Back in 2005, Congress passed sweeping reform to federal energy law that became known as the Energy Policy Act of 2005.  A portion of this act was a knee-jerk response to the northeast blackout that occurred in 2003.  The blackout was caused by an overloaded transmission line in Ohio owned by FirstEnergy that got so hot it sagged into a tree that shouldn't have been on or near the right-of-way.  Compounding this error, FirstEnergy employees had turned off important warning software in its control room, so it was unaware that a fault had occurred on its line.  Because of that, it didn't respond by switching loads, and many other lines, and then generators, tripped off line to protect themselves from the surge caused by the fault.  And the next thing you know, a large portion of the northeast U.S. and Canada was in the dark for many hours.  It was reported that FirstEnergy didn't even know there was a problem until the lights went off in its control room.

One of the fixes Congress designed to prevent this happening again was what became codified as Section 219 of the EPAct.  Sec. 219 tasked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with devising a rule to create financial incentives for transmission development.  FERC did so, and began awarding financial incentives to new transmission projects.  This increased utility willingness to build transmission by making such investment financially lucrative.  Of course, the cost of these incentives got tacked onto electric bills of consumers.  FERC wasn't handing out taxpayer money, FERC was handing out YOUR money.

In 2011, FERC issued a Notice of Inquiry to review its transmission incentives policy.  Hundreds of comments were filed by utilities, trade organizations, regulators, investors, environmental groups, and others, including a small group of organizations opposed to the PATH transmission project.  What came out of that review was a new policy statement from FERC in 2012 that maybe slowed things down a little, but not enough.  As time passes, this train speeds up when nobody is paying attention.

In March of this year, FERC issued another inquiry to review its transmission incentives policy.  Initial comments are due today.

This time, an even bigger group of consumer organizations (18 signatories from 14 different states) filed initial comments on FERC's inquiry.

You may read the comments here.

Consumer organizations use Sec. 219 as their touchstone in the comments.  If an idea for an incentive is not in the statute, out it goes.  Some of the ideas proposed by FERC are new incentives for big, new,  interregional transmission projects, incentives for big, new, transmission that "unlocks constrained resources", incentives for public utilities that participate in non-public utility transmission projects, automatic award of incentives without regulatory review, and other bad ideas that will cost consumers a lot of money with little reward.  FERC will also be looking at changing its current policy restricting incentives to new transmission to make incentives available for the upgrade of existing transmission.  Some good ideas may come out of this review yet.

In addition, the Consumer Organizations review FERC's current buffet of incentives and make recommendations for beneficial change.

The consumer organizations also let FERC know what it's really like to have new transmission and energy projects imposed on communities.  It's a view they can't see from their DC office building.  We've all been through the trenches of battling unneeded transmission.  Some of the organizations have been successful, and projects have been withdrawn, cancelled, or altered.  Some are still fighting.  When we come together to speak with a common voice we leverage our successes and prepare for the battles ahead.  While many voices will be heard at FERC, ours will be the only one from actual consumers who pay for transmission incentives.  Without our participation, it's just a bunch of self-interested entities claiming they speak for us.  Now they don't have to (and if they do, nobody will believe them).  Without our voice, FERC is likely to expand its incentives in order to encourage even more transmission!

Why does this matter?  Because what FERC does after reviewing comments can either encourage more unneeded transmission for profit purposes, or put the brakes on bad policy that gives away our money in exchange for transmission ideas of little value to consumers.  FERC has jurisdiction over interstate transmission planning and rates.  It does not have jurisdiction over transmission siting and permitting.  Only states have that authority.  So while FERC may make transmission highly profitable with incentives, it lacks the jurisdiction to get it built.  FERC can only spend our money, not permit or site new projects.  Giving away our money is not a substitute for the jurisdiction FERC lacks.

And just like last time, everybody who stands to profit from transmission incentives has an opinion that protects or furthers their own financial interests.  You can read other comments on the docket here.  Enter PL19-3 in the Docket Number field, and then click "submit" at the bottom.  This will bring up a long list of all comments filed.  Click on any one of them to read it.  And while you're reading, here's a little mood music...

Innovation... isn't it wonderful?  In the wake of several long-distance transmission failures, some transmission developers are getting smarter.  New long-distance transmission on new right-of-way is a non-starter.  No matter where proposed, landowner and community opposition forms.  Nobody wants this intrusion on their property, especially when they receive no benefit from it.  The only way new long-distance transmission is going to happen is without new rights-of-way.

Last year, we examined SOO Green Renewable Rail's proposal to bury new transmission on existing railroad rights of way.  It seemed like a good idea.

Recently, an even better idea has surfaced.  Shipping the electricity itself by rail.  Basically, it's the storage of electricity in rail cars at its generation source, which are then dispatched to places where the electricity will be used.  Unlike a fixed transmission line between Point A and Point B, this new idea is completely flexible and can be dispatched anywhere as need arises.  No new rights-of-way, no wires, no stranded investment when the need for transmission changes, no fire danger, no community impacts.  No transmission line is needed at all!

The company proposing this revolutionary new way to move energy filed a petition at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission asking to declare its plan "transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce" and grant it public utility status so that it may compete in RTO transmission planning processes.

And then all hell broke loose.

I mean, what if transmission of the future didn't include any wires, any towers, any rights-of-way, any fixed assets that depreciate over their useful life while earning a generous return?  That would be a huge blow to investor owned utilities, who see transmission as a profit center.

Multiple entities intervened and filed protests, including transmission trade group Edison Electric Institute, who whined that without wires (oh, those lovely profit-producing wires!) it's just not transmission.

Alternative Transmission Inc. (ATI) filed an answer to all that sound and fury signifying nothing the other day.  Go ahead, read it, references to Nikola Tesla and all.

May the ghost of Tesla haunt you and zap your cafeteria coffee maker into useless oblivion, EEI.  Innovation is the future, even if we have to drag you into it, kicking and screaming the whole way.  If the electric transmission industry does not evolve, it's headed for Dinosaur Land.

Meow, ladies and gents.

In a totally unsurprising move yesterday, the Kansas Corporation Commission approved the settlement between KCC Staff and Invenergy/Clean Line that green lights the sale of Grain Belt Express.

Last night, I had a dream.

And then I woke up and realized that none of that actually happened... at least not that the public knows about.

Soooooo.... Invenergy has all the approvals it needs to build Grain Belt Express in Kansas and Missouri, but it doesn't have a customer. 

Or does it?

It sure was awful quiet in the wake of the KCC approval.

Another 6 weeks of blissful summer limbo before

Transmission companies are terrible copycats.  When one of them comes up with some really stupid argument to support their proposed transmission project, others soon follow.  Mostly, this is just entertainment. 

Except for this... this one is just plain dangerous, both to the humans forced to live with transmission lines built across their farms using eminent domain, and to the rest of us who like reliable electricity and pay the costs of transmission in our electric bills.

The stupid argument goes like this... hypothetical U$ele$$ Transmission project will only take 12 acres out of agricultural production, if built!  (Or 9 acres, or even less than 1 acre).  This is calculated using the area of all proposed tower bases.  This assumes that farmers can farm right up to the base of the tower.  I'm talking snugly right up to the base, without any gap between the tower and the crop whatsoever.

Not only is this a lie, it risks safety and reliability of the transmission line. 

This happened last week.

A farmer tried to farm right up to the base of this transmission tower.  Slight miscalculation, and down it came, trapping the farmer in his tractor.  Luckily no one was hurt.  But who owns liability?  Who is going to pay to repair the tower and lines?  What if the resulting power outage caused damage to some other third party?  Is it the transmission company's fault because they made public statements urging the farmer to work right up to the base of the tower?  Or is it the farmer's fault because he actually tried to do so?

And this isn't a one-time event.  These kinds of collisions between farm equipment and transmission towers happen all the time.  In some instances, farmers have been sued for damages.  It's probably NOT a good idea to try to keep land in production right up to the base of the transmission tower.  A cautious farmer will give that thing a wide berth, causing a much bigger loss of productive farm ground than that bandied about during regulatory hearings.

The claim that the 500-mile Rock Island Clean Line would only take 12 acres out of production was ridiculous, and thankfully that project has been abandoned without being built.  But then the Grain Belt Express transmission line owned by Invenergy claimed that only 9 acres would be removed from production.  And the Missouri PSC repeated that same stupidity in its order approving the project.  Now American Electric Power's Transource IEC project is making similar claims, testifying to PSC Commissioners in Maryland last week that less than an acre will be taken out of production if the project is built.  It's not some silly public relations hogwash anymore.  Now it's documented, on the record.  If these projects are built (and that's a big IF), the transmission owner (and the Missouri PSC) should be held liable for any future transmission tower crashes.  Their stupid contentions that farmers can work right up to the base of a tower shift liability in a big way.

I'm still waiting for the transmission tower/farm equipment rodeo to happen, where transmission company executives and PSC Commissioners stand in the middle of a field and pretend to be transmission towers.  Farmers will compete with their equipment (some as big as the houses these people towers live in) to see how close they can come to the people towers without the people towers flinching, screaming, wetting their pants, and making a run for it.  When transmission developer big mouths and PSC Commissioners are willing to participate in such a rodeo, then they can make all the claims about loss of productive land that they want.

But I'm guessing they won't want to.

This stupid lie needs to be retired.  It's only repeated by stupid people.

First there was Illinois.  Then there was Iowa.  Then there were Kansas and Missouri, soon followed by Arkansas and Oklahoma, and a different part of Illinois.  The opposition to Clean Line Energy Partners projects grew organically over several years until three of its five projects were fiercely opposed by landowners along the route, dug in for the long haul.  We kept waiting to be joined by landowner opposition to the other two Clean Line projects, Centennial West and Western Spirit.  But those two Clean Line projects never seemed to get off the ground, and affected landowners remained blissfully unaware.

Until now.

Remember last month when Michael Skelly claimed Pattern was using a "new model" to develop Western Spirit?  Looks like the same old model to me.

Merchant transmission project of little necessity designs route through the farms of local residents without their input or knowledge.  Opposition is born.

It's not about the owner, it's about the "model."  Nobody wants a transmission line encroaching on their home or business, and even less so for a "clean" transmission line whose only purpose is to transmit "clean" energy to replace the totally adequate energy currently powering some far away city.  There's no benefit for the landowners.  Easement payments are an attempt to compensate landowners for land rights taken from them.  It's not a financial windfall for the landowner.

But can companies other than the failed Clean Line Energy Partners actually build these kinds of projects?  My money is on "NO."  Long-distance transmission for renewables is a non-starter.

Fight on, folks, fight on.

What did Invenergy's spokesbarbie have to say about yesterday's MO PSC approval of its purchase of Grain Belt Express from defunct developer Clean Line Energy Partners?

Well, isn't that interesting.  Invenergy says it has all the approvals it needs to proceed with the project.  Of course, Kansas is still lagging, but we all know a little vanilla panna cotta goes a long way in Kansas.

But what about Illinois?  Invenergy kept up its farce about building the originally envisioned project throughout the regulatory processes in Missouri and Kansas.  Well, sorta.  That's what they said they intended to do, but they were skillful about conditions that didn't rope them into doing so.  A little new siting and bingo bango, we've got a whole new project in Missouri and Kansas that doesn't require a permit from Illinois at all.  And it's all perfectly legal.  What a bunch of dopes these regulatory commissions are turning out to be.

Take note that only the media dredges up the need for a permit in Illinois.  Invenergy doesn't mention it.  Didn't any reporter think what Beth said was odd when compared to the fact they reported about an Illinois permit?  Didn't anyone think to question her about that conflict?

So, what's next?  The big announcement.  We should see that within 30 days or so.

Almost...

CMP has been acting really crazy lately.  I mean really out there.  Unbelievable.  Totally nuts!

How can they expect that sane and logical people are being influenced to support their project while watching this crazy circus?

Watch this.

CMP sent out a glossy postcard last year promising 3500 new jobs if its NECEC transmission project is built.  Last week, they sent the same glossy postcard promising only 1600 new jobs.  The new postcard also changed the purported "investment" in Maine's economy into a totally different number "injected" into Maine's economy.

Original:  "NECEC will change this with close to a $1Billion investment in Maine's economy and support of 3500 jobs."

Revised:  "NECEC will change this with close to $573 million injected into Maine's economy and support of 1,600 jobs."

The postcards also differ with the name of the website recipients can visit "to learn more."  The original tells recipients to visit "3500mainejobs.com"  The revised version tells recipients to visit "goodformaine.org"

How bad is it when your revamping of your PR program makes your original website obsolete?  (Note, visiting the original redirects to the revised).  Does CMP think people are stupid?  That they have no memory at all?

Geez, CMP, your PR contractor completely screwed this up!  You weren't supervising them at all, were you?  Or maybe you were too busy fighting off the Russians?

Facebook group Say No to NECEC reports:

Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be any transcript or intense power point featuring Boris and Natasha, just a report from a person who attended and listened to the crazy.

Somebody seems to be cracking up here.

To underscore this, listen to Thorn's excuse for the inconsistent postcards, when he insists that was an "on purpose."

"Anyone familiar with this project and Maine's approval process."  Was this the target of the postcards?  Judging by their wide circulation, I don't think so.  They weren't sent to "anyone," but to "everyone," even those unfamiliar with this project and Maine's approval process.  This is the epitome of stepped in it.

What a clown!  Oops, I meant клоун.

When I'm done laughing hysterically at this ridiculous circus, I'm probably going to conclude that CMP is making crap up as it goes along.  And nobody is buying it.

Who's paying for this comedy?

This article "suggests" that a new Order 1000 proceeding could be coming at FERC.

Why is FERC so frustrated that its Order No. 1000 isn't working as intended?  What was it intended to do, anyhow?

Well, there we go.  FERC issued an order intended to expand transmission.  Except FERC has no jurisdiction over actually doing so.  Transmission siting and permitting, which is the ultimate word on actually expanding transmission, is state jurisdictional.  Individual state utility commissions make this decision.  Even if FERC got down on its knees and begged transmission developers to build more transmission, FERC cannot control state decision making.

FERC has jurisdiction over interstate transmission rates.  It has chosen to use that jurisdiction to entice transmission development with financial rewards.  Except financial reward does not substitute for FERC's missing jurisdiction.  Financial rewards for new transmission doesn't influence state utility commission decisions on need and siting.  Perhaps they may even have a detrimental effect by overpricing the transmission project.

And here's another fact about the effect of Order No. 1000 and FERC's efforts to expand the transmission system without siting and permitting authority:

FERC has awarded transmission incentives exclusively to new transmission after directed by Congress to develop incentives in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.  It's more profitable to build new transmission than it is to upgrade existing lines, therefore the result is new transmission connected to old lines.

This article blathers on incessantly about something completely unrelated and totally un-newsworthy.  Competitive transmission.  We're still talking about new transmission.  That doesn't fix the old lines connected to it.

Wow, a competitive transmission builder paid for a "study" that found the conclusion they wanted... that competition to build new transmission saves money for consumers.  But how much money could the consumers actually save if old lines were upgraded to do more?  Re-building existing lines is cheaper and faster.  Shouldn't re-builds be competing against new transmission, instead of new transmission builders competing against themselves?

The most FERC can do is monkey with Order No. 1000 to make new transmission more competitive.  It still doesn't have authority to make transmission happen.  Whether it's financial incentives, transmission planning, transmission competition, or other things in FERC's jurisdiction stable, it's just a lot of expensive busy work.  Without authority to site and permit new transmission, FERC's gun is loaded with blanks.

It's not that FERC hasn't tried to take jurisdiction over electric transmission siting and permitting.  It's that Congress has resisted all its efforts, preferring to leave this piece of the energy pie with states who are familiar with their own needs and people.  And that's probably a good idea.  How hard is it for affected landowners to have a voice in their own state?  Imagine that removed to Washington, DC.  Affected landowners and consumers wouldn't have a voice at all because it is not only geographically removed, but overly expensive to participate as well.

How bad is our existing transmission system, where 70% of the system is over 25 years old?  Transmission lines are paid for over an expected useful life of 40 years.  Many of these lines are young yet as far as usefulness goes.  As well, utilities are expected to meet rigorous reliability standards to keep the system working.  Age is not the defining factor in system reliability.  These knuckleheads who like to whine about the age of the transmission system love to quote the American Society of Civil Engineers' annual report card on infrastructure.  As if this means anything.  Go ahead, read the latest.  It's presumptive fluff with no factual basis.  It's opinion.  It's self-serving dreck.  Well, gosh, a bunch of civil engineers whose continued livelihood depends on building new infrastructure think we should build more.  Stunning.  Stunningly biased, I mean.

Likewise, how influenced is FERC by the utilities who make their money building new transmission, whether we need it or not?  Why is FERC so determined to expand the transmission system?  We're not talking about reliability, that's handled by NERC.  What possible reason is there aside from reliability?  Growing demand for renewable generation?  This isn't FERC's bailiwick.  FERC cannot pick and choose between generation sources in order to discriminate against certain ones, in favor of others.  That's a political function.  FERC isn't a political creature (at least it's not supposed to be).  It's a regulator.  Regulators enforce laws created by legislators.  Legislators are the ones who wrestle with political things when creating laws.

So, hey, maybe FERC will re-open Order No. 1000 for public comment.  Won't that be fun?

He won The World Cup of Failure!

He's also "Out of the Game."
"Exhibiting new regrets."
Unable to "win the World Cup of transmission."
"Not in the mood."
and he's also
"Still high."

I see.

Don't you just wish this guy would go away?  That's probably what the energy industry thinks, too... retire, go spend your millions, take a bike ride, Mikey old boy.

RTO Insider found Skelly still trying to be relevant and trade on some former glory at AWEA's government cadger convention.

Skelly claims to be "happy."  This is what happy looks like.  Go see.

And Skelly is still serving up the senseless blather.  Trying to sound important.  Trying to sound cool.  Trying to sound smarter than everyone else in the room.  And, of course, he fails again.  Let's consider this gem:

Service folks?  Are we talking about the folks who clean Skelly's pool, grease his bicycle chain, and scrub the Firehouse toilets?  Or are we talking about active duty military and military veterans, a favorite target of Skelly's former eminent domain threats?  Or are we talking about state public service commissions, who rarely serve the public, using a little bit of truthful shorthand -- service folks for the industry?  Does this even make any sense, any sense at all?

A "supply chain" of folks?  As in folks are meant to be used up and disposed of?  That right there tells you all you need to know about Michael Skelly.

"Really know how to do these things?"  What?  Is Skelly implying that he really does NOT know how to do these things?  What things are we talking about?  Humility?  Empathy?  Grace?  Thinking up stupid ideas and then spending $200M of other people's money trying to make them happen, long after a sane person using his own money would have withdrawn?

This whole quote makes little sense.  But you're supposed to think it does, and that it's sheer genius... such genius that you just don't get it because you're stupid.    LOL  Who's stupid now, Michael Skelly?

Here's another Skellyism:

Michael Skelly thought wrong.  And it cost 10 years and $200M.  Maybe someone who didn't think he was Don Quixote would have quit at $100M, or even $50M.  The writing was on the wall much, much sooner, but Skelly pretended not to see it.

Transmission is only hard because "cleaner" or "cheaper" electricity for people who already have reliable power is not compatible with overhead transmission on new rights-of-way using eminent domain.  The ones who find a way to transmit electricity without landowner sacrifice won't find it hard at all.

This statement is nothing more than a bunch of malarkey Skelly uses to excuse away his failure.  But it's still there.  Innovators are using Skelly's failure as a guide for what not to do.

It's not because we weren't "in the mood."  It's not because infrastructure wasn't being built.  It's because Skelly had a half-baked idea that landowners would welcome a transmission line for "clean energy" across their land.  They didn't.  Not only that, but there were no customers that wanted what Skelly was selling.  No big utilities wanted to pay someone else for transmission capacity when they could build and own a profitable transmission line themselves.  These are the lessons of Skelly's failure.

Skelly likes to pretend there was nothing wrong with his business plan.

It's the same old model.  Pattern is just doing it better.  Smarter.  However, they're still a long way from success.  Hopefully they'll quit when it becomes too expensive.  Now that all Skelly's pet projects are in the hands of corporations, failure will come sooner and cheaper.  Corporations don't eat a great, big bowl of Ego Flakes every morning.  It's about dollars and sense, not ego.

So, there you have it, folks!  This is all you get in exchange for years of heartache, sleepless nights, and hundreds of thousands of your hard earned dollars spent fighting off Michael Skelly's ego.

Another inept Skelly sports analogy:  The World Cup of Failure.  Laughing feels good, right?