Read an article about the billboards where our lil' Coalfella whines about how unfair the campaign is. Really? FirstEnergy wants to whine about unfair right about now? Ha ha ha ha. Karma's a real bitch, boys! Now sit back and watch how generating comments at PUCO is done. You might want to take notes to use during your next little public tiff with AEP.
That's the three foot tall slogan emblazoned on a bunch of new billboard ads in Ohio. Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign has initiated the advertising campaign to make Ohio's FirstEnergy customers aware of how FirstEnergy is ripping them off by failing to pass on energy efficiency benefits and to generate consumer comments at the Public Utilities Commission. Check out the campaign's website here. The very observant may even get a deja vu feeling while reading ;-)
Read an article about the billboards where our lil' Coalfella whines about how unfair the campaign is. Really? FirstEnergy wants to whine about unfair right about now? Ha ha ha ha. Karma's a real bitch, boys! Now sit back and watch how generating comments at PUCO is done. You might want to take notes to use during your next little public tiff with AEP.
0 Comments
Ooops! PJM's Terry Boston let the wind industry's scheming out of the bag yesterday at some "event" on fostering transmission investment and clean energy resources in the Southeast.
"The Bipartisan Policy Center is working with power industry representatives and plans to send recommendations early next year to President Barack Obama on transmission and electricity policy, the head of PJM Interconnection said Wednesday." Say what? According to this article in Platts, Boston said, "FERC's current rule on cost allocation of new transmission lines is to assign costs to those who benefit from the lines, but for interstate projects to move renewable resources through several states, some states may feel left out and that is a big challenge for the industry to address." Left out? Is that how the industry that stands to profit from long-distance transmission lines "for midwest wind" is going to color those states being used as a pass-through for these lines? You're darn right we're going to feel "left out" when other states' renewable portfolio standards require us to give up our land for new rights-of-way and pay for construction of a transmission line that only benefits citizens of another state. It's not going to happen, even if the lobbyists do whisper sweet nothings in Obama's ear while writing campaign contribution checks. Bi-partisan, my eye! Let's take a look at the people involved here. While they may be politically bi-partisan, there's an even scarier partisanship going on here than anything the Democrats or Republicans could dream up. It's all about the money, boys! It's big business vs. the consumers they plan to rob blind. John Jimison, a former US House of Representatives staffer and current managing director of Americans for a Clean Energy Grid: Americans for a Clean Energy Grid is nothing but a front group for industry that stands to rake in the cash by turning the midwest into "the Saudi Arabia of wind" and shipping it to both coasts via $300B of new high-voltage transmission lines that we don't need, can't afford, and that will only serve to render the grid more fragile and vulnerable. This front group is a transmission owner's dream$come$true because they've reined in the big environmental organizations to act as their lackeys to promote transmission development for "clean energy." The environmental fantasy these patsys see fails to recognize that once this "green" grid is built (with consumer funds, remember that) it's going to transport fossil fueled energy because the grid is open access and "wind" won't be able to compete on a price basis. Only through government subsidies and state mandates will costly "wind" power be viable. This front group has been busy holding real old fashioned kool aid socials around the country. In fact, we may have infiltrated one earlier this year ;-) Just remember, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, check out the "sponsors" of these propaganda fests. Former Congressman Rich Boucher: Now employed as the "head" of energy lobbying firm Sidley Austin's "government strategies group." Lobbyist. Not "bi-partisan" but protecting the interests of his well-heeled energy company clients. Former Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Curt Hebert: Currently the Chief Executive Officer of Lexicon Strategy Group, LLC. Lexicon Strategy Group " specializes in risk assessment and developing appropriate business strategies to mitigate the impact of adverse legislative and regulatory policies. Our legal team provides regulatory expertise to electric and gas clients for issues including exploration/production, generation, transmission, distribution and securities." How do they do that? "Coalition Building, Third Party Advocacy, Constituent Recruitment, Governmental Management (Federal and State), Federal and State Energy Policy Development, Advocacy Campaigns." You know, all the best front group propaganda techniques. And, of course, the partisanship to the energy companies that own him of our dear friend Terry Boston from the PJM Cartel is already legendary. Well, guess what, lobbyist friends? The consumers who make up the 99% aren't on board with your money making schemes, and the states who currently control transmission siting approvals aren't on board with your attempts to usurp their authority, and guess what? There's more of us than there are of you. See you at the White House! StopPATH WV, Inc. presented gifts of $1,000 each to two local churches at a ceremony in Charles Town on November 7. The payments represent a distribution of remaining assets as the organization prepares to wrap up its business affairs. “We strongly believe in ‘paying it forward’ to the communities that supported our organization to achieve its goal of stopping the PATH Project,” said Robin Huyett Thomas, President of StopPATH WV, Inc. The gifts were presented to Chestnut Hill United Methodist Church of Harpers Ferry and Summit Point United Methodist Church of Summit Point. Accepting the check on behalf of Chestnut Hill UMC, Pam Gearhart said, “Because many members of our congregation would have been affected by PATH, we were happy to do whatever we could to help fight the battle and we appreciated all the hard work and dedication of everyone involved in the effort.” Dianna Dick from Summit Point UMC expressed the Summit Point community’s appreciation for the dedication and countless hours organization members contributed to the successful effort. The PATH Project was a 765kV, 275-mile, high voltage electric transmission line that was proposed to cut through 16 miles of Jefferson County on its route from St. Albans, West Virginia to Mt. Airy, Maryland. The $2.1B project, proposed in 2007, was recently removed from regional transmission expansion plans and cancelled for good. “The churches recognized that the project posed grave threats to their communities,” said Keryn Newman, Treasurer of StopPATH WV, “and they supported our efforts by fostering community discussions and donating the use of their facilities as meeting venues.” L to R: Dianna Dick, Summit Point UMC and Pam Gearhart, Chestnut Hill UMC, receive checks from StopPATH WV President Robin Huyett Thomas while StopPATH WV Board members Sharon Wilson, Bob Montgomery, Patience Wait and Debbie Royalty look on.
It's been so long you've probably forgotten all about FERC's Notice of Inquiry on Promoting Transmission Investment Through Pricing Reform. Thankfully FERC hasn't.
The NOI, issued in May 2011, solicited public comment on FERC's policies for awarding financial incentives to transmission projects. And the public responded. FERC was deluged with hundreds of comments from elected officials, corporate beneficiaries of the incentives, trade groups, and most importantly an avalanche of comments from the most significant "stakeholders" of all -- you, the consumer who pays for the incentives. Yesterday, FERC issued the agenda for its November 15 public meeting. Item E-3 is expected to be the first word from the Commission on how incentives policy will be reformed. If you submitted a comment, you will be served with a copy of the Commission's order after the meeting concludes. The Commission may comment on the order during the meeting. You may watch a webcast of the meeting here. Look under "News and Commission Meetings" to find the link to the video. And pat yourself on the back... it's time to harvest the fruit of citizen action! Although FERC rules prohibit an answer to a protest, PATH has 121 million reasons to ignore the rule and waste everyone's time simply rehashing and reiterating its original section 205 filing to collect its stranded $121M investment in its failed PATH project. Exceptions can be made by the Commission if the answer provides new information that informs the Commission's decision. Did PATH bother to provide any new information in its answer? Perhaps they should have highlighted any actual "new" information to make it more easily detected among all the flimsy excuses and incorrect information.
PATH tells the Commission that although it has the ability to suspend proposed changes to existing rates, that PATH's changes to the Formula Rate (which is PATH's rate) aren't changes to its rate after all. PATH also urges the Commission to hurry up and approve the changes to its Formula Rate without hearing because PATH has submitted a fraudulent 2013 Projected Transmission Revenue Requirement that they need to revise before January 1, 2013. PATH believes the Commission should summarily reject protests that the company had control over the abandonment of its project, otherwise, PJM's authority will be undermined! Would that be a bad thing, really? PJM's imprudent actions brought about by its Project Mountaineer initiative to build new transmission to increase the use of coal-fired resources, and intended to provide significant profit to its favored incumbents, has just cost millions of consumers in its region a quarter billion dollars for the failed PATH project alone, not to mention the additional amount wasted on the also-cancelled MAPP project. How much more will PJM's erroneous and failed initiatives be permitted to steal from struggling electric consumers if this costly failure is swept under the rug and not examined? PATH believes that it is entitled to receive an extra half of a percent interest on its abandoned plant during the amortization period. The extra interest is a reward for membership in PJM. PATH states that it intends to remain a member until the consumers finish paying for its project, although it does not intend to own any transmission during that time. PATH is simply maintaining its membership to receive the extra interest. Is this really prudent? PATH whines that the Commission should not discriminate against it for the business structure it voluntarily constructed. "Revisiting the 50 basis point ROE adder would deny AEP and FirstEnergy an opportunity to apply the ROE-based incentive adder to their abandoned plant investment in the PATH Project merely because of the business structure they chose as a vehicle for fulfilling the construction obligations assigned to them by PJM." Bingo! Ya know what, PATH? Life ain't fair. You set up that business structure voluntarily because it benefited you and now you're stuck with it. Quit your sniveling and take your lumps. Your parent company memberships in PJM do not make PATH eligible to receive this incentive either. That was really PATH-etic! PATH has 121 million excuses for why its spending wasn't imprudent. After asking the Commission to set the issue of prudence for a hearing wherein the prudence of its expenses can be debated, PATH wastes page after page trying to justify its spending on things like property and option purchases. So, PATH, do you want a hearing or do you want the Commission to rule here? It's hard to tell. PATH falsely accuses protestors of not providing any "basis or support" for prudence challenges and proceeds to neglect to provide any "support or basis" for its own contentions that the spending was prudent, except for the ridiculous assertion that AEP and FE routinely buy property before a permit is received. PATH holds its parent companies up as the industry standard in the face of evidence showing that one of these same parents doesn't buy land prior to the issuance of a permit. So, was AEP lying to the Department of Energy earlier this year or are they lying to FERC now? Inquiring minds want to know. PATH attempts to color all its property purchases the same. The reality is that PATH was split into two different companies, PATH-West Virginia (owned 50-50 by AEP and FE) and PATH-Allegheny (owned 100% by FE). PATH-WV made minimal land purchases for substation sites and was slower to option property. However PATH-Allegheny purchased lots of property that had nothing to do with substations and was quick to option property long before the permit process had even begun rolling. This is a distinction that most likely has roots in the two different corporate philosophies behind the PATH project. Now AEP gets to help FE hold its little doggie bag of imprudence, however. Didn't your mommy ever tell you that you will be known by the company you keep, AEP? PATH goes out of its way to admit that its property purchases in River's Edge were for the purposes of forcing the release of a conservation easement. PATH goes into a long diatribe attempting to justify its imprudent property purchases as cost saving measures. Yes, that's right, if PATH had not attempted to nullify a conservation easement in which Loudoun County had invested taxpayer funding, it would have cost more to re-route the line around it (using the most destructive route possible in an attempt to make releasing the conservation easement and allowing PATH's preferred route look preferable). This same theme continues in flimsy justifications for other purchases. PATH claims if it had not bought certain properties, it would have had to route its line around them in order to avoid homes or other obstacles. Is this what PATH told landowners? That if they didn't prefer to voluntarily sell their property that PATH would simply route their line around the property? No, of course not. PATH told landowners that if they didn't sell voluntarily that the company would take the property by eminent domain or simply "run the line right over the top of your house." So, now PATH wants to test its word against that of thousands of landowners? Isn't this going to be fun? PATH also points out to the Commission that other abandoned projects that requested much, much smaller recoveries were not RTO-ordered projects. So, I guess PATH's point must be that when there is some risk to the transmission owner that spending is prudently curtailed. However, in PATH's case it was a giant, bleeding spend-a-thon because PATH believed that ratepayers were on the hook for all of it. Now when the specter of shareholders being responsible for some or all of PATH's spending spree rears its ugly head, all of a sudden the amount of spending becomes a big deal. Don't you just love karma? So, now it's up to the FERC Commissioners to wade through the facts presented and make a decision that ensures that PATH's rates are just and reasonable. The Chairman of the Maryland PSC isn't accepting PJM's flimsy excuses for conducting secret meetings to revise the MOPR. Nazarian's latest letter to PJM says:
"We also are struggling to understand how the process now under way can constitute an appropriate stakeholder process for tariff revisions as significant as these. Stakeholders Manual 34, which authorizes "User Groups" to debate a specific market design problem (see Paragraph 5.5 at p. 14), still requires published notice to all members that the process is to take place, requires that other interested stakeholders be permitted to participate, and requires PJM to post agendas and summaries of meetings on the PJM webpage. None of this happened during the secret negotiations. Moreover, the "ad hoc stakeholder group" discussions took place over a period of at least three months - as we understand it, discussions began in June and continued well into September- during which the invited parties had the opportunity to get detailed input from PJM and the IMM and to analyze different options in depth. The rest of us get less than half that time to understand and analyze and react to a complicated set of revisions that were reduced to proposed tariff pages only last Friday. Put another way, the parties to the exclusive negotiations ran out most of the clock and have left the rest of us to scramble against a deadline driven only by PJM's and the proponents' self-interested desire to have these changes in place for the May 2013 Base Residual Auction." New Jersey's Director of Rate Counsel, Stefanie Brand, also throws a few logs on the PIG roasting fire. Her letter gets extra points for snarky use of quotation marks. "As we understand it, the proposed MOPR changes arose from dissatisfaction on the part of certain suppliers that the previous changes to MOPR, which are currently on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, were insufficient to thwart what they viewed as "outcomes that are inconsistent with a competitive market." These suppliers then engaged other select PJM members in confidential discussions regarding changes to the MOPR to address their concerns. At some point, PJM itself and the Independent Market Monitor (IMM) were brought into this process and, in joining it, agreed not to inform any other interested PJM members of the discussion or invite them to participate without the agreement of the other group members. Eventually, and apparently with the group's agreement, PJM reached out to a select group of "load" interests to participate. Their participation, too, was specifically conditioned on agreeing to maintain the secrecy of these discussions. Not surprisingly, the proposal that resulted from this closed-door process addressed the specific concerns of the PJM members who participated in the discussions, at the expense of the interests of the PJM members who were intentionally excluded. Indeed, the discussions were aimed at developing "solutions" designed specifically to exacerbate, not resolve, the matters of concern to the excluded PJM members." and "...certain members were invited into the process by PJM itself. PJM should not be choosing which members are allowed at the table, particularly when the invitation comes with a requirement that the process be kept secret from other interested members." and "That PJM views the interests of 27 large users as more worthy of consideration than the millions of customers represented by the consumer advocates underscores the perception that PJM favors the interests of certain members over others." and "While packaged as a series of exemptions and criteria, the intent is obvious: to thwart the actions of those States to address capacity shortages and implement policy judgments about resource choices." and "PJM has no business involving itself in efforts by the incumbent suppliers to control the "competitive" market in which they participate." And finishes up threatening to "...pursue all remedies to prevent PJM and the proposal's proponents from usurping the States' role under the FPA." Update: The Maryland Office of People's Counsel has also written to PJM. In their letter the MPC requests that PJM throw the "secret" proposal out the window and start fresh with all stakeholders. MPC also says: "MPC is in the process of evaluating the proposal and forming positions on it. However, it appears that the proposal is founded on the notion that certain actions that result in new capacity are "legitimate" and some are not. PJM should focus its attention on administering the electricity markets for the resources that participate in those markets and not on deciding which actions are legitimate and which are not. Furthermore, from the perspective of customers who rely on electricity to meet their daily household and business needs, there is nothing illegitimate about a State directing utilities in its jurisdiction to take action that results in new generation that the State believes is in the long-term best interest of that State. While such an action may affect markets, the creation of rules to prevent such action is not administering the market but attempting to assure certain outcomes. PJM's role should not be to assure price levels or targets." Well, PJM is certainly scoring some important collaboration points with the states, isn't it? Just more of the same old lobbying and influence being exerted at the PJM cartel by their profit-hungry power company "members." This time it's especially egregious because the supposedly "independent" market monitor also jumped aboard the S.S. PIG. The market monitor probably isn't playing favorites among PJM's unruly children. However, the market monitor refuses to admit that its market is a complete and utter failure that ends up costing millions of electric consumers extra money every month. PJM's "market" is supposed to bring you low cost electricity. Generation and transmission is supposed to be driven by "market" need. Because the market is not properly stimulating new generation entries, states such as New Jersey and Maryland are paying some of the highest electricity prices in the country. Instead of waiting for the market to prompt new generation in those states, PJM is instead jumping the gun to provide "low cost" electricity to those areas by importing its incumbent PIG's existing generation via new high voltage transmission lines such as TrAIL, PATH, Susquehanna-Roseland and MAPP. The "market" never had a chance to work. New generation in New Jersey and Maryland will be paid for by the consumers in those states. Transmission lines are paid for by all PJM consumers, including those in states far from New Jersey and Maryland. This costs you money, if you don't live in New Jersey or Maryland. However, the big Ohio Valley generators are currently sitting on a glut of generation they can't sell as demand continues to tank. Companies like AEP and FirstEnergy are in big financial trouble if they can't find new markets for their dirty, coal-fired generation. FirstEnergy recently scaled back one of its plants because there was no market for it. Last week, FirstEnergy laid off a whole bunch of employees. Tough times, FirstEnergy? Awww... that's too bad :-) New Jersey and Maryland got tired of waiting for PJM's market to work, so they came up with their own laws to encourage the building of new generation in their own states. This upset the incumbent generation PIGs, who feared losing a profitable, captive market for their dirty product. So, the PIGs changed the MOPR (Minimum Offer Price Rule) to prevent new generation from being built. The states fought vigorously, but lost when FERC agreed with PJM. However, even under the new rules, New Jersey's and Maryland's new plants cleared PJM's RPM auction this year. In response, the greedy little PIGS got together to hold secret meetings to craft even more changes to the MOPR, hoping to stop new generation for good. Now they've been caught and called out for their scheming. PJM's "market" doesn't work because its incumbent PIGS won't allow it to work. Consumers deserve better. I've been following a blog written by an experienced and well-respected utility regulation attorney that has been doing a monthly series on regulatory capture. This week, I finally read the last article in the series.
“REGULATORY CAPTURE” III — AVOIDING AND ESCAPING provides useful advice for captured regulators like West Virginia's Public Service Commission and the government officials who perpetuate this scenario. Most importantly, it provides a road map for affected citizen consumers to create their own plan of action to effect change in Charleston and put a stop to the practices that hold them captive to out-of-state utility money-making schemes. Read the first two installments in the regulatory capture series here, along with other interesting topics. Time well spent! High-Voltage Transmission Line Projects - the Process and the Public. What I learned by listening.11/3/2012 The following is an essay written by a good friend of mine in Wisconsin who is a local elected official. The essay provides an inside look at how transmission company process and propaganda is received by honest elected officials who are trying to do right by the citizens who elected them.
By Bev Vaillancourt Chair, Town of La Valle, Sauk County, Wisconsin Over 100 units of local government in Wisconsin have passed resolutions asking American Transmission Company (ATC) to provide a cost/benefit analysis of the Badger-Coulee High Voltage Transmission line before it submits its application to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. To date, ACT’s short answer is that it is not required to justify the project to the public. And, so I went looking for some answers, since the Town of La Valle is among those 100 local government resolutions, as are other towns in Sauk County, and the county itself. I heard that Consumer Energy Alliance was holding a conference titled Energy, the Economy and the Election. It seemed like a good way to gain another perspective and balance my understanding of why the energy industry is spending millions of dollars to promote the building of high voltage transmission lines across the state of Wisconsin. My interest was especially piqued when I discovered that Phil Montgomery, Chair of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, was slated to present at the conference. And, so I went, and I listened, and learned. Commissioner Montgomery spoke of the need to keep electricity affordable. He said that the economy is in rough shape and there is a need to establish growth. I wondered how asking people to pay some $450 million to build the Badger-Coulee Transmission line from La Crosse to Madison, along with maintenance and operation fees for the next 40 years, and then asking them to pay again to build 7 additional transmission lines in Wisconsin, not to mention their cost share of the numerous transmission lines planned in the Midwest region, would accomplish the dual goals of an improved economy and growth. I wondered what assurance there could be that ratepayers’ electric rates would be lowered, or that the lines would improve the economy of communities, or improve property values, or create any permanent jobs. But, I tried to keep an open mind. The next day I attended a meeting at the Capitol with nine other citizens from counties west of Sauk County along with three representatives of the Public Service Commission. The meeting had been arranged by the offices of Senator Jen Shillings and Senator Dale Schultz, and for those of us who had been asking for the opportunity to meet with the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC), it was a most welcomed opportunity to listen and learn. Both Senator Shillings and Senator Schultz and staff members also attended the four hour meeting. It was obvious from the start that Senator Schultz had done his homework. He articulated concerns of citizens, asked quite pointedly if the Public Service Commission represented the energy industry or the citizens of Wisconsin, and once again requested that “public” be put back into the Public Service Commission. I explained to the PSC that, as town chair, my first concern is the vitality of my town. I told them that I currently am engaged in developing the town’s 2013 budget, and that when town residents are asked to pay more each month on their utility bill to build transmission line infrastructure, less is available to help pay for town roads, fire and police service, and other valued workings of local government. There is only so much in one’s pocket, and that must be spent wisely and to the greatest good. I also explained that the issue becomes more acute when it is understood that Wisconsin is being used as a conduit for energy headed to other states, that demand has nearly flat lined and is projected to remain so even with an improved economy, and that the lines, in fact, harm communities by significantly impacting property values and quality of life, and tourism – the lifeblood of many small communities. The PSC clearly stated that transmission lines in the state are approved for economics and to meet the needs of the consumer. Two things are important to understand in all of this. Consumer is not you, the end user of electricity. Consumers are the “stakeholders,” meaning the utilities. Economics is not concerning your livelihood or household budget. Economics is the wholesale energy market. Are transmission line companies assured of a rate of return when they install 15+ story high towers and transmission lines in Wisconsin? Yes. Does that mean you will pay less for electricity? No. Does that mean you will pay to build the transmission line infrastructure through monthly increases on your utility bill? Yes. Moreover, the 2005 “Montgomery” bill (yes, this is the same Phil Montgomery who is now Commissioner of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission) allows for the condemnation of both public and private property to acquire a 150’ right of way across private land (presumably for public convenience) by private utility companies, which in effect is a “taking” of land. Another important lesson for me was that these 15- story high towers can be sited within 75’ of a home or barn. A most disconcerting footnote to siting is that federal lenders will not approve a loan for a home within the fall zone of a transmission tower. We asked if the PSC considered the advantages of energy efficiencies and utilization of technologies that lessen dependence on a centralized power grid in deciding whether a high voltage transmission line should be sited. The answer was, “No.” Why? Because in their estimation efficiencies and new technologies could not be counted on while high voltage transmission lines bring “reliability” to the system. This all sounds good until one gives some deeper thought to the issue, and listens to the results of study after study that touts the economic benefits of energy efficiency. In the industry’s desire to capture and sell all of the energy it can, to “keep the lights on,” should the PSC not protect the public by considering the benefits of competition in the market place, more efficient use of available energy, and conservation of energy, or at least have a smarter response to demand? For example, can all the lights in large stores be lowered in intensity during times of high demand (demand response) to reduce or level the consumption of energy? There are simple things all of us can do to significantly reduce the need to spend billions of dollars to build new transmission lines, costs that all of us incur whether we like it or not, whether we work hard to conserve or not. But there was more to learn. Two days after the meeting with the PSC, I participated in a phone conference between Representative Kind’s office, Senator Kohl’s office, a person representing the Citizens Energy Task Force, and three high ranking individuals from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in Washington, D.C. Like the meeting with the PSC, it takes official intervention for citizens to meet with individuals from governmental agencies, and coordinating a meeting with FERC was truly no small task. Senator Kohl’s office is to be commended in facilitating this meeting. Since FERC has regulatory power over MISO (which includes Wisconsin) and other regional energy groups, we hoped to listen and learn. And, we learned a lot. FERC requires competition in the energy market place. It also encourages consideration of alternatives to high voltage transmission lines. To that end, New England’s energy efficiency and conservation programs have curtailed reliance on high voltage infrastructures. States are taking the lead. Massachusetts, ranked first in the nation in energy efficiency programs, supports reliance on clean energy, including wind, solar, and sustainable biomass, with the dual benefit of better management of its water utilities and landfills. Back here in the Midwest, competition is defined by competing transmission line companies vying to build the same transmission line. Thus, you now hear about Xcel Energy becoming part of American Transmission Company’s (ATC) “team,” when in reality, American Transmission Company LLC (ATC) is challenging FERC’s decision to give Xcel Energy Service Inc. a share in ATC’s transmission line projects.[i] Which brings me back to the meeting with the PSC. I mentioned to the PSC that I often hear from those who seem to have the inside track on things that the Badger-Coulee line is a “done deal.” “Not at all,” was the PSC’s response. However, the conversation then returned to the need to ensure “economics” in energy planning in Wisconsin. We were back to the profit margin of the wholesale energy market. So, I asked how the public becomes part of the discussion. Well, it doesn’t until after ATC files its application for the Badger-Coulee line, after which the “public” can file for intervenor status, and hope to get some money from the state to cover the cost of such status. Being an intervenor first requires filing a multiple page application and showing that you have some knowledge to add that ATC has not already considered. Thus, money is needed for an attorney to complete the application and represent the intervenor in testimony before the PSC. “Not going to happen,” I told the PSC fellows. My town has no money for such things. The PSC attorney suggested that towns pool together to file as an intervenor, sharing the costs and hoping for money back from the state to cover the costs. It was all too obvious that the PSC does not understand the constraints on local government. I find all of this painful learning in light of my readings of the Public Utility Commissions and Energy Efficiency (August 2012) handbook written by the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School. It states on page 10 that “…another contributing impediment to energy efficiency is that we have a highly regulated electric utility sector that remains, in most states, insulated from competition as a presumed natural monopoly. Electric utilities are the primary interface between the electric wholesale market and electricity consumers, and are therefore in the best practical position to promote energy efficiency measures to consumers. However, under a traditional regulatory model, they have little incentive to encourage consumers to invest in energy efficiency, given that such measures would lower their electricity sales and, thereby, revenues.” Senator Schultz’s question to the Wisconsin PSC as to whether it represents the utility companies or the people of Wisconsin resonates every time I read through the Columbia Law School document or other white paper studies on the relationship between cost savings and efficiencies. It just seems so common sense that every little bit of energy savings helps, and ultimately prevents the outlay of billions of dollars in costs to all of us in ways that reduce what people have to pay for other essential needs. A little common sense can go a long, long way. My last learning came in attending ATC’s informational open house in Mauston, Wisconsin. There I learned that, though ATC has proposed two routes for the Badger-Coulee line, both of which have been moved north of most of Sauk County, the PSC ultimately chooses the route, so no “inactive” route truly is inactive. One must wonder how such an important, community shattering decision can be so convoluted. I watched people walk out of ATC’s meeting looking disenchanted, discouraged, and disheartened. I saw people shaking their heads. They expressed how uninformative and vague ATC’s information was. I truly saw no one come out of ATC’s open house smiling. Many of these people then talked with individuals who are coordinating efforts to oppose construction of high voltage transmission lines in Wisconsin. These individuals are farmers, small business owners, and other land owners, highly educated and down-home common sense individuals who have put a great deal of time, effort, and study into understanding both the economics of the energy industry and the impacts of building 15+ story high towers and stringing high voltage transmission lines across Wisconsin. I watched people sign petitions and take information to send to their state legislators. I watched people demonstrate hope in the system that is supposed to serve and protect them. Foremost, I also witnessed an empowerment of the peoples’ will to stand up for the spirit of democracy by making their voices heard. They spoke of the ills of corporate greed and their belief that those in government should care more about the people of Wisconsin than those who seek to plunder from what others have worked so hard to build. And, they mentioned the great burden these infrastructures will place on their children and grandchildren as they look to the 40 year costs of transmission line infrastructure and their built in obsolescence. These are individuals who have frac sand mining at their doorstep and wonder where and why government has failed to represent their lives and property. Such united efforts took me back to the statement made to the PSC that opposition to building new transmission line infrastructure in Wisconsin is no longer limited to what happens in my backyard; that people across the state are connecting and caring, and that the effort to bring common sense to the problem of energy reliability has become a national effort, networks of people and information across state lines. As I have told both the Public Service Commission and American Transmission Company several times, it is my job as Town Chair of La Valle to stand up for the best interests of the people of La Valle. That’s what I was elected to do, and I take the job quite seriously. And, with Senator Schultz in agreement, I also told the PSC that it is the job of state legislators to protect the interests of the people of Wisconsin. That’s what we elect them to do. That’s their job. I’m not sure who the PSC currently represents. I know that the PSC will decide if and then where the Badger – Coulee line will be built. The process will not be debated within the state legislature. State representatives will not have a voice in the process, and thus neither will the public. There will be no public hearing process like what is required to pass a local ordinance where the voice of the people rightly plays a pivotal role. The truth is, Wisconsin can put the public back into the Public Service Commission. It can respond to the voice of local government resolutions and petitions of the people and place a moratorium on approval of high voltage transmission lines. Time is needed to weigh alternatives; time is needed to define a vision not blocked by gargantuan metal transmission towers that hover over landscapes, rusting and aging and placing huge cost burdens on future generations. Instead, Wisconsin can look to energy independence models intelligently put into place by other states to see how they improve their economies through job growth based on energy alternatives, renewables, and efficiencies. Most importantly, Wisconsin can infuse the public into the process in the form of true public hearings. We the People can have a voice, and must. The state of Wisconsin should have the political will to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship to meet our energy needs. It should be looking for low voltage alternatives that build upon systems already in place and Wisconsin should offer incentives for creativity and cost savings – something other states are doing well. Wisconsin has a goal of reliance on 10% renewables by 2015. It’s the lowest percentage among the Midwest states. One has to wonder why. We have to become smarter in how we view solutions. Wisconsin is filled with creative, innovative, figure-it-out individuals. The state legislature needs to believe in its people to find viable solutions and to open the door to innovation. To promote construction of transmission lines as a foremost solution to tomorrow’s energy needs is a lazy route with an expensive price tag. Wisconsin can do better. We owe it to ourselves to demand the chance to be better. Together we can. Wisconsin can become a leader in the Midwest in clean energy innovation, creating jobs, protecting our state’s environment, and supporting our hard working farmers and our communities. We can, and we should. This is what I learned by listening. [i] Xcel Energy Services Inc., 140 FERC ¶ 61,058 (2012) and American Transmission Company LLC v. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., et al., Docket No. EL13-9-000 (October 1, 2012) ©Beverly Vaillancourt 2012 |
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
|