Blog Archives

Illinois and Michigan Ask Wisconsin to Reject Cardinal-Hickory Creek Transmission Project

7/25/2019

States are now joining forces to fight back against regionally planned transmission lines that don't provide local benefits, and it's about time!

Yesterday, attorneys general from Illinois and Michigan filed an Amicus Brief at the Wisconsin PSC asking for rejection of ATC's Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission project. The states say that they will be collectively paying for 31% of the costs of this project, while testimony at the Wisconsin PSC has shown that the line results in a net loss for ratepayers. In addition, they state that Cardinal-Hickory Creek is part of a package of transmission projects approved by MISO way back in 2011 that no longer serve consumers due to changed circumstances.

While the Mid-Continent Independent System Operator (MISO) approved this project in 2011 as part of its Multi-Value Project portfolio, in the years since 2011, circumstances have changed considerably, requiring additional analysis to avoid an expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars for a line that may not be needed.

The lack of recent peak load growth, associated with the expansion of distributed solar, wind and battery technologies, creates a very different situation from that analyzed in 2011 when the line was originally proposed. It is necessary to consider recent alternatives to determine whether the transmission line is needed.

Just like fish, transmission plans begin to stink rather quickly. And one more than 8 years old reeks to high heaven.

When regional planning authorities were new things nearly two decades ago, it may have seemed like a good thing to let some ostensibly impartial regional organization plan and operate the grid, rather than biased utilities. However, these regional planning authorities are driven by their member utilities. Organization into one grid authority simply made utility power stronger. Meanwhile, states may have kowtowed to regional authority planning, believing that it was for benefit of consumers, and no state wanted to shoulder the responsibility of saying "no," on the off chance that rejection of a regionally planned transmission project made the lights go out.

But, the times they are a-changin'.

States are now feeling their power to reject top-down regional plans that don't serve their needs and clash with state policies. Ultimately, states drive transmission policy within their own borders because they possess jurisdiction to site and permit transmission. Regional planners may "order" new transmission projects, but it's a worthless authority because states have the final say. This battle has begun heating up as regional organizations and their regulators at FERC attempt to drive rough-shod over states to force their regional and national plans over individual state priorities.

While individual states are rejecting regionally planned projects within their borders with increasing regularity, what if other states in the region who will merely pay for a project located in another state band together to reject this usurpation of their authority? Are we on the cusp of regional organization rejection by states? Have RTO/ISOs jumped the shark?

With the rise of distributed generation and small-scale renewables, energy planning needs to return to its roots as a local issue.

2 Comments

Condescending Ivy Leaguers who thought they were the smartest people in the room...

7/23/2019

1 Comment

That's how Arkansan Julie Morton described the leadership of Clean Line Energy Partners. And she hit it spot on.

It's about time someone burst Russell Gold's fantasy bubble and told the truth. Telling the truth in inspired fashion has always been Julie's strong suit, and she doesn't mince words in this critique of Gold's inapt telling of the Plains & Eastern Clean Line story.

Say what? There's a book about that? Yes, but don't waste your money. It's 15-minutes is about up and you'll soon find this "treasure" in used book sales, bargain bins, and holding the door open at bookstores all over the place. Not worth any notice, and I haven't wasted my time with it.

Says Morton:

But to her, Skelly’s no hero and Clean Line was never a good idea.

“I didn’t object to how I was presented in the book,” Morton told Arkansas Business. “The opposition was all about the land [and landowners’ right to challenge eminent domain]. But I do have trouble with the second half, and I’m not even sure it should be called nonfiction.”

The author fell victim to what Morton calls the “Skelly spin,” in which Clean Line’s representatives are kind and caring, eager to help landowners, she said. “They must have been Jekyll and Hyde, because they were actually condescending Ivy Leaguers who thought they were the smartest people in the room.”

“So many people in our grassroots movement called legislators,” Morton said. “So many that they asked us to stop calling. That made a difference, and our delegation made a difference. They’re made into villains in the book, but actually, for once, they listened to the people, not the billionaires, and did their job.”

“I told Mr. Gold that this outdated technology, lines on 20-story-tall steel towers, is no longer viable.” She champions the approach of SOO Green Renewable Rail, which plans to ship Midwest wind energy to Eastern markets via underground transmission lines buried along existing railroad tracks. “This would cut out permitting issues and give you just one owner to deal with, and you wouldn’t be putting huge towers across 8,000 acres of our beautiful state.”

And that's all you need to know about that.

1 Comment

The Path of Least Resistance Doesn't Exist

7/23/2019

0 Comments

Here's another transmission battle that's heating up, this time in Florida.

NextEra wants to build a 176-mile transmission project across seven counties in north-central Florida. Finding out WHY they think they need to build this project is elusive. The only thing certain is that NextEra went sneaking around trying to buy rights of way and build its project before opposition developed. The Tallahassee Democrat nipped that plan in the bud, and opposition blossomed. Lots of opposition.

Local governments have been hard on NextEra, and rightly so.

Jefferson County Commission Chair Betsy Barfield was sharper in her opposition to the project.

“This is not an ask. This is ‘we’re tired of messing with you and this is what you need to do,’” she said in an interview. “The utilities, they really are the big gorilla and they’re the ones that think they can run roughshod over everybody. NextEra has not been a good community partner at all.”

Jefferson Commissioner Walker was there but said by that time the company was already far along in developing its plan without input from local officials. He’s driven his proposed route with NextEra's Bryant.

“I showed him the exact route but getting information from them is hard to do. I think they want to take the path of least resistance,” Walker said. “They should have communicated with every county along the way and got our input on it.”

But they didn't. NextEra tried to fly under the radar while selling "benefits" to impacted counties.

Property taxes associated with it could top $17 million in both counties over 30 years, with as much as $960,000 accrued in the first year. During the line's construction, 200 local jobs will be created and business to hotels, restaurants and stores could see an uptick.

Gosh, where have we heard these tired claims before? I know! It's part of every lame transmission project everywhere. And what have we discovered? The tax benefit claims are overblown. Utilities are taxed at different rates on a state level and the distribution of benefits often siphons them away from affected localities. Actual benefits are always less than proffered. But let's look at that claim... $17 million divided by two counties = $8.5M each further divided by 30 years = $283,000 per year per county, further diminished by state utility tax policies. Doesn't sound like much, does it, especially when offset by lowered property tax values for properties affected by the project, who can petition to have their assessed value lowered because of the depreciated value of their properties when crossed by a high voltage power line. These counties would be lucky to break even, tax wise. Oh, but wait! Local jobs will be created by the transient workers on location to build the power line who will stay at local hotels, eat at local restaurants, and shop at local stores. But 200 jobs? It's going to take 200 temporary employees to serve a couple hundred line workers for a few weeks or months, before they move on? This is utterly ridiculous, as transmission company claims usually are.

The county governments proposed a re-route, but NextEra lied about its viability.

NextEra has said the Highway 27 route was not viable because it would require co-locating with Duke Energy, a major utility competitor, and working within Florida Department of Transportation easement restrictions. A path completely down I-10 wasn’t workable because of existing development on private property near Tallahassee.
Barfield said after being told by Tim Bryant, NextEra’s senior manager of external affairs and new development, FDOT had denied their request to use Highway 27, she spoke with agency officials.
“They never told NextEra no, that they couldn’t do that,” she said. “Frankly, I don’t like people lying to us. To straight up lie? That’s just unprofessional and unethical."

FDOT spokesman Ian Satter confirmed NextEra has not approached the agency with plans to consider Highway 27.
“Gulf Power has contacted our department to make us aware they will submit permits to cross state roads,” Satter said.

Oh, no, NextEra, you didn't! You lied to local governments? Lying about the viability of alternative routes doesn't work. Just ask Transource, whose posturing against using existing transmission rights-of-way has pushed the company into the desperate position of trying to settle with opposition to build on those previously "unworkable" routes in order to avoid having its project denied outright. My Magic Eight Ball tells me NextEra may soon find itself in the same position. Seems like NextEra is simply opposed to sharing its golden egg with Duke Energy. Building new transmission is a profit center for utilities, a golden egg of long term riches, where the utility collects a generous return on its investment over the decades of a project's useful life. It's nothing more than a grandiose mortgage, and electric ratepayers are making the payments.

So, what's a company to do when the opposition tiger has escaped its cage and none of the proposed routes are viable? Go underground. If Tallahassee is looking for transmission that can withstand 130-mph winds, how about transmission that can withstand winds of any velocity? NextEra will say it's too expensive to bury the project and ameliorate the opposition. But how much money will it spend, and how much time will it waste, trying to overcome opposition? Where's the tradeoff, where's the sweet spot when the cost of opposition equals the cost of undergrounding? It's about double the cost of the project. If the project is too expensive to be prudent if buried, then maybe it's just not prudent at all.

Keep fighting, Florida!

0 Comments

Another One Bites The Dust

7/23/2019

0 Comments

Good riddance, Northern Pass transmission project. Last week the New Hampshire Supreme Court denied Eversource's appeal of the state Site Evaluation Committee's rejection of the project. The project is dead.

But that didn't stop Eversource's posturing. Eversource did what every annoying transmission project does... searches for "options" to try again. These guys just don't know how to take "no" for an answer.

Eversource, in a statement, said it was “deeply disappointed” with the decision.
“We will closely review the Supreme Court’s decision and evaluate all potential options for moving forward. It’s clear that the need for new energy sources in New England is greater than ever, and we remain focused on innovative solutions that will lower costs for our customers, improve reliability and advance clean energy.”

Ah... give it a rest, Eversource. Northern Pass was a bad idea that you just kept dumping money into way past the point of prudence.

Eversource spent $249 million on Northern Pass through September 2017, including engineering, property purchases, attorney fees and application fees. Eversource was funding the construction through borrowing and stockholder equity.

Won't Eversource have some fancy explaining to do at its upcoming earnings call? What fun!

Meanwhile, second place finisher Central Maine Power continues to lose support for its New England Clean Energy Connect project. But perhaps that's an understatement. It's an opposition wildfire! And these folks aren't backing down... ever.

Here's the thing... "flyover" merchant transmission is a thing of the past. It's a horrible idea that has been shot down over and over again. Flyover merchant transmission is NOT happening. Anywhere.

Why? Flyover merchant transmission proposes to impose on one state or region with new transmission that serves people in other areas, often places that don't want energy infrastructure in their own backyards. Making choices about your own energy use should never visit your choices on others. It's hubris of the highest order. And it leads to nemesis.

If Massachusetts sets "clean energy" goals, it's up to Massachusetts to bear the cost of them within its own borders. Northern Pass is dead. And NECEC is barking at its heels.

0 Comments

Wind Catcher V2.0 - AEP's Shell Game

7/16/2019

0 Comments

AEP announced the big winner of its wind farm + transmission RFP yesterday.

Surprise, surprise, Invenergy gets the prize. But it's not the prize expected. It's not Invenergy's Wind Catcher wind farm in the Oklahoma panhandle, but three smaller Invenergy projects southeast of the panhandle. AEP's RFP was for 2100 MW, but it only awarded not quite 1500. Perhaps that was the limit it could find that fit into its regulatory shell game.

So what is Invenergy going to do with GBE now? Is it really going to continue to search for a customer and sell transmission capacity to its competitors, while going through a very expensive and doomed approval process for GBE in Illinois? Does Invenergy really want to assume the risk and expense of permitting a project that has no potential revenue? That's a Clean Line move, and I don't think Invenergy is that dumb.

So, what is AEP up to? As you may recall, the original Wind Catcher proposal was for a 2,000 MW wind farm in the OK panhandle, plus a generation tie line clear across the state. AEP proposed that the cost of the wind farm and transmission line would save ratepayers money. Regulators in Texas didn't buy that, and citizens in Oklahoma rose up to oppose the transmission line. After Wind Catcher was cancelled, AEP vowed to try again on a smaller scale. It has separated the wind farm purchase from the transmission build, at least for now. Although AEP's RFP called for possible transmission fixes for its wind farm purchases, it carefully chose ones it could pretend didn't need new transmission.

AEP says that it can use existing transmission to move the generation to load from the wind farms selected. Although existing transmission in Oklahoma is pretty congested with wind generation, AEP has a convoluted plan to make do and keep congestion costs to a minimum, at least for now. AEP posits that maybe in 5 years it will have to find another solution to rising congestion costs. AEP suggests that perhaps regional transmission planner Southwest Power Pool will plan and order a new transmission line to solve the congestion issues by that time, but it doesn't say AEP will take any action to make that happen. AEP's second solution would be to build a new generation tie line to connect the wind farms to existing transmission west of Tulsa. This is probably AEP's first goal... to own wind farms and transmission that will be paid for by ratepayers in four states.

Think about it... if AEP can convince regulators that wind farms save consumers money (and without the expense of building a new transmission line, it will be much cheaper and easier to pull off), then it can purchase the wind farms. Once it owns the wind farms, AEP can decide that existing transmission lines it relied on to make the case for the purchase of the wind farms are much too congested to deliver the wind energy to load. Therefore, in order to make the wind farms it purchased cheaper, AEP needs to build a new transmission line for its own use. How could regulators say no at that point, once AEP owns the wind farms? Saying no to new transmission makes the wind farms too expensive, so it's a fait accompli that new transmission must be built to lower congestion costs. It's a ridiculously simple-minded and obvious ploy... a transmission congestion shell game.

Will regulators buy it? Can AEP create enough smoke and mirrors about lack of congestion on existing transmission to convince regulators new transmission won't be needed in the future? The only thing certain here is that if regulators approve the purchase of the wind farms, the cost of a new generation tie line is certain at some point in the future. It will have to be built and there's pretty much no way to stop it at that point. Are state regulators really that short sighted? More importantly, are Okies that easily fooled that they will ignore the wind farm purchases in favor of waiting until transmission once again intrudes into their back yards? By that time, it will be too late to be effective opposing new transmission.

Most importantly, this time AEP isn't holding the risk. I read somewhere that the original Wind Catcher cost AEP around $45M in losses. This time they're not investing anything in a transmission line, and purchase of the wind farms is tied to state approvals. If it doesn't work out, AEP skates, and Invenergy gets left holding the bag on wind farms it built in a congested area, just like the original Wind Catcher.

Hmm... maybe Invenergy isn't too smart after all. Invenergy falls for the same gag every time.

0 Comments

Kansas Kabuki

7/13/2019

1 Comment

Kabuki is a form of traditional Japanese drama with highly stylized song, mime, and dance, using exaggerated gestures and body movements to express emotions, and including historical plays, domestic dramas, and dance pieces. It also describes the stilted drama between the Kansas Corporation Commission staff and out-of-state energy interests Clean Line Energy Partners and Invenergy. The KCC pretends that it is serving Kansans while bending over for the whip of foreign interests and begging for more.

First there was the shameful way Kansans were treated during Clean Line's permitting process for Grain Belt Express in 2013. The only good thing to come out of that was a "Sunset Date" for GBE's permit that required it to begin construction of its transmission line within 5 years or be required to reapply. Although Kansans were tossed under the bus, there was an ending date for their misery. Kansans bravely stuck it out for 5 years. Just when their emancipation was in sight, Clean Line filed a motion to move the goal posts. It asked for a 5-year extension of the Sunset date. Clean Line lied to the KCC about its status and intentions. Outright lied. Clean Line knew full well it was negotiating a sale of the project to Invenergy, while it pretended Clean Line was just as strong as ever. The KCC was a willing participant in this little Kabuki act.

Except someone threw a monkey wrench in the works when longtime GBE opponent Matthew Stallbaumer filed a protest challenging Clean Line's viability and objecting to having the goal post moved ahead another 5 years. It was only after having its hand forced that Clean Line finally admitted to the proposed sale to Invenergy, and the KCC played its part by providing a temporary extension of the Sunset date for one year while Clean Line and Invenergy got their stuff together and applied for KCC approval of the sale in a separate docket.

And then the KCC put on some new costumes for the next act... where Invenergy decided that 5 years just wouldn't be enough time to begin construction of its project and that the deadline was much too clear. Invenergy wanted a 10 year extension cloaked in muddled opacity, but how was it going to get that without making another filing on the permit docket and potentially getting into a battle with Stallbaumer and other intervenors? How could Invenergy change the Sunset date in one docket by activity in another? The landowners who were parties to the original permitting docket have no expertise to oppose the sale of the project and had no place in the sale docket. They were not parties to the sale negotiations or the confidential settlement that took place in that docket. The goal was to change the Sunset date in the other docket without involving landowners. Another act in the drama unfolded...

KCC staff obligingly filed testimony demanding Invenergy acquire a percentage of easements within one year or reapply, as if that had anything at all to do with the sale of the project. If you looked at it from a distance and didn't know any better, it almost looked like the KCC staff had grown a set. But it was sadly out of place... just an act to get the Sunset date introduced into the sale docket so it could be negotiated there without the interference of the landowners affected.

But, of course, Invenergy couldn't agree to the staff's condition and re-shaped and re-wrote it to suit its own purposes, and the KCC staff immediately capitulated and agreed to replace the Sunset date with a bunch of confidential actions that could extend the permit for another 10 years. Only in Kansas can you ask for a 5 year extension, get a 10 year one, and still have the state pretend they're driving a hard bargain that protects landowners. The settlement required the staff to ask the Commissioners to replace the Sunset date in the other docket with the confidential requirements in the sale docket.

And so it is... staff and Invenergy made a filing to replace the Sunset date with a bunch of unclear and confidential requirements in the sale settlement.

Joint Movants request that the Commission issue an order in this proceeding that eliminates the December 2, 2019 Sunset Term and replaces it with the Settlement Deadlines set forth in Paragraph 9.e of the Settlement Agreement.

Those deadlines are:

1. By December 2, 2024, GBE shall have either (i) obtained executed easement agreements, demonstrably commenced negotiations to obtain easements, or instituted proceedings in state district court to obtain easements, or any combination thereof, for at least **-** of the total number of easements
required to construct the Kansas portion of the Project; or (ii) satisfied the Financing Requirement as defined in Paragraph 9.a. hereof. If unable to meet the requirements of the preceding sentence, GBE shall either, at GBE's election: (a) commit to **•••••••••• **; or (b) file for an updated transmission line siting permit under K.S.A. 66-1, 178.
Unless GBE has elected to proceed with an updated transmission line siting permit under K.S.A. 66-1,178 in subsection (b) in the preceding paragraph, by December 2, 2026, GBE shall have either (i) obtained executed easement agreements, demonstrably commenced negotiations to obtain easements, or instituted proceedings in state district court to obtain easements, or any combination thereof, for at least **-** of the total number of easements required to construct the Kansas portion of the Project; or (ii) satisfied the Financing Requirement. If unable to meet the requirements of the preceding sentence, GBE shall either, at GBE's election: (a) commit to ** **; or (b) file for an updated transmission line siting permit under K.S.A. 66-1,178.
Unless GBE has elected to proceed with an updated transmission line siting permit under K.S.A. 66-1,178 in subsection (b) of the preceding paragraph, if by December 2, 2028, the Financing Requirement has not been satisfied or if at least **-** of the total number of easements has not been executed, then GBE agrees to either: (a) file for an updated transmission line siting permit under K.S.A. 66-1,178; or (b) abandon the Project and allow all easements to revert to the landowners.

In its quarterly reports to the Commission, in addition to the information already required, GBE shall provide: (i) the number of Kansas easements obtained; (ii) significant Kansas landowner contacts; (iii) significant outreach events in Kansas; and (iv) significant communications sent to Kansas landowners. Such reports shall continue to be considered confidential; however a public version of the report shall be filed in the compliance docket.

Financing requirement mentioned above:

GBE will not install transmission facilities on easement property in Kansas until it has obtained commitments for funds in an amount equal to or greater than the total cost to build the entirety of this multi-state transmission project ("Financing Requirement"). To allow the Commission to verify compliance with this condition, GBE shall file the following documents with the Commission at such a time as GBE is prepared to begin to construct electric transmission facilities in Kansas:
1. On a confidential basis, equity and loan and/or other debt financing agreements and commitments entered into or obtained by GBE or its parent company for the purpose offunding GBE's multi-state transmission project that, in the aggregate, provide commitments for the total project cost.
An attestation by an officer of GBE that GBE has not, prior to the date of the attestation, installed transmission facilities on easement property; or a notification that such installation is scheduled to begin on a specified date.
A statement of the total multi-state transmission project cost, broken out by the categories of engineering, manufacturing and installation of converter stations; transmission line engineering; transmission towers; conductor; construction labor necessary to complete the project; right-of- way acquisition costs; and other costs necessary to complete the project, and certified by an officer of GBE.
A reconciliation statement certified by an officer of GBE showing that (I) the agreements and commitments for funds provided in subsection (i), above, are equal to or greater than the total project cost provided in subsection (iii), above; and (2) the contracted transmission service revenue is sufficient to service the debt financing of the project (taking into account any planned refinancing of debt).

Invenergy filed testimony on this request that said:

As further described in the Testimony of Kris Zadlo in Support of Joint Motion, attached hereto, the requested relief is consistent with the Settlement Agreement approved in the 19-253 Docket and serves the public interest by providing more certainty with regard to the progress and completion of the Project. First, the current Sunset Term requires Grain Belt to “begin construction” before a certain date, but does not define what it means to “begin construction.” Whether a project has “begun construction” is often subjective and difficult to measure. On the other hand, the Settlement Deadlines--which require Grain Belt to acquire a specific portion of easements or obtain financing commitments for the entirety of the multi-state transmission project by specific dates--are metrics that are easily quantifiable. Second, easement acquisition and financing commitments are superior indicators of progress on the Project than a vague requirement to begin construction. Third, by requiring specific progress on easement acquisition, the Settlement Deadlines increase landowner certainty.

What was the original requirement Invenergy needs to replace for clarity?

Grain Belt Express is allowed five years from the date of the Commission's Order to begin construction of the project in Kansas or otherwise be required to reapply.

Seems pretty clear to me. If "begin construction" is unclear in that requirement, then how does it later become clear in a new requirement that "... GBE shall file the following documents with the Commission at such a time as GBE is prepared to begin to construct electric transmission facilities in Kansas..."?

Logic aside, the bigger concern is that landowners are prevented from knowing the entire condition that supposedly "protects" them because it's confidential. Kansans are just supposed to blindly trust that the KCC is protecting them in secret meetings with Invenergy?

Considering the way Kansans have been blindsided, lied to, and tossed under the bus by a government agency that's supposed to protect them, perhaps that is a step too far.

And, hey, where's the opportunity for landowners to weigh in on the proposed new requirements that "protect" them? There isn't one. The KCC *could* open this docket to public comment, and even hold public hearings, to see what the landowners think about extending the Sunset date that holds them in limbo another 10 years, along with a bunch of opaque requirements to negotiate with them for easements. How would a landowner even know if Invenergy was breaking the rules, if a landowner can't know the rules that supposedly "protect" them? The opportunities for abuse are ripe here.

So, what can you do? Tell the KCC that you are tired of their kabuki act and demand that the costumes come off and crack the door of the theater to let a little sunshine in.

Contact the KCC. Of course, this matter has not been scheduled for public comment or public hearing. You're going to have to write or call the Commission to demand to have your voice heard. The docket number is 13-GBEE-803-MIS.

Don't let these actors subvert democracy and silence the citizens they are supposed to work for. Tell the KCC you've seen the emperor... and he's naked!

1 Comment

NIMBY Deja Vu

7/10/2019

0 Comments

Remember this?

Not In Michael's Back Yard

Transmission lines were not to be found in the back yard of Clean Line investor Michael Zilkha.

They weren't found in the various back yards of Clean Line CEO Michael Skelly, either.

And they're not in the back yard of new Grain Belt Express Clean Line owner Michael Polsky, of course.

Michael wants to put them in your backyard. Because...

Not In Michael's Back Yard

Is it the name Michael? Or is it just serendipity? Deja Vu, Mayberry!

0 Comments

Easement Payments Are Compensation, Not Benefit

7/10/2019

0 Comments

North American Wind Power thinks that "landowner easement payments" are a benefit of new transmission. As if landowners are striking it rich being the victims of eminent domain takings.

The transmission line also creates several economic benefits, including added grid interconnection and future interconnection options, landowner easement payments, and county property tax payments.

A landowner is entitled to compensation when his land is taken through condemnation, aka eminent domain. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

COMPENSATION. An attempt to compensate a landowner for something taken from him, often against his will. Compensation is an effort to pay a landowner for his loss. It's not a benefit. At most, it's a trade. Supposedly the landowner is made whole, given money for land he can no longer use.

Isn't it galling how the takers attempt to speak for the victims this way? Everybody who stands to profit from eminent domain thinks they're the newest landowner spokespeople, telling everyone else how landowners benefit from easement payments, and depend on these one-time pittances to survive. That's nothing but pure arrogance.

Compensation for electric transmission easements is not just. The chimera of "just compensation" is, again, created by the takers, not the victims. In actuality, transmission line easement payments cause a loss to landowners that can never be justly compensated.

Having a new transmission line or substation constructed on or near property causes property devaluation that the owner may never recover. While transmission developers may produce mountains of studies denying property devaluation, the proof is in the pudding. There is a stigma attached to energy infrastructure that buyers shy away from when comparing similar properties. Energy industry assurances, studies, and biased expert opinions provide little comfort to families evaluating properties they may call home. It’s not a decision based on logic, but on emotion and fear of the unknown.

Rural and farm properties take the brunt of new infrastructure siting, as developers seek the path of least resistance by siting their projects on “undeveloped land.” Just because a parcel of land is wide open space does not mean it is “undeveloped.” Farmland is fully developed to its best and highest purpose, that of feeding our nation. Oftentimes it may be conserved farmland, where the landowner sells future development rights to conservation programs with the intent of preserving the open space for all time. While the landowner is prevented from developing the land for profit, a transmission developer may see no barrier to developing transmission infrastructure on conserved farmland for its own profit, defeating the conservation of the open space.

Farms are businesses, and farmland is a factory. Farmers make their living off the land and what it produces. Running a new transmission project through the farm factory’s production line interferes with production and wastes productive space for all time. The addition of a transmission line profoundly changes agricultural practices on that parcel, interfering with (or
preventing) irrigation, pesticide application, aerial seeding, drainage systems, crop heights, and harvesting practices. Soil compaction and removal or mixing of topsoil caused by construction and maintenance of the transmission line can cause decreased yields for years into the future. The presence of a transmission line on a parcel also limits future use of that parcel for other purposes. Much of a farmer’s wealth lies in his land, and many farmers rely on the future value of their land for retirement income, much like others rely on a company-sponsored 401(k) plan. Preventing future land uses by adding transmission lines to a parcel can create a huge,
unexpected loss to a farmer’s retirement income.

Family farming is generational, with many farms being handed down from generation to generation, which creates a rich history and connection to the land and explains why family farms may not be for sale at any price. The forced addition of transmission lines using eminent domain intrudes into the family history and sense of place, profoundly changing it forevermore. None of these very personal impacts to productivity and emotional well-being are adequately compensated by one-time payments for the current land value of a narrow, linear easement through a property. The entire property and future productivity is affected, often without just compensation. This effect is compounded when the landowner receives absolutely no benefit from the transmission project that “flies over” his land.

Stop pretending eminent domain takings are a "benefit" just to fill your own pockets. We're not buying it.

0 Comments

Illinois and Michigan Ask Wisconsin to Reject Cardinal-Hickory Creek Transmission Project

Condescending Ivy Leaguers who thought they were the smartest people in the room...

The Path of Least Resistance Doesn't Exist

Another One Bites The Dust

Wind Catcher V2.0 - AEP's Shell Game

Kansas Kabuki

NIMBY Deja Vu

Easement Payments Are Compensation, Not Benefit

About the Author

About
StopPATH Blog

Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
Email me

Archives

Categories

About the Author

AboutStopPATH Blog

Archives

Categories

About
StopPATH Blog