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

Not Just No, But HELL NO!

1/30/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
Oh, the arrogance of the elite.  It's all about making money, it's not about "climate change" or saving the planet.  Packaging their greed as altruism and cashing in on all the green washing of the past 20 years is simply a way to pull the wool over the eyes of the people who are going to pay for it all. 

It's time for energy consumers to get a little "woke" themselves.

Transmission-loving front group Americans for a Clean Energy Grid (ACEG) has been pouring out the propaganda and plans for a weak and clueless federal government to adopt in order to ensure their payday.  As mentioned before, ACEG is composed not of "Americans" as we understand the term to incorporate everyone, but an elite group of utility interests that see big money to be had by building new transmission infrastructure on a grand scale.  They would be more aptly named Transmission Profiteers for Building New Transmission (TPBNT).

Released this week, TPBNT's newest report was feted by a gaggle of former FERC commissioners who no longer have influence over regulatory policy but are still eager to cash in on their former positions.  The report is full of the same old stuff... making up new "benefits" for transmission, changing the transmission planning process to make Big Transmission the solution to every problem, and allocating costs so widely that consumers may not notice the increase in their bill caused by all this new infrastructure they're paying for.

One of the former FERCers at the fete exclaimed:
“Not only yes, but hell yes,” James Hoecker, FERC chairman from 1997 to 2001, said of the need for major new transmission investment in a Wednesday webinar introducing the report. Beyond the need to absorb the country's growing share of wind and solar power, the grid will likely “need to double in size to support the electrification of transportation, heat and other industrial processes,” all of which are needed to decarbonize the U.S. economy. 
Another picked up on the cute enthusiasm for forcing consumers to pay for infrastructure they may not need:
“I say ‘hell yes’ as well; we need to do more interregional transmission,” Wellinghoff, former FERC chairman from 2009 to 2013 and current CEO of GridPolicy, said at Wednesday’s event. 
“Order 1000 has fallen short on its vision, certainly short on my vision of it." 
Guess what?

No.  HELL NO!

We don't need to double or triple the amount of long-distance transmission and ignore distributed generation of local renewables, which can effect your infinitesimal world-wide carbon lowering goals much better, much cheaper, and much faster.  These chuckleheads begin and end their policy permutations with a complete fallacy.
By all accounts, wind and solar resources will become a much larger portion of the resource mix in the future, and electrification of transportation and buildings will substantially increase demand. These trends magnify the benefits of building large regional and inter-regional transmission infrastructure to connect resource rich areas with load centers.
Who says that all renewable resources are located so far from urban load pockets that we "need" new, large regional and inter-regional transmission projects?  What about offshore wind and local/regional solar?  Seems to me that those things are being built and will NOT benefit from new long-distance transmission.  In fact, they would benefit from smaller, targeted upgrades to existing transmission.   If we put all our eggs into the remote renewables plus new long-distance transmission basket, we are effectively playing kingmaker over generation supply and creating a future stranded asset that consumers will be paying for decades into the future.

Another gem:
“Nobody likes transmission. We will always be litigating it,” Nora Mead Brownell, co-founder of energy consultancy Espy Energy Solutions and FERC commissioner from 2001 to 2007, said during Wednesday’s event. “But I think if we had a more fact-based basis for it and...more coordination between regions,” a broader planning regime could “build people’s confidence that they’re getting a fair shake.” 
Not a chance.  There is no world in which pumping more complicated "facts" onto landowners affected by new overhead transmission is going to make them think they should willingly sacrifice their home, business, and well-being for new transmission.  New overhead transmission is a non-starter.  Period.

Underground that stuff on existing public rights-of-way.  That's the only chance to avoid landowner and community opposition, by removing them from the equation entirely.

I do see that TPBNT has another sneaky plan to remove landowners from the equation by giving states a role in regional transmission planning in order to get their buy-in before affected landowners and communities find out about it and have a chance to influence the state regulators.
given the challenge of siting new projects that may be particularly acute in some regions, limiting competition may be a catalyst for new development because it limits the number of developers that may stir up “not in my backyard” or “NIMBY” opposition via project development activities.
Don't you think that transmission developers have tried that many times over already?  The scheme to approach local governments and elected officials to seek their buy-in before transmission plans are publicly announced has happened over and over again.  However, it never works.  Once those officials, who thought the transmission project was a good idea when it was presented in a one-sided vacuum, are approached by their constituents they always flip and join the opposition when other facts creep into the sanitized plan they were fed.  And there's that voting thing... local electeds are big fans of self-preservation and they know who votes in local elections.  It's not transmission developers.

As ominous and terrible as all this sounds, remember how long it takes to melt or redirect the iceberg of public policy, regulations, and judicial review.  They'd be lucky to get even close in four years, never mind the two they actually have before Congress makes another seismic shift.

Why not get onboard with energy plans that consumers and landowners can support instead of continuing to beat your heads against a brick wall with all the confidence of elite arrogance?  We see you for who you really are.
0 Comments

Invenergy Confused About Where It's Building Grain Belt Express

1/29/2021

0 Comments

 
That's about the only conclusion I can come to after reading this blurb penned by one of Invenergy's most avid supporters... conveniently inspired to write an op-ed just when new legislation to restrict eminent domain abuse was heard by a Missouri House committee.  Invenergy's cheerleader said:
... some lawmakers in Missouri disagree. They’ve repeatedly played political games and tried to make up new laws to target this specific project. 

Their efforts are anti-progress, anti-business, and have failed every time. They’ve failed because the 39 communities affected by the project know a good deal when they see one.

Woah, woah, woah there, sport.  39 communities affected by the project know a good deal when they see one?  What 39 communities would that be?  Do you mean the 39 communities who belong to MJMEUC and will be the beneficiaries of MJMEUC's below cost contract to buy transmission service from Grain Belt Express?  I kind of think that's what you meant to say... but those communities are not AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT.  By and large, they're miles away from any new infrastructure constructed through other communities that won't receive any benefit at all from the project.

Other communities are affected by the project, not the 39 who are party to MJMEUC's "good deal."  The 39 communities on the receiving end of GBE's below cost pricing know a good deal when they see one, however they simply don't care who has to suffer to make their "good deal" possible.  It's kind of like finding a cash-stuffed wallet on the sidewalk, picking it up, and making absolutely no effort to find its owner.  Finders keepers, right?  Having such a "good deal" dumped in your lap comes with blinders to the misfortune of others?  Is that what Missouri wants to show everyone?  Morally bankrupt opportunistic "good deals"?

Anyhow, I hear the committee hearing went well for the landowners who attended and spoke to protect their property rights.  Keep up the good fight!

P.S.  Yes, I know the op-ed is full of other misinformation, but honestly it's not worth writing about.  Nobody believes any of it.
0 Comments

Transource Mansplains Why Pennsylvania Must Approve Its Project

1/14/2021

0 Comments

 
Of course Transource filed exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's recommended denial of its unnecessary transmission project.  That shouldn't come as any surprise.  But what is surprising is all the mansplaining required to inform the PA PUC that its job is merely to site the transmission project.  Transource says that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has authority to approve transmission projects that affect interstate transmission rates.  Transource explains that the only role state utility commissions have is to determine where the project is going because a state may not deny a transmission project permit.
The RD [Recommended Decision] confuses federal and state roles by attempting to overturn PJM’s transmission planning role as approved by FERC. It is undisputed that states retain jurisdiction over transmission siting and construction issues. However, FERC has exclusive jurisdiction over interstate transmission planning and has approved PJM’s role as outlined in its tariff. FERC held in Order 1000 that the regional planning requirements, including transmission planning to address market efficiency considerations, were being adopted pursuant to FERC’s rate jurisdiction under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act. The Federal Power Act preempts state jurisdiction over the wholesale rates of electricity in interstate commerce.
On the one hand, Transource says that the PUC is preempted from having any role in a regionally planned transmission project, except to decide siting and construction issues, but on the other hand, it begs the PUC to approve its transmission project.

Does Transource really expect the PA PUC to roll over and make itself irrelevant?  If states were obligated to accept the RTO's determination of "need", it upends the entire world of state authority to permit transmission projects.  Most states have statutory requirements to determine (for themselves!) whether a transmission project is needed.  Sure, they can consider what the RTO says about need, but they have to make their own determination based upon state law.  Transource purports that the state's "need" criteria are satisfied by simply accepting what PJM says.  However, PJM's planning and "need" determinations are not subject to Pennsylvania law.

FERC has jurisdiction over interstate transmission RATES.  That means the rates transmission projects approved by states may charge to customers.  FERC also has jurisdiction over the actions of the RTO, and can require that they plan transmission.  And that's where FERC's jurisdiction stops.  FERC simply cannot permit transmission projects.  That's a job for the individual states.  Only a state may issue a permit for a transmission project.

If the PA PUC accepts Transource's assertion that it may not reject a transmission project approved by PJM, it sets a dangerous precedent whereby states would be rubber-stamping yes men who abrogate their authority over transmission to the federal government.  Why would any state ever do this?  No one ever willingly relinquishes their power.

Transource also gets all wadded up over the Judge's independent evaluation of the evidence presented and determination of the facts.  It's up to the judge to determine the facts from the evidence presented.  Only the judge can determine which pieces of evidence have greater weight.  However, Transource insists that its evidence is the ONLY evidence worth evaluating and therefore the judge must accept Transource's evidence as superior to all other evidence and simply agree with Transource's purported facts.  Judges are fact finders.  It's what they do.  They determine the facts based on the evidence, and then apply the law to the facts in order to make a judgement.  That's exactly what ALJ Barnes did in the Transource case.  She simply did not believe everything Transource said, when compared to conflicting evidence from other parties.

For instance, Transource's expert testified that transmission lines do not interfere with GPS systems used to guide farmers.  Transource's expert is not a farmer.  He's never driven a GPS-guided piece of farm equipment underneath a transmission line.  However, actual farmers who have driven GPS-guided farm equipment underneath transmission lines testified that there is interference.  The judge weighed these two pieces of conflicting evidence and decided to take the word of the person who actually has experience farming underneath existing transmission lines.  Transource nearly had a conniption over that.  How could the judge accept the testimony of a lay person over its expert?  Don't believe your lying eyes!

It hasn't been lost on me that the judge is a woman.  It obviously isn't lost on Transource, either.  The tone of Transource's exceptions brief crosses the line into the realm of mansplaining.  What's mansplaining?
to explain something to a woman in a condescending way that assumes she has no knowledge about the topic
Transource says over and over again that the judge simply doesn't understand things.  Tut, tut, tut, there, there, little lady, you simply don't understand the manly world of electric transmission, let me explain it to you so you understand.

Excuse me... but this is an experienced Administrative Law Judge.  She didn't get where she is today by being a silly wallflower.  She understands transmission perfectly well, she just didn't agree with Transource.  She wasn't intimidated by PJM's complicated explanations about why this transmission project is needed.  Maybe the RTO's overly-complicated evidence and testimony is designed to confuse judges with an ego?  The judge is cast into the role of the silly townsfolk in the transmission version of The Emperor's New Clothes.  Does the judge side with the transmission company because she doesn't understand and wants to avoid looking dumb?  Or does she point her finger and declare the transmission company naked (and full of crap)?
Is it possible that an experienced ALJ got everything wrong?  And is it likely that the PUC Commissioners will toss out her decision in its entirety and approve the project anyhow?  It remains to be seen, but I think that stuff only happens in fairy tales.

Up next... other parties may file replies to Transource's exceptions.  Then the Commissioners review everything and make their decision.
0 Comments

Transmission Companies and Renewable Energy Developers Want YOU To Pay For Their Unholy Alliance

1/13/2021

0 Comments

 
Here's another way "Big Green" and "Big Utility" are planning to dip into your pocket.  It's no secret that building new transmission is enormously expensive.  We're talking billions for the big projects that cross states.  But perhaps you haven't noticed lumpy spikes in your electric bill that correspond with new transmission projects.  That's because the costs are added gradually, and spread out over as many ratepayers as possible.  One of the utilities' favorite allocation analogies is to think of the cost of new transmission as "just a few pennies" on your bill.  However, if you consider that there's over 60 million ratepayers in PJM alone, and if each one of them was paying "just a few pennies" for just one new transmission project, then the owner of the transmission project's payday looks like this:
Picture
The trick is to allocate costs across as many customers as possible so that no one will notice how much it actually costs.

Let's go back... way back to the early 2000's.  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a rule that required new electric generators to pay their own costs to connect to the existing transmission system.  Costs could include the line from the generator to the nearest transmission line, as well as any costs that result from upgrades to the existing transmission system caused by the increased injection of power from the new generator.  This rule ensured that generation owners sited their new generators efficiently by combining the cost of building and operating the generator with the costs to the transmission system caused by the building of that generator.  Just like it wouldn't be cost effective or logical for Walmart to build a store out in the middle of nowhere and then demand that someone else pay to build the road to connect it to the nearest town, it's not logical to build electric generators out in the middle of nowhere and then demand that regional electric consumers pay the cost of connecting it to the transmission system.  A generator's location must be balanced with its costs.  If the added transmission costs make its price of electricity too high to sell, then maybe another generator located closer to the load it would serve would end up being more economic for consumers.  In this way, generators located closer to the consumers they serve actually become cheaper.  They're also more reliable.  And more economic for the community because their energy dollars stay within their community or region.

Everything worked fine under FERC's rule for years.  However, taxpayer-subsidized renewable energy generators wanted to build big in order to suck up as many of your tax dollars as possible.  The Midwest looked like just the place... lots of land and few neighbors combined with good natural resources.  But the Midwest soon became over-saturated with renewable energy projects.  Fewer people, ya know, much less demand for electricity.  The renewable developers thought it was a good idea to continue to build in the Midwest, where the electricity was not needed, but to ship the electricity produced to population centers on both coasts.  They soon used up all the available transmission.  The Midwest grid operator, MISO, even planned and built a suite of "MVP" transmission projects designed to open new pathways for renewable generators not yet built.  Guess who paid for this overly expensive gift to renewable energy developers?  The electric consumers in MISO, although maybe other regions importing MISO's new renewable energy supply may have benefited more than MISO's consumers. 

Recently though, renewable energy developers have hit a wall.  They need not just another suite of MVP projects, but several of them.  They need for regional transmission planners to plan new transmission that presumes new generators will be built in the middle of nowhere and need to be connected.  And here's the thing... if the regional grid operator plans and orders the building of new transmission to serve the willy-nilly and self-serving profit-seeking of private energy corporations, then end-user electric consumers pick up all the costs.  That's YOU!  Instead of the renewable generator's developer picking up the costs of connecting its new, for-profit electricity factory, he wants to shift the costs to YOU.

If the costs of connecting and transmitting electricity from these new generators is separated from the cost of building and operating the generator, what happens?  The cost of the generation appears to be much cheaper than it really is.  Say Plant A can generate electricity in Lower Slobovia for 3 cents, but it costs 10 cents for transmission upgrades that connect it to Metro City.  Plant B, proposed to be build in Metro City can generate electricity for 7 cents, but doesn't require transmission upgrades.  If you simply compare the cost of the power (3 cents for Lower Slobovia vs. 7 cents for Metro City), then the Lower Slobovia generator is the more economic choice for Metro City residents.  However, if you add in the transmission upgrade costs, the Metro City generator is 6 cents cheaper than the Lower Slobovia one and way more economic for Metro City-ites.

In either scenario, the ultimate users of the electricity will pay the costs of the electricity, but if you separate out the costs of the upgrades and slide them into consumer electric bills another way they may not notice, maybe they wouldn't object to paying more for electricity from Lower Slobovia because they simply wouldn't know.

That's exactly what a front group of renewable energy developers and transmission developers are demanding in a new "report" recently issued by the Astroturf-y sounding "Americans for a Clean Energy Grid."  These entities stand to make a collective bundle of cash if they can continue to build new generators in Lower Slobovia, along with new transmission to connect these generators to Metro City.  In order to do this, they have to convince FERC to change this rule and knowingly shift costs among consumers in a way they may not understand or notice.  However, they want to do A LOT of it, with some calling for doubling or tripling the amount of electric transmission in this country.  No matter how widely that's cost allocated, they won't be able to hide the gigantic spikes in your electric bill.  There's a limit to how much can be hidden by expanding the captive consumers who pay for it. 

It also hurts electric consumers in Metro City, who could maybe get cheaper electricity from local generation in their own community.  If FERC goes all in on widely-dispersed centralized generation and long-distance transmission, as these greedy corporations suggest, they are slamming the door on community-based, centralized generation forever.  A handful of corporations will get very, very rich, but Metro City will suffer economically from loss of energy jobs, increased electric bills and loss of reliability. 

Never fear though... because when Mr. Metro City's bill starts going up to pay for all this remote electricity, putting solar panels on his own roof is going to start looking mighty appealing.  The higher his bill goes, the more economic the cost of generating his own electricity becomes.  Eventually, he'll pull the plug and stop buying remote electricity in favor of generating his own.  When he does this, the costs of the remote electricity that he was paying get spread to his neighbors, which increases their costs even more.  And then they look at Mr. Metro City's rooftop generator and do the figuring for one of their own.  When that happens, their costs of remote electricity get shifted to their own neighbors in Metro City West.  And so on, and so on... until a majority of users have separated themselves from the grid and the costs of remote electricity.  At that time, the remote generators and long-distance transmission lines go broke because they're no one left to pay for them.

Just say "no" to changing FERC's Order No. 2003 to give renewable generators a free ride to Metro City.  Stop the GREEN GREED!  It hurts electric consumers!
0 Comments

But Wait!  There's More!

1/12/2021

1 Comment

 
A Missouri landowner recently commented that Grain Belt Express is starting to remind him of those folks who call to extend his car warranty.  It's all huckster, all the time.  Everyone is familiar with the infomercial huckster... he's not only selling a GREAT product, he's offering you bonus free gifts with your purchase.
BUT WAIT!  THERE'S MORE!
Perhaps someone at GBE spent too much time watching infomercials over the holidays... or got too into the Native American urban legends over Thanksgiving break...

Who hasn't heard the legend that Native Americans sold Manhattan to the Dutch for $24 worth of glass beads?
Picture
A Dutch West India Company representative sent a missive home in 1626:
They have purchased the Island of Manhattes from the savages for the value of 60 Guilders.
Ahh, those gullible "savages."  Tricked out of their land by shiny objects!
And now GBE is offering MORE for those eager savages... err... landowners who sign a voluntary easement to allow construction of GBE on their land!
Picture
That's right!  In addition to 20% of GBE's valuation of your easement property, you will also receive a pair of work gloves and a hat that you probably won't want to wear out in public as their amazing "Thank You" gift! 

Not available in stores!  Call now!  Operators are standing by!
Seriously?  Invenergy thinks that landowners who have resisted all their efforts to negotiate the sale of an easement will be swayed to do so now by a pair of gloves and a hat that's likely to spawn numerous arguments with friends and neighbors when worn?

Perhaps they need to hire someone for a few late nite infomercials?  Might I suggest this guy?
1 Comment

Grain Belt Express Admits It Plans To Change Project

1/10/2021

1 Comment

 
In a recent letter to landowners, Invenergy admits that it is PLANNING to change its Grain Belt Express project:
Grain Belt Express has announced a proposed plan to increase the project's delivery capacity for Kansas and Missouri consumers.
This is a PLAN to change the project that was permitted by the Missouri PSC.  Invenergy admits that it will have to get this CHANGED PLAN approved by the PSC.
Grain Belt Express will be seeking regulatory approval for this plan...
But not yet.  Right now Invenergy has been telling the PSC that it hasn't decided to change the project yet and therefore can continue to operate under the existing permit.  Is that like asking your Mom if you can have a cookie after you've cleaned out the cookie jar?  The PSC isn't in the business of permitting projects after the fact... a utility project must be permitted before it begins activities.  Perhaps this is why the PSC has decided to hold a hearing on whether the changed Grain Belt Express project is no longer in compliance with the permit it was issued?

What other silly things does this letter say?
Increased Local Delivery to Kansas and Missouri
As you may be aware from recent news, Grain Belt Express has announced a proposed plan to increase the project's delivery capacity for Kansas and Missouri consumers. For many years before lnvenergy Transmission acquired the project, local stakeholders called for more of Grain Belt's power to be delivered locally. This plan makes sense as demand for clean energy has grown in Kansas and Missouri. For the first time, this would open the option for Kansans to benefit from energy produced in-state, and in Missouri, it would expand access beyond the 39 communities across the state that are already contracted to receive service from the line.
Under this plan, up to 2,500 megawatts of Grain Belt's 4,000-megawatt capacity would be delivered to Kansas and Missouri consumers, who would see up to $7 billion in energy cost savings over 20 years. This requires expanding the already-approved converter station in northeast Missouri, which would double the overall economic investment in Missouri to approximately $1 billion.
Local stakeholders called for increased local delivery of power from GBE?  Where?  When?  I don't recall that ever happening.  In fact, as far as the public is aware, GBE has failed to find "local" customers for all of its originally offered 500MW of delivery to Missouri.  That doesn't sound like a call for more local delivery.  It actually sounds like a call for LESS local delivery.

And the logic here is even worse... "local" delivery to Kansas would be effected by shipping power from Kansas to Missouri, and then back to Kansas?  Does Invenergy know how stupid that sounds?  Local delivery of power to Kansas would be most efficiently done on existing transmission.  You don't need GBE for that. 

Another problem with this "plan" is that GBE is a merchant transmission project (at least according to its current permits) that would negotiate service with voluntary customers.  If the "local" customers don't sign up for service, they receive none of it.  The customers of GBE would be distribution utilities that in turn sell electric service to retail customers.  There is no new "option" for Kansans to sign up for service individually.  They are captive consumers of whatever their electric provider decides to to, and  GBE has not revealed any voluntary wholesale customers, aside from a few municipalities who purchased "up to" 250MW of service (which is half of what was originally offered by GBE).  Where's the customers, Invenergy?

Expanding the converter station?  Has that been approved by the regional grid operator?  The grid operator must engage in numerous studies to determine how much power may be injected into the existing transmission grid by GBE.  Changing 500 MW to 2500 MW is going to be a significant increase in power.  It's going to require certain changes and upgrades to the existing grid, and Invenergy is going to have to pay for them all.  Perhaps Invenergy is planning to inject its power elsewhere on the grid?  The feasibility of expanding the converter station has not been made public.
Grain Belt Express will be seeking regulatory approval for this plan, which would also allow for project construction to proceed prior to approval in Illinois. In the meantime, as the proposed changes do not affect the approved route, project development activities are proceeding based on existing regulatory approvals.
Invenergy is going to ask for permission to build only a portion of the transmission line?  But GBE told the PSC that the economic feasibility of the line was premised on selling service to utilities in the eastern PJM grid at a much higher price, and in order to do that, GBE must be connected in Indiana.  Without the leg through Illinois, the project is not economically feasible.  Is Invenergy going to build a road to nowhere and hope that things come together later?  Doesn't sound very plausible, does it?  Invenergy would have a lot of explaining to do at the PSC before it got approved to do that.  In addition, GBE's Kansas permit requires approval in Illinois before it can build the project in Kansas.  Looks like two states would have to approve the road to nowhere.
In Kansas and Missouri, Grain Belt has moved from monopole to steel lattice structures, resulting in more compensation for landowners per structure.
Oh, please!  It's not about more compensation for landowners, it's because lattice structures are CHEAPER for Invenergy to build!  And why was it that lattice structures were compensated at three times the price of monopoles?  Because they're more invasive and take up more ground and are harder to work around.  Save the drama for your mama, Invenergy!
Grain Belt Express, along with its land partner, Contract Land Staff ("CLS"), is in active dialogue with landowners along the route as our team continues to sign voluntary easements in Kansas and Missouri. Thank you to those who have signed agreements to date. We value open conversations with landowners and landowners' attorneys to provide timely, accurate, and useful information that will allow you to make the best decisions regarding your land.
Voluntary.  All easements are voluntary.  So is "dialogue" with CLS land agents.  Thank you for signing an easement?  Did this letter really go out to landowners who have already signed voluntary easements?  Or was that some glaring attempt to make landowners believe they have missed the bandwagon if they have not signed up?  If so, that's pretty insulting to the intelligence of landowners.
Our goal is to secure all easements voluntarily and to make informed facility design decisions
related to your property. That is possible only with open communication. If we have attempted to contact you and we have not yet reached you or your legal representative, please contact your CLS representative at your earliest convenience.
Is Invenergy saying they have not yet made "facility design decisions" for the project?  I find that rather hard to believe.  It looks more like an attempt to get landowners to believe they can change the design of the project if they only call now.  Operators are standing by...

And then there's this.  I laughed so hard I gagged... and almost threw up.  Positive Energy?  Didn't the wheels fall off that when Invenergy rolled it out?  Who hasn't read all about it?
Positive Energy: Pass it Along
Finally, 2020 has brought some significant challenges to the world. We believe that Positive Energy is needed now more than ever. Grain Belt will bring affordable power for families and businesses, jobs for workers, and local investment in school districts, and public services - that's positive energy. With everything going on in 2020, we want to pass along positive energy to you, and hope you do the same. These days we all need it.
I don't know about Positive Energy... but I am positively revolted at GBE.  Is Invenergy positively lying to the PSC?  Is Invenergy positively negotiating with landowners under false pretenses when it negotiates for a different project than the one it has permitted?  Let's hope the PSC positively gets to the bottom of this!
Picture
1 Comment

"Clean Energy" and New Transmission Will Triple Your Electric Bill

1/10/2021

0 Comments

 
It's about time for a little honesty, isn't it?

The greenwashers like to claim that switching to "clean energy" will save you money on your electric bill.  If you don't think too much about it, you might believe it.  And if you take it on blind faith, you'd think you support a switch to "clean energy," right?  That's what you're supposed to think.

But, look at this:
In this scenario, a zero-carbon electricity system would drive wholesale power costs of about $90 per megawatt-hour on average. That’s roughly three times higher than typical average prices today, but still much less than the estimated $135 per megawatt-hour for reaching zero-carbon in a system limited to state-by-state action alone. 
It's not actually cheaper.  It's just cheaper than what it will cost you if they don't try to mitigate their "clean energy" deal with trillions of dollars of new transmission (possibly in your back yard).  That's like saying "I will mitigate cutting off your hand by giving you a band-aid afterwards."  Or "I will grease the stick before I jam it up your nose."  That makes it all better, right?  If we only promise to mitigate the injury, it's just like the injury never even happened.  They don't tell you about the actual injury, just about what it will look like with mitigation.

Except you're still going to be looking at a monthly electric bill that's THREE TIMES more than you're paying now. 

I can't afford that.  Can you?
0 Comments

Will The Public Actually Get To Participate At FERC?

1/10/2021

0 Comments

 
If you don't know "WTF" FERC does, should you participate in its proceedings?

Not knowing "WTF" FERC does hasn't stopped self-appointed "consumer advocates" like Public Citizen from weighing in at FERC on numerous proceedings in recent memory... and losing.

Now Public Citizen is all excited that Congress has directed FERC to submit a report with a plan for an Office of Public Participation.  Let's hope Public Citizen is first in line to learn exactly "WTF" FERC does so that it could do better in the future and quit wasting FERC's time with complaints that go no where.  But it seems more like Public Citizen is more excited about being first in line to score some public funding for its bleary and uninspired FERC filings.  They sure do spend a lot of time talking about funding in this article.  And they've sure spent a lot of time talking about the funding in the past.

But what has Congress done?  If you search for "Office of Public Participation" in the actual legislation, you get nada.  It's only in the "Explanatory Statement" that the office arises.  It says:
FERC is directed to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act a report detailing how it will establish and operate the Office of Public Participation required under section 319 of the Federal Power Act, beginning in fiscal year 2022. As part of the report, FERC shall provide an organizational structure and budget for the office sufficient to carry out its statutory obligations. The report shall assume that funding for the Office of Public Participation will be derived through annual charges and filing fees as authorized by the Federal Power Act and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986.
Oh, a report.  It doesn't actually establish the office.  That was done back in 1978, but it never happened because there was no funding.  Now Congress says FERC should assume the funding will be provided by charging fees to the entities it regulates, which is where FERC gets all its funding.  FERC's annual budget is recovered from the entities it regulates through fees.  FERC actually costs taxpayers nothing.  So, if additional funding is needed for this office, the fees must increase, or other spending must be decreased.  How much bellyaching is there going to be about funding?

And what exactly is an "explanatory statement" and why does it matter?
The intent of an “Explanatory Statement,” sometimes called “Report Language” is to emphasize, or clarify “Legislative Language.” All Divisions shall comply with the directives, reporting requirements, instructions and allocations within the specified time frames unless specifically addressed to the contrary in their particular Division “Explanatory Statement.” The Executive Branch of the Government could choose to ignore Directives. Rarely do Government Agencies fail to comply as they may face substantial repercussions.

So there is no new legislation.  The legislation remains as it was in 1978.
(a)
(1) There shall be an office in the Commission to be known as the Office of Public Participation (hereinafter in this section referred to as the “Office”).
(2)
(A) The Office shall be administered by a Director. The Director shall be appointed by the Chairman with the approval of the Commission. The Director may be removed during his term of office by the Chairman, with the approval of the Commission, only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
(B) The term of office of the Director shall be 4 years. The Director shall be responsible for the discharge of the functions and duties of the Office. He shall be appointed and compensated at a rate not in excess of the maximum rate prescribed for GS–18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5.
(3) The Director may appoint, and assign the duties of, employees of such Office, and with the concurrence of the Commission he may fix the compensation of such employees and procure temporary and intermittent services to the same extent as is authorized under section 3109 of title 5.
(b)
(1) The Director shall coordinate assistance to the public with respect to authorities exercised by the Commission. The Director shall also coordinate assistance available to persons intervening or participating or proposing to intervene or participate in proceedings before the Commission.
(2) The Commission may, under rules promulgated by it, provide compensation for reasonable attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, and other costs of intervening or participating in any proceeding before the Commission to any person whose intervention or participation substantially contributed to the approval, in whole or in part, of a position advocated by such person. Such compensation may be paid only if the Commission has determined that--
(A) the proceeding is significant, and
(B) such person’s intervention or participation in such proceeding without receipt of compensation constitutes a significant financial hardship to him.

(3) Nothing in this subsection affects or restricts any rights of any intervenor or participant under any other applicable law or rule of law.
(4) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy to be used by the Office for purposes of compensation of persons under the provisions of this subsection not to exceed $500,000 for the fiscal year 1978, not to exceed $2,000,000 for the fiscal year 1979, not to exceed $2,200,000 for the fiscal year 1980, and not to exceed $2,400,000 for the fiscal year 1981.
It's not really a cash register for public participation.  Here's the thing... in order to be compensated, you have to win, and you have to substantially contribute to that win.  However, you'd have to spend the money up front without knowing whether or not you'd win.  Then you'd have to make a case why your participation was a hardship AFTER you'd spent the money to participate.  I can understand why a landowner affected by an energy project would be able to make that case, but some public interest group would not.  Therefore, it's NOT a fountain of funding for groups like Public Citizen.  But I kind of get the feeling that these groups are going to whine and cavort until they get their piece of the pie.

Public funding for intervenors sounds like a really good thing.  However, it rarely is, in practice.  Friends in Wisconsin tell me that the available public funding for intervention at the state Public Service Commission is regularly scooped up by various "public interest groups" who participate in the case TO SUPPORT THE UTILITY!  Landowners affected by the proposed energy project rarely receive funding for their efforts.  This isn't an opportunity to give affected people a voice in the process, it's a cash cow for sophisticated groups who have experience scoring grants and other free cash available for those who know how to write applications for free cash.

My expectations for FERC's Office of Public Participation?  If it ever gets off the ground, it will serve funding-savvy public interest groups, and not the disenfranchised folks on the front lines of the energy war.  They will still not know "WTF" FERC does, and will have no recourse but to continue their efforts to simply shout at FERC and disrupt its meetings.  What a complete waste of time and money.
0 Comments

Might I Suggest Schadenfreude Stadium?

1/5/2021

0 Comments

 
Try though I did to resist gawking at the train wreck that is FirstEnergy these days simply because it's a giant distraction, I simply couldn't resist the belly laugh I got from this article that suggested renaming the Cleveland stadium "Company A Stadium."
That's right... Cleveland gets to be embarrassed for another 10 years by having its football stadium named for a company mired in dirty deals.  Renaming the stadium gives me the giggles (and endless opportunities).  However, instead of focusing on the company, and creative names for it (WorstEnergy, Perpetual Estimate, or the ever popular FirstInfluence) might I suggest we focus on its victims?  Because that's who's thoroughly enjoying the schadenfreude oozing out of this spectacle... Schadenfreude Stadium.  It even has that kicky alliterative punch.  And who doesn't enjoy watching the Browns get their butt kicked on their home turf?  If only football could be influenced by corporate cash, lobbyists and front groups...

The schadenfreude is already thick at the stadium.  The "deal" to put FirstEnergy's name on the stadium was mired in muck from the very beginning.  Fired FirstEnergy CEO Chuck Jones (at the time merely a CEO in waiting) demonstrated for everyone who would listen that FirstEnergy's influence was vast... and he seemed rather proud of it.  Was this the beginning of the end for FirstEnergy?  While FirstEnergy's Empire of Influence had been going strong for decades, previous CEOs like "Tony the Trickster" Alexander didn't parade that stuff out in public like Chatty Chuck.  Chatty Chuck seemed to prefer the transparency of everyone knowing just how powerful he was.  Was it arrogance?  Or mere stupidity?  We may never know, but one thing's for sure.... First Energy's influencing days seem to be over for now.  Or else they're just going to have to get a little more cloak and dagger in carrying it out.

There are several audits of the company and its affiliates going on in two different states, in addition to the federal investigation that was made public last year.  Ohio regulators are looking into FirstEnergy's political and charitable expenditures.  The New Jersey BPU recently decided to open an audit of FirstEnergy's subsidiary in that state after its credit was downgraded.

Pardon the sickening simile, but FirstEnergy is like a giant boil that just got lanced... and all kinds of unspeakable things are leaking out of it.  One might be surprised if they didn't know better.  But for those who have been victims of FirstEnergy's Empire of Influence, its a schadenfreude shindig!

A new report claims that FirstEnergy funded a front group that attacked Cleveland Public Power last year.  The group, Consumers Against Deceptive Fees, claimed to be an "advocate" for CPP customers, although it was funded by FirstEnergy.  What reason would FirstEnergy have to spend money "advocating" for the customers of another utility?  Competitive ones, perhaps, but not "advocacy" ones.  Just another expensive front group funded by FirstEnergy, pretending to be an organic "grassroots" uprising of the people, although it is unlikely any unaffiliated "consumers" were involved.

FirstEnergy should stop with the front groups.  They rarely succeed... and they're quite expensive.  Who's paying for all this?  That's what the Ohio Consumers Council wanted to know in the Ohio case... did any of FirstEnergy's influencing costs end up in consumer electric bills?  Of course, FirstEnergy objected to answering.

How long can FirstEnergy continue to pretend the company had no idea how much influence was being purchased to support its money-making schemes?  And when will state regulators in the other states FirstEnergy serves launch their own canoes into FirstEnergy's river of filth?  Sounds like it may soon be time for a hostile takeover of certain FirstEnergy fiefdoms, either piecemeal, or swallowed whole by one of its fiercest competitors who may want to increase its own utility empire.

If Cleveland renames its football stadium Schadenfreude Stadium, I might even be tempted to visit.  Not to watch a game, however, but to soak up the schadenfreude.  I probably won't be alone.

0 Comments

    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

    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
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.