to ensure fair and prompt regulation of public utilities; to provide for adequate, economical and reliable utility services throughout the state; and to appraise and balance the interests of current and future utility service customers with the general interest of the state's economy and the interests of the utilities.
However, when a customer filed a general comment with the PSC recently regarding the way FirstEnergy is shirking its duty to provide public information, this is the response she got:
Thank you for contacting the Public Service Commission of West Virginia regarding the transmission line project. We are aware of plans for the proposed transmission line, but have not yet received a filing in this matter. We expect the developer to apply to the PSC for a certificate of convenience and necessity (under code section 24-2-11a) before beginning any construction. Once the PSC receives the application, there will be a public notice (the law requires newspaper publication in counties where the line is proposed to be located) and an opportunity for the public to comment and to file protests and to ask for the PSC to hold a hearing. We encourage you to share your comments once a case has been opened and is available for public input.
The consumer corrected the PSC with this response:
​This section of state code that got amended back in 2010.  It is WV Code §24-2-11a(c) available at this link:  

https://code.wvlegislature.gov/24-2-11A/


It says:  At least thirty business days before the deadline set by the Public Service Commission to file a petition to intervene with regard to the application, the applicant shall serve notice by certified mail to all owners of surface real estate that lie within the preferred corridor of the proposed transmission line. Notice received by a named owner who is the recipient of record of the most recent tax bill that has been issued by the county sheriff's office for a parcel of land at the time of the filing of the application is sufficient notice regarding that parcel for purposes of this subsection.

I have the right to intervene as an impacted citizen. I also have a right to intervene and participate in the case, not just file a comment.
And then the PSC's Director of Communications responded by passing the buck and telling the consumer to go away.
You do have a right, as any citizen does, to ask to intervene in any case before the Commission.
However, in this case, there is no case before the Commission, so therefore we cannot take or act upon your request.
Until the company files a petition seeking our approval of the line, there is no case. That has not been filed by the company.
If such a request is filed, we will be happy to notify you and then you can petition to intervene.
In the meantime, I may suggest you file your protest with the company.
I hope this helps. Please feel free to call me at any time if I can be of assistance.
Aren't there any lawyers at the PSC that can acknowledge that the company has an obligation to notify impacted landowners via certified mail once an application is filed?  That's what the customer was looking for.  She filed a general comment seeking help with the fact that FirstEnergy is approaching landowners to seek Right of Entry on their properties without providing any information about their project.  FirstEnergy has provided no information whatsoever about their project to the impacted communities.  Do impacted landowners have to wait until an application is filed to get basic information about the project and what it intends to do to private property?

Furthermore, a different segment of the same transmission project has absolutely failed to provide effective engagement with other impacted landowners.  NextEra has been holding "Open House" meetings in West Virginia that leave landowners confused and angry.  The meeting setup is loud and confusing.  The maps are not labeled.  The comment cards cannot be filled out later and mailed in.  Attendees cannot have normal conversation with project representatives because they cannot hear what they are saying and answers are non-responsive or misleading.  The company's website is devoid of meaningful explanation or information about this project.

The 500kV MARL project is failing at public engagement on all fronts.

But yet when consumers go to the officials who are supposed to protect them from predatory and outrageous behavior by the public utilities it regulates, they get told their comments cannot be accepted.

In the case of FirstEnergy, impacted landowners and consumers do not even have a contact for the company in order to "file your protest with the company."  Landowners are being preyed upon and nobody is stepping up to protect them.

Keep filing your general comments with the WV PSC, even though they claim they cannot accept them.  And keep a record of your correspondence.  Please forward any refusal of the PSC to accept your comment to your state delegates and senators and ask for their help.    These public servants work for us!

To file a general comment with the WV PSC, go to this link and fill out the form.  Maybe if they receive enough comments about the outrageous behavior of regulated public utilities they will have to do something?

Landowners are not just asking to intervene before an application is filed.  They are commenting on the current process before the application is filed.  Communities deserve an open and transparent process leading up to the filing of an application and they deserve to have their right to information protected by the Public Service Commission.  After all, that is the PSC's mission!

Keep filing your comments with the PSC regarding your concerns with public engagement (or lack thereof).  The PSC has rules that must be followed.  The least it can do is accept and acknowledge your comments about these major transmission projects that have been proposed to cross our state.  Let them know what you think about what's happening now, even if an application has not yet been filed.  Don't let them pass the buck!
0 Comments

Letting the Cat Out of the Bag

5/12/2025

0 Comments

 
Picture
An out-of-state utility company hoping to build the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link, or MARL, has been telling local elected officials that its project will bring millions of dollars of new tax revenue to county coffers.

But, will it really?  Or is this just a pig in a poke?
A pig in a poke is a thing that is bought without first being inspected, and thus of unknown authenticity or quality. The idiom is attested in 1555:

I wyll neuer bye the pyg in the poke
Thers many a foule pyg in a feyre cloke

I will never buy the pig in the poke
There's many a foul pig in a fair cloak

A "poke" is a sack, so the image is of a concealed item being sold.
​
Starting in the 19th century, this idiom was explained as a confidence trick where a farmer would substitute a cat for a suckling pig when bringing it to market. When the buyer discovered the deception, he was said to "let the cat out of the bag", that is, to learn of something unfortunate prematurely, hence the expression "letting the cat out of the bag", meaning to reveal that which is secret.
Has anyone bothered to ask the company to show you their math and verify that it actually agrees with the utility tax scheme of your state?  I don't think anyone has.  I've heard that when details are sought, the subject gets changed, or when pressed they say we will find out the details during the state PSC case.  That's magic math, according to one of my elementary school teachers -- where the answer appears out of thin air without showing your work to calculate it.

How ARE utility taxes assessed and paid?  If you don't know, it's time to find out.  There's a whole lot of confusion and nobody at the local county level seems to know.  Don't take some out-of-state company's word about how your own tax system works.  Here's the skinny on how it works in West Virginia...
Although most real and personal property is assessed at the local level by county assessors with county commissions approving the final rates, the Board of Public Works approves the real and personal property values of public utilities whose properties stretch across two or more counties. Rather than have each of the 55 assessors determine the value, the property is appraised and assessed by the Tax Division.
Utility property taxes are not handled by local government.  It's handled by a state office.  Counties have no authority over the rate or the collection of these taxes.  Once the state has assessed these utility taxes, the utilities appeal and negotiate these rates to have the tax lowered.  Once a deal is reached, the state tax office apportions the utility tax it has collected like this:

 "...the value of the property therein of every such owner or operator as valued or assessed hereunder and the relative value of such operating property within each county compared to the value of the total operating property within the state, to be determined upon such factors as the Auditor shall deem proper;".

Bottom line?  Counties have no control over utility taxes on transmission lines and the tax rates can fluctuate.  Counties only get a small portion of what is collected.  Go ahead, check with your county clerk to find out how much utility tax revenue your county received last year, and then figure out how much of that was actually due to electric transmission lines that cross your county.  Maybe you can buy a cup of coffee with it?

So, where did the company get  the numbers it is using to entice local support?  Did they sit down with the West Virginia Board of Public Works and the state tax commissioner and negotiate a deal?  Did they calculate how the value of the utility property will depreciate over the years until it's nothing but salvage?  Did they mention that transmission utilities don't buy real estate, they simply take an easement and the landowner continues paying taxes on his property, including the easement?

I doubt it.


Corporations are old hands at manipulating local governments to believe that there's a pig in their poke, and not a mangy alley cat, when the corporation is selling new development projects to us "locals."  And so they have developed a computer program to help them out that would make P.T. Barnum proud.  But, instead of calling it something fitting like "Circus Sideshow Software" its name is IMPLAN.  IMPLAN calculates job numbers, taxes, and other economic development numbers that excite local elected officials based on the capital costs of a proposed project.  If the utility company isn't using IMPLAN to come up with these pie-in-the-sky tax revenue numbers, it's using another very similar software company.

And you know what they say about computers -- garbage in, garbage out!

Economic factors calculated by a computer algorithm are not realistic.  You'd get more tax revenue and jobs out of a new fast food restaurant than you'd get from a new transmission line passing through your county and delivering nothing of value on its way.

Job predictions are extremely inflated.  I have seen transmission full-time jobs predicted over the long term that don't even make sense!  Building high-voltage transmission is a highly specialized skill.  Contractors from other states hired to do the actual build will import their own workers for the duration of the job in your community.  IMPLAN and its computerized cousins calculate all the economic impact that such transient workers will cause and then try to sell it to local elected officials as a "benefit."  Hotel rooms, fast food, and gas for their vehicles for the month or so they're onsite isn't really going to make a difference on a local level.  In addition, IMPLAN will spit out some number of full-time, permanent jobs created in your community by the project.  I'm sorry, but this just doesn't happen.
Picture
Local transmission workers discuss where to place their ladder so they can climb up and squeeze electricity through the new transmission lines in your community.
Once the line is built, there are no local jobs associated with it.  Operation and maintenance of the line is handled by remote teams.

But, back to those tax revenue claims...

Ask the company how it has balanced the actual reduction in local tax revenue caused by the project  with the fictional number spit out by IMPLAN.  It hasn't done that at all.

New transmission lines across your county are going to devalue the real estate in your tax base.  A property crossed by a transmission line loses value and the owner of that parcel can appeal his assessment because of the devaluation the transmission line has caused.  In addition, the transmission line can impact many planned developments and future land uses.  What development is currently going on, planned, or dreamed about by your county?  Maybe you want to lay that out on a map to see how close it is to the proposed transmission line route?  New subdivisions, business parks, commercial developments, or maybe just some community improvement like parks, schools, or community services, can all be impeded, or cancelled altogether, if the new transmission line interferes with the proposed development.  Whittled down to its most basic level, it's going to harm local landowners and investors who planned to monetize their land in the future, whether it's for retirement or simple profit.  New transmission lines cause a decrease in your county's current tax base and any future prospects that might increase it.

Also consider that the transmission company actually pays no taxes at all on the transmission lines it builds... you pay those taxes!  A utility collects its cost of service from ratepayers (plus regulated profit).  Everything the company spends on its transmission lines, including real estate, personal property, business and income taxes, is reimbursed to them by electric ratepayers as the expense is incurred.  All persons in your county who pay an electric bill (including the county itself) are paying those taxes!

Think about that while you're comparing the transmission company's bulging poke with reality.  The cat's out of the bag!
0 Comments

Grain Belt Express Gets Dirty

5/10/2025

2 Comments

 
Picture
For the past 15 years, Grain Belt Express has been all about exporting "clean" wind power from southwestern Kansas.  Grain Belt Express begins there because of the area's past potential for new wind turbines.

No more.  Grain Belt Express is now all about...
Grain Belt Express provides open access delivery for all energy sources based on competitive contracts between electricity buyers and sellers. 
Grain Belt's application for a taxpayer-funded loan from the U.S. Department of Energy is based on this qualifier from the DOE's Draft Environmental Impact Statement:
​The first paragraph of the Executive Summary states that in order to qualify for a loan, the
project must be eligible under Section 1703 of Title XVII (the Clean Energy Financing Program), which defines eligible projects as those that, “avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases [GHGs]; and employ new or significantly improved technologies as compared to commercial technologies in service in the United States at
the time the guarantee is issued” (Public Law [P.L.] 109-58, Section 1703(a)).
The DEIS makes this presumption: “The Project could also help reduce overall GHG emissions by allowing new renewable energy projects to access the electric grid, potentially leading to the replacement of existing fossil-fuel power plants, while providing additional power to expanding renewable energy markets.” (Table 3.1.1).
The DEIS further states that the No Action Alternative would not support attainment of the U.S. government’s established target to reduce GHG emissions by 50 to 52 percent from 2005 levels economy-wide by 2030 (The White House 2021). (Sec. 3.1.3).
Grain Belt Express is no longer eligible for this loan, and its Draft Environmental Impact Statement is no longer valid.
When did Grain Belt Express stop being all about "clean energy"?  November 5, 2024, when Donald Trump was elected to his second term as President.  In fact, GBE parent company Invenergy's CEO Michael Polsky was a big donor for Trumps Inaguaration.  And now Polsky has set out on a campaign to pretend Grain Belt Express is something it isn't.  Check out this interview where the chameleon in chief convinces vapid Fox News personality Maria Bartoromo that his project is something new.

How stupid do they think we are?

Grain Belt Express is now attempting to attract energy slurping data centers to locate in Missouri and take service on Grain Belt Express.  Why would data centers do that when they can locate in southwestern Kansas near the source of the energy that Grain Belt is importing to Missouri?  If data centers built in Kansas, they wouldn't have to pay exorbitant fees to Grain Belt Express to supply energy from SW Kansas.  I'm pretty sure the financial incentives to locate in Missouri over Kansas are not going to cover the cost of importing power on Grain Belt Express.  Why would data centers buy the Grain Belt cow when they can get the milk for free in Kansas?

Furthermore, why is Kansas content to have the energy it produces shipped to Missouri so that data centers will locate in Missouri and so that Missouri can feast on all the tax revenue data centers provide?
“Kansans working to balance household budgets and run businesses want energy that’s affordable and reliable, and that’s what we are getting with Grain Belt Express, all without ratepayers being forced to pay for it,” said Kansas House Speaker Dan Hawkins.
Sorry, Dan, but Grain Belt Express does NOT provide any reduction in energy costs for Kansans.  It ships energy produced in Kansas to Missouri and raises prices in Kansas by reducing the supply of energy available for Kansans.  Supply and demand, Dan, supply and demand.  Have I got a deal for Dan!!!  Instead of Grain Belt Express, how about a whole bunch of new data centers in southwest Kansas that produce hundreds of millions of dollars a year in property and other tax revenue?  You could have that if you reject Grain Belt Express!  Wake up, Dan, they're bamboozling you!

New data centers want to locate in places where there is a vast supply of power, not places where they are dependent upon long distance transmission lines that may never come to fruition.  And what about all those wind farms in southwest Kansas planned to feed Grain Belt Express?  Are they all still proceeding full steam ahead under Donald Trump?  Better take another look at that one!

Grain Belt Express touts its 39 municipal customers in Missouri in its recent press release:
“This announcement shows once again how much Missouri can contribute to big infrastructure projects like this transmission line, which will help bring energy savings and reliability to 39 municipal utilities across the state."
That seems to be the only customer Grain Belt Express has... still.  Those 39 Missouri municipalities are contracted to take less than 5% of Grain Belt's capacity.  Because Grain Belt Express is a merchant transmission project, it needs signed contracts to produce enough revenue to be financially viable.  Less than five percent of its capacity is NOT enough to support the project's revenue requirement.  Grain Belt has been trying to find more customers than the Missouri munis for ten years now and still hasn't announced any other customers.  Grain Belt Express cannot be built unless it finds enough customers to cover its costs.

And now Grain Belt Express has morphed once again into a transmission line for new data centers who probably are not interested.  How much more money is Michael Polsky going to drop into this dead dog of a project, trying to make it pencil out?  He didn't get to be so stinking rich by making bad business decisions.  Isn't it time to give up on Grain Belt Express?

Grain Belt Express is an albatross around everyone's neck.  It's a project idea that has been dead for years.  Let it go!
2 Comments

Just Say NO To Utility Representatives Sneaking Around Jefferson County

4/16/2025

1 Comment

 
We've had multiple reports recently that FirstEnergy (possibly masquerading as your local electric company, Potomac Edison) has been sneaking around Jefferson County, knocking on doors and trying to get landowners to sign permission forms allowing the utility to perform its "surveys" outside the existing easement, on the landowner's property instead.  It has also been reported that people are being approached by telephone.

One person even reported that the utility representative said the company would be seeking to expand its easement and he would be delivering an offer soon.

Just say NO!

You are not required to permit the company on your property... and that is why they need your permission to do it.  Don't give away your property rights like that!

What's a survey?  In addition to the normal metes and bounds survey you're probably thinking about, transmission developers also want to do environmental, historic, cultural, and geotechnical surveys.  The environmental surveys are looking for the presence of certain bats, or turtles, or other endangered species.  They are also looking for wetlands and other land features.  They are looking for historic resources.  They want to dig and perform archeological surveys.  And they want to bring large equipment on your property and drill core samples to see if it's possible to anchor a giant transmission tower foundation 30 feet down.  Sometimes, they need to cut trees and vegetation to get a line of sight (or so they've told the landowner).  If you want to open your property up to a parade of people using it for transmission development surveys, then go ahead and sign their form.  Otherwise, tell them to get lost and come back when they have a permit from the West Virginia Public Service Commission (WV PSC) in their hand.

FirstEnergy does NOT have a permit from the WV PSC at this time.  In fact, FirstEnergy has not yet even applied for a permit.  In order to apply for a permit, the company is required to undertake community engagement (dissemination of project information to the public such as meetings, routes and maps, newspaper articles, a website, informational mailers).  FirstEnergy hasn't even done that yet.  Instead, it wants to divide and conquer landowners, keep them isolated and uninformed, and get them to sign away their rights for pennies on the dollar.

Why is FirstEnergy so afraid of us?  Because last time they tried to build an unneeded transmission line here, they lost!  There's power in numbers and information sharing between neighbors.  There's power in grassroots community opposition, and we need to circle the wagons to keep our community safe.  Don't let FirstEnergy's representatives cut you from the herd and isolate you from your neighbors.  Tell them to stop calling and/or get off your property until they have a permit to build their transmission line from the WV PSC.

There's a rhythm to planning and building a new (or even re-built) transmission project.  The FIRST thing the utility usually does in your local community is schmooze your local elected officials and try to get them on their side.  That ship has sailed here in Jefferson -- we beat them to the County Commission and FirstEnergy has provided absolutely ZERO information to our local government. 

​The SECOND thing the utility usually does is to schedule what it calls "Open House" public information "meetings."  They really think one trip around this room is all it takes to turn you from transmission skeptic to transmission advocate!
Picture
FirstEnergy has not announced any public meetings yet.  In fact, there's no indication that it ever will happen at all. It seems FirstEnergy has skipped some steps because contacting landowners and asking for permission to survey typically comes AFTER these meetings, the publication of a website, news articles, and community notification through postcards or other mailers.

What kind of dirty deeds and misinformation is FirstEnergy spreading in our community that can't stand the sunlight of public scrutiny?

Over the years, I've assisted communities on so many transmission projects that I've come to know the "utility playbook" for ramming a new transmission project through a resistant community by heart.  However, it seems the utility has updated their playbook lately, and I'm gonna call it "Utility Playbook - Desperation Volume 2.0".  The new volume dispenses with public information and preys on landowners (that's right, I said PREYS) to get then to sign away their rights before they have necessary information to make a reasoned decision.

There's another community to our north in Pennsylvania that seems to be experiencing an identical transmission project information desert populated by the same shady characters approaching landowners and saying the most outrageous things, such as:
“People are trying to take approximately 5 acres of my property and giving me absolutely no information,”  she said. “They’ve called me, and they want to do a survey, but they won’t give me any information.”
Sound familiar?  Or, how about this?
“(PPL) was asking if (residents) would sign a document and if they didn’t sign the document, they couldn’t tell them about the project, I’m being told,” Walsh said. “Other people were being offered crazy low value for property.”
He said at least 10 people told him of instances like this....
Enticement to sign away your rights to get information?  That's plainly criminal.

FirstEnergy needs to pull its camel nose out from under the wall of Jefferson County's tent.  We're not stupid, and we're not for sale.  Creating an information desert is about the stupidest stunt they could perform.  They must have signed with Charles Ryan again to get such stellar advice!  I know how much FirstEnergy loves to read my blog, so here's a word to the wise.  GET BUSY WITH THE INFORMATION.  THE LONGER YOU WAIT, THE WORSE IT'S GOING TO BE.

And while we're waiting... let's hold our own informational meeting for the community!  Everyone is welcome to join us on April 29 at 7:00 p.m.!  FirstEnergy spies at the meeting will be separated from the herd and given last year's Halloween candy and bottled water from Jefferson County's underground pollution plume.  I can spot you guys a mile away.  Dork has a certain fashion sense that's impossible to hide.   See you there, everyone!
Picture
1 Comment

Call for Comments:  Ask FERC to Deny Valley Link's Request for Financial Incentives

3/29/2025

2 Comments

 
Picture
Regional grid operator PJM Interconnection has recently selected a new 260-mile high-voltage transmission line. The project will stretch across 14 West Virginia counties (including Jefferson) on a new 200-foot wide easement that would be taken from landowners using eminent domain.

The utilities behind this project, FirstEnergy, American Electric Power and Dominion, have created a new shell company to own the projects. That company is calling itself Valley Link Transmission LLC.
​
Valley Link has recently filed a request for a rate template, financial incentives, and an 11.4% rate of return with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). While FERC has no permitting authority for the transmission line, it does have authority over its rates, which end up in our electric bills.

You can file a comment at FERC asking that they reject Valley Link’s request for more financial incentives and to adjust its rate template so it is just and reasonable. See sample comment letter that you can download below. You are encouraged to edit and personalize it. Please add your name, address, phone, email, and the date to your finished comment.

Filing your comment

You can upload it directly to FERC Online yourself. You will need to create an account and then follow the instructions.

If you’re having trouble navigating FERC’s online system to file your comment, forward your comment to [email protected] via email and she will upload your comments to FERC in a consolidated filing of comments.

If you’d rather mail your comment, send to the address in the sample letter. Take note that letters sent via U.S. mail take a long time to be processed.

FERC has set a comment and intervention deadline of April 4. However, FERC will not be deciding on this matter until at least May 14, so if you are not intervening feel free to continue to send your comments until mid-May.

Thanks for speaking out! It’s all about the money for these companies, and all their spending ends up in our electric bills!
ferc_incentives_letter.pdf
File Size: 64 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

2 Comments

Valley Link Transmission Files for Incentives and Formula Rate at FERC

3/18/2025

0 Comments

 
Picture
On Friday, Valley Link Transmission filed at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for approval of a formula rate to collect their costs from ratepayers, along with a request to set a Return on Equity (ROE) and additional financial incentives.  They're wasting no time trying to ram their transmission projects through and make a ton of money doing it.
Applying for CPCN/CCNs from the Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia state commissions is a threshold step for Valley Link during the pre-construction phase, because obtaining CPCN/CCNs will improve Valley Link’s ability to secure the needed land rights to support the Project Portfolio. Because the PJM Board only recently approved the Valley Link Portfolio Project on February 26, 2025, Valley Link has not yet initiated the CPCN/CCN process. Valley Link faces significant time pressure to initiate the CPCN/CCN process within the next few months because CPCN/CCN proceedings in these states can be lengthy.
That's right, Valley Link wants to file its state permitting applications within the next few months, even though we've been waiting 18 months for FirstEnergy to take any interest whatsoever in building their section of the 500kV MARL project in Jefferson County.  They're in an awful hurry on Valley Link and landowners and communities are going to be mowed down if they can't keep up.

"Valley Link is committed to collaborating with residents, local governments and other stakeholders in the project communities at every stage of the process."

Well, except this stage.  Valley Link doesn't want you to "collaborate" on their request for FERC incentives or in their rate process.  All the more reason to do it!

Your first task?  Valley Link's 1500 page rate/incentive filing.  Go ahead, take a look.  I hope you understand FERCish.  You don't?  Fortunately, I do so here's a summary of the important points included in this filing.  You are encouraged to intervene and/or file a comment on this proceeding.  Deadline to do so is April 4.
Valley Link is a 765kV transmission project proposed to connect the John Amos coal-fired power station in Putnam County, WV to Loudoun County's "data center alley."  It will cross 14 counties in West Virginia on its way, including Jefferson.  It will require a new 200-foot wide right-of-way for its entire length.  In Jefferson County it is proposed to expand the existing transmission line corridor through the southern part of the county and add a third transmission line to the existing configuration that is surrounded by hundreds of existing homes, schools, businesses, parks, historic resources and even our national parks!

Valley Link's filing asks FERC to grant financial incentives to the project and set up the rate it will use to collect its costs from captive electric customers across the PJM region.  

First, let's examine the incentives Valley Link has requested.  In order to qualify for incentives, the transmission line must be the product of a fair and open transmission planning process.  Competition is an important and required part of this process so that consumer costs may be reduced through competitive cost concessions.  Except there were no such concessions for Valley Link.  They not only bid their projects in at full price, they also did not include any cost caps.  Consumers will pay whatever it costs to build these projects, even though the initial "competitive" bid may have been much lower.  The sky's the limit!  The idea of competitive transmission is that it allows incumbents and non-incumbents to compete on a level playing field to construct the most cost-effective project.  Incumbents hate it because they'd rather not compete at all, and instead be awarded all new transmission in their territory at whatever price they want to charge.  For years after FERC's Order 1000 required competitive transmission windows, incumbents simply declined to participate in region-wide competitive planning, preferring instead to concentrate on smaller projects in their own territory.  PJM's 2022 Window 3 competitive planning process actually allowed several non-incumbent companies to offer cost caps and financial concessions that actually saved ratepayers money, and those projects were selected, much to the chagrin of the incumbents.  But they weren't about to be fooled again, so they created an incumbent cartel and agreed not to compete with each other so that none of them had to make any financial concessions.  If they didn't compete with each other, they could create ostensibly "joint" projects that shut out all competitors and took control of PJM's Planning Process.  And that's how we got Valley Link's $3B project portfolio, with no limit on how much these projects might eventually cost.  Who does that?  PJM ought to be ashamed of itself!  Valley Link Transmission was not the result of a fair, open and competitive planning process.

Financial incentives for transmission must be rationally tailored to a project's risks and challenges.  "Rational" has long ago left the incentives building... it's nothing but a free buffet where utilities gorge themselves on ratepayer cash.  That's right, ratepayers fund all these financial "extras" that encourage transmission developers to build "much needed" projects.  Except if you attended any of the PJM meetings, you know that these developers are beating each other down to get awarded these projects.  And that's precisely because they want to gorge on the unnecessary incentives.  Even if FERC stopped offering these incentives tomorrow, these companies would *still* be falling all over themselves to build new projects.  Incentives are a give away that is not needed to encourage new transmission.

These are the individual incentives Valley Link has requested, with a brief explanation of each:
  • Recovery of 100% of prudently incurred costs in the event that all or part of the Project Portfolio must be abandoned for reasons outside the control of Valley Link (“Abandoned Plant Incentive”)
This means that Valley Link is guaranteed to be able to collect ALL its prudent project costs from ratepayers if the project is cancelled.  Essentially, ratepayers are providing insurance for the project's success.  If it fails, then the utilities can't lose.  Only ratepayers can lose.  In the case of the failed Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) project, ratepayers ended up spending more than $250M on a cancelled project that never put a shovel to the ground.  This is outrageous!  Utilities must have some skin in the game and accept some of the risk that they are being rewarded for through incentives.​
  • Inclusion of 100% of construction work in progress (“CWIP”) in rate base during the development and construction of the Project Portfolio (“CWIP Incentive”)
This means that Valley Link will be able to collect a return (interest) on the amount of money it has spent to construct the project while it is building the project.  It begins collecting money from ratepayers as soon as FERC approves the incentive, although the project may not actually be built and serving ratepayers for many years.  It makes ratepayers responsible for paying for projects that are not being used, and haven't even been finished yet.  Ratepayers are being used as the utility's "bank" to pay the companies while they are building.
  • Recovery of pre-commercial costs through establishment of a regulatory asset that will include all expenses, including expenses incurred prior to the filing of this application, that are incurred prior to the time costs first flow through to Valley Link customers under the PJM Tariff, including authorization to accrue monthly carrying charges (“Pre-Commercial Incentive”)
This means that Valley Link can put all its costs from its first idea to make a "joint project" through the time its formula rate is approved into a regulatory asset and collect them from customers in the future.  It's a way to retroactively open the money spigots so that ratepayers pay Valley Link's costs to compete at PJM as well as their costs to create their fake shell company, and ask for incentives and a formula rate.  It makes sure that the utility never has to spend a dime of its own money on this project.
  • Inclusion of a 50 basis point return on equity (“ROE”) adder for Valley Link’s participation as a new member in a Regional Transmission Organization (“RTO”) (“RTO Participation Adder”).
This means that Valley Link's Return on Equity (ROE) will be raised one half of one percent because its "joint venture" will be a separate new member of PJM.  Keep in mind that each one of these three joint venture companies (FirstEnergy, Dominion, and Transource) is an existing member of PJM and collecting their own RTO Participation Adder.  But because they formed a new fake shell company, they can pretend to be "new" and collect again.  This is also outrageous.  It's not a new entity, and it would only encourage utilities to keep creating new shell companies in order to receive financial reward.
Valley Link says it needs incentives to reduce "risk" for its project.  What risk is that?  Valley Link speaks out of both sides of its mouth.  First they say this: "Valley Link Transmission’s joint venture structure allows the Participants to combine their diverse experience and knowledge to successfully develop projects of significant size and scope, while sharing the risks of such projects. The geographic and financial scale of new competitive transmission projects sought by PJM in the RTEP process in recent years lends itself to this structure to adequately manage the risks associated with infrastructure projects of this scale."  Somehow the joint non-competitive project was able to "manage risk" but yet on the other hand, the project is just so risky that it needs a bunch of financial incentives.  "​Valley Link will
face significant permitting, siting, construction, procurement, and financial risks that present challenges to developing and constructing the Project Portfolio."
  So, which is it?  Is Valley Link risky or not?  It can't be both!

Of course, Valley Link plans to lower its risk that you're going to go all torches and pitchforks on them by "collaborating" with you.  Of course, that "collaborating" doesn't mean they will make any adjustments to their plan or anything like that... they just want to pretend they're considering your ideas while they laugh at you behind your back.
Picture
Valley Link is committed to collaborating with residents, local governments and other stakeholders in the project communities at every stage of the process. Community engagement is crucial for making informed decisions that reduce or prevent potential impacts while delivering for the public essential infrastructure necessary to address large-scale reliability needs that the PJM grid faces both in the short term and for years to come.
Valley Link also requests three identical new formula rates, one for each of its state-specific sub-companies (it's like Russian nesting dolls).  A formula rate is a set of calculations that devise a yearly revenue requirement for each company.  It includes O&M, A&G, taxes, and return (interest) on capital expenses that are paid for over the project's useful life (approximately 40 years) as these assets slowly depreciate because we pay for them.  I've long since given up trying to explain formula rates to people who don't understand them, but let's just say it's extremely complicated.  If you don't believe me, take a look at the proposed formula rates in the filing.  I will sum it up by sharing that we pay for transmission much the same way we pay for a home using a 30 year mortgage.  While the bank loans us the cash to purchase the home, we will pay much more than we ever borrowed over that 30 years because the interest is calculated monthly.  We slowly pay the bank back, and they earn a huge profit over 30 years.  It works the same way with transmission, except the utility is "the bank" and the transmission line is our house that we have to pay for over 40 years, with interest calculated every year on the remaining unpaid balance.

And speaking of interest... Valley Link has requested a base ROE of 10.9%.  But they're not stopping there... they are also requesting .5% for their new membership in PJM (see above).  Total Return on Equity for this project is proposed at 11.4%.  That means Valley Link would earn 11.4% on the unpaid project balance every year for 40 years.  Do you earn 11.4% on your investments?  Probably not.  Transmission ROEs are already incredibly generous.

The important thing to think about with the formula rate is transparency so that we can check the utility's math from time to time to make sure they are doing it correctly.  Valley Link's formula rate is not transparent and leaves certain terms undefined.  That's probably because of this.  However, lack of transparency is not just and reasonable and FERC cannot approve a formula rate that is not just and reasonable.

And I think I'll stop there.  If you have any additional questions after reading the filing, I'd be happy to help.

So, let's sum it up:

FERC should not grant transmission incentives to Valley Link because Valley Link was not part of a transparent and competitive transmission planning process.

FERC should not grant the costly transmission abandonment incentive to Valley Link because the project has not been found needed by any state where the public may actually participate in the decision making.

FERC should not grant the CWIP in Ratebase incentive because that starts the money flowing out of ratepayer pockets before any state has approved it.

FERC should not grant the RTO Participation incentive to Valley Link because it is a shell company managed by incumbent utilities that have already been granted this incentive.   The "joint venture" is a charade.

FERC must ensure that Valley Link's formula rate is transparent and allows any person to participate in annual updates, seek information, and file challenges.

And keep this in mind when you file your comments at FERC. (File on Docket No. ER25-1633).  FERC Chairman Mark Christie had this to say about the cancelled PATH project just over a year ago.  (Begin at minute 13:48 and watch for about 5 minutes until he's finished).  Attention must be paid!  Valley Link is a second attempt to build the PATH project, but it also presents FERC with a second chance to correct all the things Christie said they got wrong with the original project.
0 Comments

Shady Surveys = Skewed Stories

3/18/2025

0 Comments

 
Picture
Sometimes the special interests get a little carried away with themselves, especially when the young folks who work there think they're saving the world.  The progressive left is still trying to find a way to make transmission lines "less bad" for landowners so that they will happily accept them.

NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN!
I was recently contacted by a gal representing shady far left groups who think paying bribes to community members unaffected by new transmission projects is going to be the solution to transmission opposition. Save your effort.  It doesn't work.  And... as if I would help 

The World Resources Institute
and 
Data for Progress 

with anything at all.

And it went like this:
On behalf of research teams at Data for Progress and World Resources Institute, I’m reaching out to ask if you would be willing to participate in a 30-min or 45-min confidential recorded interview to answer questions about your experiences with community engagement and transmission infrastructure projects. The opportunity to learn from your expertise with the PATH project would be a particularly valuable contribution to our research. 

We are inviting advocates both for and against transmission projects, policymakers, developers, community organizations, and other key stakeholders to these discussions. In the interview, we hope to learn about your familiarity with and views of community engagement efforts around transmission development, including what you view as working well or as areas for improvement. 
These interviews are part of a larger research project designed to examine barriers and opportunities for transmission deployment, including a specific focus on community engagement and understanding the role that community benefits (and tools like community benefits agreements) could potentially play in addressing some of these challenges, or if not, what their shortcomings are. We plan to synthesize what we learn from these interviews into a report which will also include evidence from case studies, focus groups, and survey data.
 
We would be grateful for the opportunity to include valuable insights from your unique expertise in our research. Your interview responses will be confidential and nothing you say will be attributed to you or your organization. Please reach out if you have any questions about the interview format.


If you’d like to participate in this interview, please let us know, and we would be delighted to set up a 30-min or 45-min Zoom discussion in the next few weeks.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Does this deserve a response?  Not really, but I wanted to have a little fun.
I’m not sure how I can help you with your project.  How many actual transmission opponents are you interviewing?  The fact of the matter is that once a transmission project is sited on private property, the impacted property owner will oppose it.  It doesn’t matter how many “benefits” the government or the transmission owner want to shower on others in the community who are NOT impacted.  For instance, if a transmission line is sited in my back yard and I will have to live with it in perpetuity, it doesn’t matter much to me if somebody wants to fund a new park across town, or in an adjacent community that is not impacted at all.  Community “benefits” are nothing more than a bribe to buy the advocacy of unaffected persons.  It doesn’t make the landowner whole.  “Benefits” to people who are not impacted do nothing to change opposition and only create arguments and bad feelings in local communities.  I wouldn’t throw my neighbor under the bus for my own personal gain, and I hope you wouldn’t either.

Maybe you should change your polling questions to ask people if they support a transmission line ACROSS THEIR OWN PROPERTY that will use eminent domain to take the land if the landowner refuses.  Or if a landowner is willing to sacrifice his home for the “benefit” of people who are sacrificing nothing for the effort.

The only opinions that matter here are the ones of impacted persons.

Have a great day!

P.S.  Transmission opponents are unlikely to give away our strategy to dark money transmission advocacy groups.
Perky young gal was undeterred.  
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I completely understand if you do not wish to participate in this research project. Thank you for sharing your perspective. I respect the time you spent writing this reply and wanted to provide more context to you about this work. 

As an independent non-profit research organization, we hope to present a balanced view of challenges and shortcomings when it comes to how companies have approached transmission development, as well as opportunities to ensure that landowners have a meaningful say in these projects, including when that means organizing to stop them or to improve the conditions under which they do get built. We are representing a variety of perspectives across nearly 100 participants in our interview and focus group research, and have invited transmission opponents to participate in these interviews ranging from directly impacted landowners to county commissioners that have spoken out against projects. Our research included focus groups with rural landowners to understand their views on the important questions that you raise -- such as how they would feel about transmission infrastructure being built across their own property and their views on the use of eminent domain. You make valid points we've also heard during our research about the perceptions of benefits and their limitations, which will inform the analysis in our report. 

In case it is of interest to you, we are also conducting 15-20 minute anonymous surveys as part of this project. We'd welcome your response if you would want to participate in this in lieu of an interview, but we also respect your decision to decline participation in the project. 

Once again, I wanted to thank you for your time and the care you put into your reply. Have a wonderful weekend!
Their research included focus groups with rural landowners to understand their views on the important questions that I raised -- such as how they would feel about transmission infrastructure being built across their own property and their views on the use of eminent domain?

How many actual rural landowners went willingly to a focus group held by these far left groups?  How much were they paid, and were they told the truth about who was paying for the focus group and how their participation would be used?  I doubt it.  It never is with focus groups.  If there's so much lying going on at these groups, who could trust the results?  The ones who paid for the focus group want to use the knowledge gained to skew public opinion.  

Right.  With another biased "report" that promises throwing money at the transmission problem will solve it.  This problem can never be solved until transmission is properly buried on existing transportation rights of way and landowners are not victimized over and over again.

Do these groups know Biden isn't President any longer and they are not running the federal government anymore?  Who are they going to convince with their bogus reports?


Nobody.  

I suggest they redirect their grant money toward other important social dilemmas, like finding out why environmentalists are burning their Teslas and buying gas guzzlers.  Well, if they have any grant money left that is... ;-)
0 Comments

Here's Why Grain Belt Express Must Be DOGEd

3/11/2025

1 Comment

 
Although DOGE isn't officially a word that refers to cutting the fat out of government yet, I'm turning it into a verb.  DOGEd:  verb - to eliminate from government spending programs. Example - Grain Belt Express has been DOGEd.
Picture
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey wrote a letter last week asking the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to investigate the U.S. Department of Energy conditional loan guarantee for Grain Belt Express in the amount of $4.9B.
“In the waning, chaotic days of the Biden Administration — when the former president’s mental decline had grown to such a severe state that we now know he was not actually running his own White House and often signed documents without even knowing what they contained — left-wing bureaucrats seized the opportunity to advance their radical ‘green agenda,'” said Attorney General Bailey. “In the shadows of this confusion, far-left deep staters advanced a $4.9 billion green energy federal loan guarantee boondoggle to bankroll the Grain Belt Express (GBE), one of the most egregious abuses of taxpayer dollars in recent memory.”
Grain Belt Express isn't even eligible for the loan guarantee in the first place!  From my recent comments on GBE's draft environmental impact statement:
The first paragraph of the Executive Summary states that in order to qualify for a loan, the project must be eligible under Section 1703 of Title XVII (the Clean Energy Financing Program), which defines eligible projects as those that, “avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases [GHGs]; and employ new or significantly improved technologies as compared to commercial technologies in service in the United States at the time the guarantee is issued” (Public Law [P.L.] 109-58, Section 1703(a)).
The DEIS makes this presumption: “The Project could also help reduce overall GHG emissions by allowing new renewable energy projects to access the electric grid, potentially leading to the replacement of existing fossil-fuel power plants, while providing additional power to expanding renewable energy markets.” (Table 3.1.1). Coulda, woulda, shoulda. This is a wish list that is not backed up by facts. The DEIS does not name or study the projects that could use Grain Belt Express to access the electric grid and the DEIS determines they are not reasonably foreseeable actions and therefore are not included in the cumulative effects analysis. (Sec. 4.3.2.2).


Here’s the bottom line. Without signed legal contracts with generators, it cannot be presumed that Grain Belt Express will transmit renewable energy from wind or solar generators. Under its Negotiated Rate Authority from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Grain Belt Express may negotiate contracts with customers who will pay the company to use its transmission capacity, either generators or load serving entities.
Grain Belt Express has not made a compliance filing demonstrating to FERC that is has signed contracts with any generators, in Kansas or elsewhere, therefore any generator may negotiate a future contract, including those that use fossil fuels. It is just as likely that a new or existing gas- or coal-fired generator may sign a contract as a new solar or wind generator. Grain Belt Express may not discriminate against generation types when negotiating contracts and cannot evaluate connection requests using generation source as a factor. All sources of generation must be allowed to negotiate contracts under open access transmission rules.
Because potential generators have not signed contracts with Grain Belt Express, it simply cannot be determined that Grain Belt Express will reduce greenhouse gases as required to qualify for the loan. Furthermore, without signed contracts with generators, Grain Belt Express is just a transmission line. Transmission lines, by themselves, do not reduce greenhouse gases. A transmission line that is not connected to a generation source is just like an extension cord that isn’t plugged into anything. Grain Belt Express does not reduce greenhouse gases and therefore it is not eligible for the proposed loan.
And then let's think about GBE's merchant transmission status a bit, shall we?  Merchant transmission is a speculative, supplemental transmission project that is not needed by consumers for any reliability, economic, or public policy purpose.  No regulator or grid planner has ordered the building of GBE.  Therefore, its owners are speculating that it might become useful in the future.  Because there is no need for GBE, it must fund itself.  Transmission that is actually determined to be NEEDED is paid for by captive consumers, however GBE isn't needed and must be fully funded by private investors.  Those private investors speculate that voluntary customers for GBE will materialize at some point in the future and provide enough revenue to pay for the transmission line and create a profit for the investors.  If there are no future customers, then the cost of speculating on GBE becomes the responsibility of the investors who willingly took on the risk of building a project with no customers.

Why is the federal government backstopping this investment risk for private investors to the tune of $4.9B?  Merchant transmission projects can only put risk on their investors, not captive electric consumers, therefore why are the captive American taxpayers suddenly shouldering the risk of this project?  It's too risky for any captive group, whether it's electric consumers or taxpayers, and that explains why it is a speculative venture of voluntary investors.  If it doesn't provide any benefits for consumers, then it's not our responsibility to pay for it.  It's strictly a for-profit speculation for private investors.

As we know, the U.S. Department of Energy hasn't done such a great job vetting speculative ventures in the past.  One of the most famous may be Solyndra, who presented fake contracts to back up its DOE loan and then couldn't produce any revenue to repay.  The taxpayers ended up giving Solyndra $500M in monopoly money to build a factory that never produced a single thing.

News Flash!!!  Grain Belt Express does not have enough signed contracts to make its project financially viable.  The DOE should not be gambling on this historically unsuccessful project to the tune of $4.9B!

And why did the DOE Loans Program Office give GBE a "conditional" approval right after the November election?  Obviously GBE had not completed the required steps to be out right approved, so why was "conditional" approval necessary?  And why is that even a thing in the first place?  It's either approved, or it's not.  Conditional approval doesn't mean a thing, especially when applied in a baldly political context.  Grain Belt Express is not ready for a taxpayer backed loan and its prospects for repaying are slim to none.

Grain Belt Express must be DOGEd.
1 Comment

How DO You Get Power For New Data Centers?

3/7/2025

1 Comment

 
Picture
Yesterday, the Jefferson County Commission passed a Resolution that nobody seemed to understand, maybe not even the Commissioners themselves.
jefferson_first_resolution.pdf
File Size: 266 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

I made public comment at the Commission meeting yesterday morning, completely oblivious to the Jefferson County First Resolution that was added to the packet after it was originally posted on Monday.  Unfortunately, nobody involved in the power line battle saw it ahead of time and I left the meeting for other adventures before it was discussed.  My bad.  It sure would have been nice if the Commissioners had been more upfront about their Resolution that will impact hundreds of county residents.  Even when asked before the meeting what the mysteriously-named Resolution was about, a Commissioner professed ignorance.

I addressed the Commissioners yesterday morning before the meeting specifically because I had heard a rumor being spread by state legislators that Jefferson County had no power over the transmission lines and that there was federal authority to approve it if West Virginia rejected it.  It seems this untrue rumor came from Del. Linville, who misspoke about the transmission lines at the February 20 meeting.

Jefferson County has enormous power over the fate of the transmission lines, although it has no direct permitting authority.  Jefferson County's power comes from its ability to influence the future decision about the power lines from the West Virginia Public Service Commission.  The County Commission speaks with a louder voice and can advocate for the county and its people as a whole.  We need and appreciate their support!

THERE IS NO FEDERAL BACKSTOP ON PERMITTING FOR THESE LINES!  I told the Commission that yesterday.  No wonder I got such odd looks.  I do understand the prohibition of having direct dialogue with a public commenter so I can't fault them for not saying anything.  However, you'd think that if they were doing something great for the citizens of the County who will be personally impacted by the transmission lines, they would have wanted to spread the word so we could be there to cheer them on.  It's sad that we can't have that relationship.  We're on the same page, but we're not reading from the same book.  I have been working in both the state and federal transmission planning and permitting realm for nearly two decades now.  I have a wealth of experience and knowledge that I can share with you until your eyes roll back in your head and your brain shuts down.  It is incredibly complicated with a lot of moving parts that need to be fully understood before decisions are made.

Transmission siting and permitting is completely under state jurisdiction, except in the event that a line is sited in a designated National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor (NIETC).  A NIETC was proposed for Jefferson County (and other parts of the tri-state area) last year, however, that potential corridor was ABANDONED by the DOE in December 2024.  There is currently NO NIETC, and therefore no federal authority over the two proposed transmission lines in Jefferson County.  There is no other federal mechanism to usurp the jurisdiction of the West Virginia Public Service Commission.  The two transmission lines will live or die by the decision of the West Virginia Public Service Commission, which is a process where Jefferson County (and its citizens) can participate to influence the outcome.

This morning, we woke up to this.
The County Commission discussed their Resolution and unanimously supported its passage.  Unfortunately, the story doesn't say where the Resolution was sent.  It's not a bad Resolution, until it gets to the end where Jefferson County appears to give up and beg for a transmission owner lobbyist to simply whisper the magic words... "this transmission line will attract data centers to Jefferson County", even though that's not true at all.

How DO data centers get power?  Data centers use enormous amounts of power, equalling the power load of small cities in some instances.  When a county has attracted a data center customer (more on that later), the customer will request power service from the local distribution utility.  In our case, it's Potomac Edison.  The customer estimates how much power it will need, often beginning with a baseline amount that ramps up over time as the data center is built out.  Potomac Edison considers this request and determines if it can serve the load from its local system.  If not, it gets added to Potomac Edison's future load forecast that is subsequently relayed to PJM Interconnection  for planning purposes.  If the local utility cannot meet load requests, then it asks PJM to add it to its planning.  Remember, PJM's only tool is transmission.  It cannot order new generation, which is perhaps the better solution to large new load requests.  PJM uses these local load forecasts to create a regional load forecast.  Once PJM has its regional load forecast, it plugs that into its transmission planning and determines how much new transmission might be needed to meet the load requests (because it can't order new generation).  PJM opens a competitive transmission window to solve load (think RFP) and selects the transmission projects that it believes will meet the load.

This is a multi-year, multi-tiered process.  The two transmission lines through Jefferson County are the product of load forecasts and planning that occurred in 2022 and 2024.  The load that was forecast for PJM in those years is slated to occur in Loudoun and Prince William Counties, Virginia.  It's not for load requests from Jefferson County.  The power that these transmission lines will export is already spoken for by load requests that were made in earlier years by new data centers locating in Virginia.  Just because a new line will travel through Jefferson County doesn't mean it will serve new growth here.  

Attracting data centers to your locality is about much more than welcoming new transmission extension cords designed to serve data centers in other states.  It's about offering the data center companies incentives to locate here and providing the infrastructure they may need.  Just as crucial as a local supply of electricity, data centers need a fiber connection.  When Frederick County, Maryland, wanted to attract new data centers to a local campus, they arranged for a fiber backbone connected to Virginia's data center alley.  Jefferson County doesn't have this kind of infrastructure.  Data centers also need a vast supply of water for cooling.  If Jefferson County is going to allow a California company to come in here and pump and sell our water supply to outsiders, we won't have enough left for data centers.  Frederick County located its data center campus at the site of a former aluminum smelter.  Aluminum smelters use a lot of power (but nothing approaching data center proportions) so the site already had a 230kV transmission connection and substation.  Frederick County is using the existing lines to power its campus, not building new ones.  Frederick County maintains that its data center campus is not the reason for new transmission lines.  However, it is curious that both the new transmission lines proposed through Jefferson County land at substations in Frederick County before routing south along the river to make connections in Virginia's data center alley.

If Jefferson County wants to have data centers here, it needs to create a realistic plan, not just throw wide the doors for transmission extension cords for data centers in other states and hope that data centers develop through osmosis.

However, Jefferson County should also spend a great deal of time investigating how data centers have changed other communities that initially welcomed them for economic development purposes.  People are migrating here to live precisely because Jefferson County doesn't have data centers.  Citizens in Virginia hate living with them and can't wait to get out of the hellscape they have created under the guise of economic development.  Jefferson County is the peaceful, rural environment that has disappeared from Northern Virginia.  A good and affordable place to buy a home and raise a family.  Jefferson County needs to be very careful and deliberate with planning for new data centers so it doesn't turn itself into Loudoun County West.  Attracting data centers is something the West Virginia legislature should be studying as well.  State incentives are needed to attract data centers, not just local economic development efforts.

Does Jefferson County currently have any interest from companies wanting to locate new data centers here?  Have those companies developed their plans enough to make a request for service from Potomac Edison?  Or is this Resolution simply a blind expression of hope?  If so, it is unlikely to get to the right place.
1 Comment

Landowners Come Last

3/1/2025

0 Comments

 
Transmission companies use the same playbook every time.  By now, I know it by heart.

Projects are planned by the regional grid operator that many people don't even know exists.  Although the process is open to "stakeholders," those stakeholders have no idea that such an organization is planning a new transmission project that is going to cross their land and, perhaps, take their home.  Once approved by the grid operator, the utilities conduct secret meetings and grease the right palms.  They engage with your state agencies and elected officials to convince them that the project is a good idea.  It's all one big, happy party... SECRET happy party.  Your elected officials and your state agencies don't engage you or send notice.  They leave that up to the utility, and the utility doesn't want you to know until it's so far into the routing process that you can't have any real impact on where it goes.  You're supposed to remain dumb and happy until the last minute.  Then the utility springs it on you as a fait accompli and conducts a farcical public information and notification process.  At this point, they hope you're out of options and that you will jump into action to push the project off yourself and onto your neighbor.  That's the first reaction of the vast majority of people, until someone finally figures out it's not about where it goes, it's about whether it goes.

But, until you finally receive notice, you should know that the utility has been very busy consulting with everyone except the landowner who would be forced to host the transmission line on his property.  And don't you know it, NextEra has been very busy trying to schmooze a path for its portion of the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link (MARL).  This presentation recently surfaced, although it's been common knowledge to a bunch of people who were hiding it from you for months.
marl_schmooze.pdf
File Size: 4634 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

Perhaps your most important take away from this little peek into what's been going on behind your back is this slide.  Click to download the above file to see a larger version.  
Picture
This is the roadmap of NextEra's routing process.  The red box is where "we" are.  It's a point called "Engage Counties and KEY STAKEHOLDER With Preliminary Route."  Right... KEY STAKEHOLDER... but that doesn't include the most important KEY of all... the landowners who will be asked to host this project.  When are impacted landowners notified?  Three turns away at "Open Houses", which is nearly the last pit stop on this highway to hell.  By that time, everyone else that won't see it from their house has been consulted about the route and brought on board.  Landowners come last on this journey.

Landowners are presented with a couple of routing options and are expected to spend all their time fighting each other over where it goes, instead of joining forces against the real enemy.  And they call this "community consultation"... when the decision has already been made.

DAD - Decide, Announce, Defend.  DAD is a top-down, minimally participatory method of public management.  You're sheep and they are the sheepdogs.  This never works on a smart, engaged public because the last "D" never ends.  People won't give up when their very home is on the line.  And when the utilities are put on the defensive, they say and do the stupidest things, most of them dishonest.  Nobody is buying it.  We all know how to smell a rat.  Propaganda is a useless waste of money.

​So, what else is in that power point?  Well, there's a full map of the MARL project, including FirstEnergy's portion.  NextEra has been pretending that the eastern part of the project doesn't exist and that their project simply ends in Frederick County, Virginia.
Picture
But it's clearly shown on a map that the end of NextEra's MARL is simply the HANDOFF POINT.  That's where their transmission line connects directly to FirstEnergy's transmission line.
Picture
We're all in this together, folks!  Landowners and communities impacted by NextEra's MARL are in the same boat as landowners impacted by FirstEnergy's MARL.  Neither one of these line sections can happen without the other.  Kill one, kill them both.

Here's what the landowners impacted by NextEra's MARL are facing:
Picture
Landowners on FirstEnergy's portion are facing the tear down of an existing 138-kV transmission line, expansion of the existing easement at least 100 feet, and the building of a new 500kV line with a 138kV circuit on the same new towers.

Pay attention, people!  It's coming!  Although the most FirstEnergy has done is threaten to "survey" its existing easements on its part of this project, you should also know that they are working behind the scenes, much like NextEra, to schmooze KEY STAKEHOLDERS to accept the project before you even realize that they've decided on a route across your property.  The announcement will come later, with Open Houses of our own.  By that time, the route is set in stone.  Be prepared to fight!
0 Comments
<<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.