All Categories

Another Senator Vows To Stop NIETCs

8/17/2024

Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri was the first U.S. Senator to oppose the U.S. Department of Energy's recent proposal of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors. Hawley introduced the Protecting Our Farmers from the Green New Deal Act meant to:

Prohibit FERC from issuing electrical siting permits where State regulators already have jurisdiction to authorize these projects.
Require FERC to find that any proposed electrical transmission projects it approves minimizes adverse effects on landowners and farmers, adequately compensates them for any loss, and provides benefits to consumers in the State.
Prohibit FERC from reviewing any electrical siting applications where a State regulator has previously denied an application.

Now Kansas Senator Jerry Moran has jumped on the train to stop NIETCs. Senator Moran says:

Kansas landowners know that these decisions should not be left up to bureaucrats in Washington. When I return to Washington, D.C., I will be introducing legislation that will help protect Kansans private property from being seized by the federal government to build this transmission corridor.

This legislation will:

1. Ban federal funds from being used to condemn private property to be used in a NIETC designation corridor, and

2. Prohibit FERC from using its authority to overrule a state regulator’s rejection of an electric transmission project.

While I applaud what you are doing... can we get it together here, guys?

Although DOE tried really, really, really hard to keep its proposed NIETCs under wraps earlier this year, word is slowly leaking out and America is horrified! NIETCs proposed would take 103 MILLION acres from landowners across the country and place it into designated transmission corridors, without any compensation at all to the landowners. That's millions of landowners nationwide that would have their private property made available to the whims of greedy transmission developers. Is it any wonder that they are outraged by this plan? We've only just scratched the surface of people finding out that the federal government is coming to take their biggest investment and make it worthless. Opposition to this plan is going to be off the charts when public engagement and notification begins later this year. And because the ones who have found out are quickly getting their elected officials involved, it's going to spread. Elected officials who refuse to help their constituents are on the chopping block. (Eh, Joe, you were halfway out the door already, good riddance to bad rubbish!)

NIETCs are not Constitutional. That hasn't been tested yet, has it? It will be.

1 Comment

I Know You Are, But What Am I?

8/17/2024

1 Comment

There goes Grain Belt Express again, speaking with forked tongue. GBE generated news calls the appellate reversal of its Illinois permit "political."

Sean Stott, with the Labourer's International Union, said: "The court's decision here is clearly a political, not a legal one. If upheld, this ruling will slow down needed infrastructure investment while inviting frivolous litigation for all sorts of future vital infrastructure projects critical to our economy and clean energy goals. We hope the court will stand up for the thousands of labour jobs created by this project."

As if Invenergy's special purpose legislation wasn't a political move?

That law was approved by the General Assembly in 2021 as part of the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act, a broad legislative package that was meant to decrease the state’s reliance on fossil fuels and eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation by 2045.
CEJA does not name Grain Belt but says a project of its magnitude “shall be deemed” a public use line, giving the company the ability to invoke eminent domain if needed – a policy opposed by many farmers and large landowners.
The law includes voltage and capacity parameters and requires any “qualifying direct current project” to pass through nine counties along the proposed route of the Grain Belt Express project. Those counties are Pike, Scott, Greene, Macoupin, Montgomery, Christian, Shelby, Cumberland and Clark.
The Farm Bureau contends that the provision at issue in the case was added as unconstitutional “special legislation” meant to provide a way to benefit the Grain Belt project specifically.

Grain Belt Express says that the Court's decision "misinterprets the law".

Proponents of the Grain Belt Express point to this reading of CEJA as a threat to other renewable energy projects.

“Today’s ruling completely misinterprets law and threatens billions in energy cost savings for Grain Belt Express consumers,” Invenergy Director of Public Affairs Dia Kuykendall said Friday. “The erroneous ruling has far-reaching implications beyond Grain Belt Express and contradicts the State's efforts to secure a reliable and affordable clean energy future.”

Sorry, Invenergy, but I'm pretty sure the requirement that an applicant prove that it is capable of financing the project was already in the law long before Invenergy's special purpose legislation in CEJA. Looks like CEJA didn't do Invenergy any good after all.

Grain Belt Express did not prove that it was capable of financing the project, only that it had "a plan." Same as I have a plan to become a movie star next week. Adding "conditions" to prove a requirement at a later date is not following the law. It is a "misinterpretation" of the existing law.

Grain Belt says it will "immediately appeal" the ruling to the Illinois Supreme Court. However....

In 2022, the most recent year for which data is available, the Illinois Supreme Court only accepted about 7 percent of petitions to appeal filed.

Hear that? The Illinois Supreme Court only hears 7% of the appeals that are filed. How is Invenergy going to be sure that it is part of that 7%?

Political influence.

I know you are, but what am I?

1 Comment

Kafka, Flounder, And A Rip In Time

8/15/2024

1 Comment

It's story time! One of the most entertaining things I've read in a while is this analysis of the Appellate Court's decision to reverse the Grain Belt Express permit written by attorney Paul Neilan. Legal work doesn't have to be boring!

First, I believe it’s significant that the basis for the court’s decision was the issue of whether GBX was capable of financing the project, as opposed to the legal or constitutional issues that were raised. That’s the “no substantial evidence” test that’s set forth in Article X of the PUA as one of the grounds for reversing an ICC order. The 5th District discusses this test in par. 26 as the requirement for “more than a scintilla” of evidence, but less than a preponderance of the evidence. In most cases (and I’m looking at ComEd here), the Illinois appellate courts have interpreted this test to mean that the utility can throw spaghetti and ketchup at the wall, and if it looks like some of it stuck, then that is “substantial evidence,” no matter how big a mess it is. The court decided that none of GBX’s ketchup/spaghetti stuck to the wall.

It’s also interesting to read the court’s discussion, and characterization, of the ICC’s revised financing condition in par. 36. The court is really sending a message to the ICC about how it does business. But first, a parable from Franz Kafka:

There was once a sacred temple, and each year the high priests of the temple would drink vast quantities of sacrificial wine from large casks to celebrate their holy rites. Then one year leopards broke into the temple and drank the sacrificial vessels dry. This happened the following year also, and in fact every year thereafter. The high priests began to mark their celestial calendars and they were able to calculate the date of the leopards’ arrival long in advance. The arrival of the leopards then became part of their ceremony.

In our case, the ALJs are the high priests, and the leopards are the ever-expanding number of conditions subsequent that a utility cannot meet at the time of its application. The ICC then just incorporates the leopards into its orders, gives the utility a “pass” and grants the certification anyway, and then tells it to come back when it’s satisfied the condition, or if it needs more time. The courts let the ICC get away with this time after time.

The 5th District has now put the kibosh on this, as their discussion of the revised financing condition shows. The court states that in adopting the RFC, the Commission "all but concedes its own error."

That is, IMHO, a major change in direction. It’s a correct change. I’m almost tempted to have the court’s words engraved on a plaque.

Another significant feature of the order is that the Commission's order was reversed, not reversed and remanded with instructions to take further evidence on the issue of GBX’s capability of financing the project. In that ordering paragraph I see the Fifth District sending a message to Pritzker and the General Assembly that they should stop prostituting themselves for every venture capital firm that donates big bucks to their reelection campaigns, or in Pritzker’s case, is a regular in their Sunday morning foursome at the country club.

Paragraph 32 makes a point similar to the above, and if I were the Tsar I’d label this the “Flounder Doctrine.” I draw this name from the 1978 movie Animal House, in which one of the characters, Flounder, was foolish enough to lend his parents’ car to John Belushi and some of his senior frat brothers for a road trip. When the car is returned as a near-wreck, Belushi or one of the other frat brothers tells him, “You f#&ked up. You trusted us.” Here, the 5th District says that “...GBX asked the Commission to simply take its word, and trust that it had the funding and financial stability it alleges.” I was struck by the similarity to the line from Animal House about Flounder mistakenly trusting his frat bros.

Another interesting bit is the court’s treatment of GBX's arguments that the economic concerns of the landowners, such as clouds on title, are purely speculative, while GBX's project financing model was not speculative. The Commission has worked long and hard to cement its reputation as the Pantheon of Double Standards, and its treatment of ordinary (non-utility) parties verges on pathological colonialism masquerading as normality. So it’s gratifying to see the issues raised by non-utility parties taken seriously for once.

Likewise on the idea of necessity. In paragraph 30, the court's refers to the Rock Island project, which it noted was abandoned despite GBX's effort to convince the courts a few years ago that without it Western Civilization would end, or a rupture appear in the space-time continuum.

1 Comment

How PJM and FERC Caused Huge Spikes in Regional Power Bills and New Transmission

8/9/2024

2 Comments

PJM's recent capacity auction resulted in huge price spikes in the cost of supplying power to electric customers in the PJM region for the 2025-2026 year. It was directly caused by the actions of PJM and FERC. These entities aren't protecting ratepayers, they are harming them! Let me explain...

PJM holds annual capacity auctions to secure the provision of electricity three years in advance. A capacity auction is not actual electricity, it is a promise from a generator to supply a certain amount of energy at a future point in time. This is how PJM ensures that it will have enough electricity supply available three years from the auction. PJM is paying these generators to be available to produce energy when needed during the auction year. PJM starts by announcing a certain amount of electricity is needed for the auction year. Generators submit bids of how much it will cost to be standing by to produce that electricity during the auction year. PJM stacks the bids by price, and each bid is represented by an amount of electricity and a price. PJM then looks at its bid stack and finds the place where the capacity need is met. Whatever the price of that bid is the clearing price for all the capacity bids lower in the stack. Those bids that go over the capacity price are not accepted. At the end of the auction, PJM has a stable of committed generators sure to provide the power when needed 3 years from the auction date.

PJM does not order generation. Generation is a market construct, where generators build when the capacity prices are profitable. If the clearing price at auction is high, it would entice the development of new generation. If the clearing price is low, many generators may not have enough revenue to continue to operate at a profit. This is how PJM manages generation to make sure there is always enough, but not too much. The auction serves as an important warning bell... when clearing prices are high, it means more generation needs to be built. The auction sends a signal to generators to build more when the prices are high. More generators lowers prices because there is more competition in the supply. But what happens when the prices are high at the auction and no new generators get built? That's exactly what just happened... there is a dearth of needed generation in PJM so prices shot through the roof to record highs.

The problem here began with PJM making a proposal to change the parameters of its auction. In order to do so, it needed FERC's permission. A battle broke out at FERC, with many other parties objecting to the auction changes. FERC moves at a snail's pace and can take years to make a decision on a request. The more parties to a case, the longer it takes to resolve it.

Because of the battle going on at FERC, the auctions got put on hold. As Power magazine says,

BRA auctions are usually held three years in advance of the delivery year. While the 2025/2026 auction was originally scheduled to be held in May 2022, it was suspended while the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) considered the approval of new capacity market rules. The recent July 2024 auction stems from a compressed schedule that aims to return to the three-year forward basis. According to PJM, the next BRA—for the 2026/2027 delivery year—is scheduled for December 2024.

FERC suspended PJM's capacity auctions while it resolved the issue. That's like turning off the warning system. PJM's annual capacity auction couldn't send the market signal to build new generation because it wasn't being held.

During this time, an extreme change in the power needs of the PJM region was underway. Many baseload fossil fuel generators closed, either the result of the last auction's low capacity prices, or because they were "dirty" and no longer socially acceptable. The new generation that entered the market could not keep up with the amount of generation that was closing. As a result, we had less generation available. Also during this time, the building of new data centers and increasing power demands for AI shot through the roof. No new generation to supply power for these data centers was proposed or built because PJM's auction warning bell was not sounding due to the auctions being suspended.

PJM used the only tool it had available to meet regional need... transmission. PJM conducted a competitive transmission window to connect the remaining generators with the new data center load. Unfortunately, the majority of the available generators are located in WV and PA, and the data center load is in Northern Virginia. PJM asked for new transmission to connect the two, and it ended up with a whole bunch of new projects, including MARL and MPRP. PJM says they are "needed" to supply power to the data centers because no new generation has been built anywhere near the data centers.

Now that FERC has finally resolved the issue and PJM has its new market parameters, PJM recently began holding auctions again. The first new auction for the 2025-2026 year was held just 10 months before the auction year begins, instead of 3 years in advance. There's no way new generators can be built in 10 months, even if the prices are generous enough to support them economically. That's why the auction is always held 3 years in advance, in order to give time for new generation to be built to reduce auction prices.

Instead, we're looking at a transmission bandaid to keep the existing generation flowing to the places that need it. And PJM has opened another transmission planning window to add another 4,500MW of generation imports to Northern Virginia because there is no generation currently proposed to fill that need.

Eventually, if PJM's market signal works as intended, new generation will be built near the load. However, certain states like Virginia and Maryland have passed laws that prevent the building of new fossil fuel generation. That leaves only the nuclear option to supply the outrageous amount of power needed by the data centers. Can you imagine how long it would take to build a new nuclear plant in Northern Virginia? It would be completed on the 12th of Never. Meanwhile, transmission is the only viable option.

PJM's market system didn't work to get generation built in time to meet new need because PJM and FERC had turned it off and were asleep at the switch. Now we have a disaster of epic proportions on our hands.

What's going to happen first? The construction of hotly opposed transmission projects, or the building of new generation? And where will that generation be built? Continuing to build in PA and WV only perpetuates the transmission problem. We need new generation at load. It's probably cheaper than billions of dollars of new transmission, but it takes a willingness to sacrifice for its own benefit on the part of the data center loving states.

New generation is coming to market... and how much of it will obviate the need for new transmission? That's an unknown at this point, but it's going to happen. PJM's transmission project needs will change and fall apart. Let's hold the line, folks! This battle is far from over!

2 Comments

Where's the Customers, Invenergy? (Appellate Court Version)

8/8/2024

2 Comments

I've been asking this question since way back in the Clean Line days... where's the customers? Now the Fifth District Appellate Court of Illinois has the same question! Without actual customers and financing, Grain Belt Express has nothing but a PLAN. You can't prove that you are capable of financing the project with only a plan. You need evidence!

Unfortunately, the record demonstrates that GBX failed to provide any evidence to meet the burden required by section 8-406.1(f)(3). To satisfy section 8-406.1(f)(3), the applicant must show that it is capable of financing the construction of the proposed project. Therefore, GBX must prove that it has the capacity to finance the project prior to the Commission granting any CPCN. Stated differently, the applicant’s capability of financing the project is a condition precedent to the Commission’s issuance of a CPCN.

While appearing before the Commission, GBX did not claim that it had the capability of funding the project. Instead, GBX claimed that it expects to be able to obtain financing for the project once customer contracts are executed, supply agreements are executed, and site control is obtained in the future. But in addition to this, it also plans on heavily relying upon debt financing. It calls this method of speculative financing, the “project financing approach.” GBX stated that it anticipates financing approximately 65% to 80% of the project through debt, with the debt being funded largely through the Department of Energy grants or commercial banks. However, at the time of the Commission’s decision, GBX had no customers for the project, no commitments from any financial institution, and had not been awarded any funding or debt commitments from the Department of Energy to provide financing for the project. What is even more concerning is that the wind farm and renewable projects in Kansas, for which this transmission line is supposedly necessary in order to distribute the “clean energy” these projects will produce and deliver to Illinois, do not exist. Quite simply, the projects had not been constructed at the time of the Commission’s Final Order, and no evidence was put forth indicating that any commitments, contracts, or construction bids had been obtained or negotiated.

Key word: speculative. GBE is simply a speculative project seeking a permit before it can prove that it meets all the requirements of the law. This is an issue that has bugged me for a long, long time. Merchant transmission projects are SPECULATIVE, but yet they seek to acquire permits and use eminent domain long before they actually have any customers or financial commitments. Having a plan to acquire same is not proof. Take note, merchant transmission developers... no more speculative projects in Illinois! You need to have a complete project before asking for permission to build and take land from private citizens. Bravo to the Court for finally solving this issue for landowners!

And why shouldn't speculative projects be approved? Because they can go on to fail, after they have caused landowners time, money and worry. Simply having a "plan" to return the land to the landowner in the event of failure is not a cure. It does not make the landowner whole. Landowners deserve to be protected from speculative ventures seeking eminent domain.

We note that the sister project in Northern Illinois which was overseen by Rock Island has allegedly been abandoned despite the contentions of GBX before the Commission of the necessity and market demand for such a project. Thus, GBX has not offered any evidence that it “is capable” of funding the project; it instead has only offered evidence of a future, and highly speculative, plan of possibly funding the project. It simply asked the Commission to broadly speculate, and to trust that many unknown variables will fall into place. It does not contend, “let us build it and they will come,” but instead, “give us approval, then we will finance it, and then we will build it.” This falls short of proving the financing capability required.

I can do you one better... the Plains and Eastern Clean Line also failed AFTER full permitting and an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy to "participate" in this project under Sec. 1222 of the Energy Policy Act. Plains and Eastern also had a "plan" that tanked because it couldn't find any customers.

Ultimately, there was no showing that GBX as it was situated at the time of the Commission’s hearing and decisions was financially able to finance and construct the project. In fact, GBX acknowledged before the Commission that it had no customers for the project, had secured no bank commitments, no Department of Energy commitments, etc. It asked the Commission to speculate as to its future capability, and the Commission improperly obliged.

Therefore, the Final Order entered by the Commission finding otherwise was made in error and requires reversal.

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Commission’s March 8, 2023, order granting GBX a CPCN pursuant to section 8-406(b-5) and other related provisions.

Permit wack-a-mole strikes again! Now GBE doesn't have a permit in Illinois.

GBE has several options here:

1. Appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court and hope they take the case.
2. Get customers and financing commitments, along with contracts for the wind farms in Kansas. This option is going to take years. GBE has applied for a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor (NIETC) that would allow it to take the Illinois denial to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and go through the whole permitting process again. Getting a NIETC designation is going to take at least another 3 years. Who knows how long the wind farms in Kansas are going to take? They probably come under the category of "customers." GBE would also have to have its loan of taxpayer money approved by the DOE, but why should DOE approve a loan for such a speculative project that doesn't have any customers to create a revenue stream?

Speculative. Word of the day!

Bravo, Illinois! Celebrate this victory!

2 Comments

DOE Uses Your Money to Bribe Transmission Advocates

7/25/2024

1 Comment

The U.S. Department of Energy announced yesterday that it is handing out a stunning $371M of your tax dollars to purchase advocates for proposed transmission projects. However, DOE's spending spree will only be disbursed when the transmission project begins construction. That's a long time from now...

I have written about this absurd use of your tax dollars to purchase advocacy for transmission projects here, here and here.

If a transmission project is needed, then regulators will approve it. Should regulators approve an unneeded transmission project simply because someone not impacted by it gets a freebie? This turns transmission permitting and siting into some sort of advocacy battle. Who has more people in their army, and what motivates them? On one side are impacted landowners, who have to live with the transmission project in perpetuity. These are the ONLY people who are impacted by new transmission, which can lower their income by taking land out of use, harm their property values, pose a dangerous hazard on their own land, and a daily eyesore forever. On the other side are a bunch of people who will not have to look at transmission and will not have to suffer any impacts whatsoever. These people are motivated by pure GREED. They are being offered something in exchange for the suffering of other people. The landowners must be compensated for something that was taken for them, but those greedy people don't deserve a damned thing. They are disgusting people who want to profit off the misery of others.

Advocacy battles like this have been taking place for decades. Utilities always buy advocacy to try to shout down transmission opposition. The DC Court of Appeals recognized such transmission advocacy efforts by describing the actions of one such project, PATH:

From 2009 through 2011, PATH spent more than $6 million on various activities to support its applications for Certificates. Through hired public relations contractors, PATH organized "reliable power coalitions" that would recruit individuals—often prominent business and labor leaders—to testify before the state utility commissions in support of PATH's certificate applications. PATH's contractors also polled public opinion of the project, ran promotional advertisements, and sent lobbyists to persuade state officials that the Certificates should be granted.
There is little question that PATH made these disputed expenditures to influence the decisions of public officials. The record is full of statements to that effect. The internal communications of PATH's public relations contractors, for example, declared that "[w]e have but one singular goal—to help get PATH approved," a goal that would be achieved by "generating the political cover that commissioners/legislators need to ‘do the right thing.’ " J.A. 66; see also J.A. 142-44 (contractor agreement with public relations firm). And the advertisements PATH's agents ran were persuasive rather than merely informational, focusing on arguments in support of approval and construction of PATH's proposed transmission line. See, e.g. , J.A. 115, 117-18, 121.
Newman v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 27 F.4th 690, 693-94 (D.C. Cir. 2021)

And now, the federal government, under the auspices of "reducing inflation", is providing the proverbial carrot for greedy people by promising them some free money if they can successfully advocate for a transmission project that doesn't affect them. They only get their carrot if they can outshout the impacted landowners and other opponents and convince the regulators to approve the transmission project based on advocacy alone. I have never been so thoroughly disgusted by my own government, and believe me, I have seen A LOT of bullshit coming out of DC over the past sixteen years. This is the epitome of government graft.

So, let's look at who bellied up to the bar to get some free money in exchange for transmission advocacy.

There were two different kinds of awards made under this program. The first is grants to an entity with regulatory authority to approve a new transmission line. That's right DOE is even bribing the regulators who make these decisions!

The Illinois Commerce Commission got $8.2M to speed up its approval of MISO's Tranche 1 projects.

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin got $3M for doing the same, plus it will "increase its outreach and engagement with the public, improve its coordination with other siting entities, and develop plain language educational materials on high-voltage transmission lines."

The Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission got $4.5M to "accelerate its siting decision-making process on certain PJM Regional Transmission Expansion Plan Projects traversing the state by expanding its public and community engagement, participating in more site visits and public input hearings, and providing education and training opportunities to its staff." Which "certain" projects are those? Maybe someone wants to ask them?

And Alamosa Co. Colorado got $1.7M to study three different routes for a transmission project and pick one.

And now let's look at a couple of the "economic development" awards for communities "along major new and upgraded transmission lines." What the hell does that mean, and how close does a community have to be, exactly? DOE never would say. As the awards show, these projects are not actually for impacted individuals, but their greedy neighbors who are not impacted at all.

First, there's a couple of merchant transmission projects owned by Michael Skelly's GridUnited that were showered with multiple grants.

Southline Transmission project:
$1.8M to Lordsburg, NM to revitalize their town. I'm going to bet the revitalization isn't going to include a gigantic transmission line in the middle of Main Street. Instead, the transmission line will impact some landowners outside the town.
The City of Willcox, AZ got $10M to create a new conservation area. I'm going to bet that the conservation area won't have a gigantic transmission line running through it. Instead, the transmission line will impact some landowners elsewhere.

North Plains Connector Transmission project:
City of Mott, ND got $14.2M for a community center. I'm betting the transmission project is nowhere near the community center.
The Montana Department of Commerce got $47.4M to distribute to the counties of Rosebud, Fallon and Custer and the Northern Cheyenne tribe for "funding critical community infrastructure, including emergency and medical services, transportation, water, and sewage services, and climate mitigation projects." Here, North Dakota, have a handful of colorful beads while we rape and pillage your state.
The Roosevelt Custer Community Council got $700K for a new Fire Hall in Amidon.

It used to be that the transmission company had to pay these bribes out of their own funds, especially merchant transmission companies that don't have guaranteed cost recovery from ratepayers. Merchant transmission is not found needed or planned by regional grid planners. Merchant transmission is a speculative proposition based purely on profits. The merchant bets its own capital that if it can build a transmission line between point A and point B that it can attract enough voluntary customers to pay for the line and provide a profit. Why in the world are taxpayers paying bribes to buy advocacy for transmission developers who are supposed to be paying for their own projects? It boggles the mind!

But DOE wasn't done supporting the merchants with GridUnited... there's also a couple of grants to Guymon, OK totaling $167.5M to build a new school and a water project. Only one of these projects seems to be tied to transmission at all. The other one seems to be an unrelated gift to the City of Guymon. Spending Other People's Money is such a generous activity!

Barnstable, Massachusetts, is getting a new school in exchange for a landing zone for offshore wind transmission. I'm going to guess the school will be nowhere near the transmission line.

Michigan is getting $35M to "...invest in workforce development initiatives to build a skilled workforce to support transmission construction and clean energy investments in the two counites affected by the Helix-Hiple transmission line, one of the MISO Long Range Transmission Planning Tranche 1 projects. LEO will provide specialized education and training through electric utility apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs, as well as training for EV infrastructure construction and installation. LEO will also invest in a low-income energy fund to support a residential weatherization program, as well as provide utility stipends to residents in disadvantaged communities (DACs) impacted by the siting of a new transmission line." This is garbage. It doesn't actually help landowners impacted by the transmission line.

There's more... LOT$ more... read it and weep (while clutching your wallet and your private property rights.)

So, just like I thought in the beginning, no communities that are actually impacted by new transmission are benefiting from these grants in any way. Communities impacted by new transmission are linear, just like the transmission itself. They do not coincide with traditional cluster communities.

Absolutely NO LANDOWNER EVER said that they would gladly give up their own property for new transmission if a nearby town could only have a new school, a new fire hall, a Main Street makeover, or a park, or any of this other ridiculous nonsense DOE found grant worthy. Landowners will NOT give up their fight in the face of federal government bribes.

DOE simply gave the money to anyone who applied, not to impacted communities.

How does this "reduce inflation" again?

1 Comment

Transource Says It Will Refile IEC Project With Pa PUC

7/16/2024

1 Comment

Everyone was blindsided by the announcement last week that Franklin County, Pennsylvania, has inked a deal with Transource to drop its opposition to the Independence Energy Connection (IEC). This project was originally proposed in 2016 as a "market efficiency" project planned by regional grid operator PJM Interconnection to create a new pathway for cheap power generated in Pennsylvania to reach electric consumers in the DC-Baltimore area. The Maryland PSC approved the project in 2020 contingent upon a reconfiguration that assigned the eastern part of the project to local utilities to add to an open position on existing transmission structures. However, the Pennsylvania PUC denied Transource's application altogether in 2021. Transource has pursued appeal of the PUC's decision through the court system, first in the Pennsylvania courts, then in federal district court. The PUC then appealed the federal district court's decision, and the case is currently before the federal Third Circuit. Briefing has not yet completed, and oral argument has not yet been scheduled. This case has not been resolved one way or the other.

PJM initially "suspended" IEC in the wake of the PUC denial, putting the project on a shelf for further re-evaluation. Recently, PJM stated during its Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee (TEAC) that IEC "causes uncontrolled congestion and reliability issues." That means that the project, if built, would raise prices all over the region, which is the exact opposite of what PJM testified to during the state utility commission hearings. Last week, PJM stated that it would be making an announcement regarding the fate of the IEC at its September TEAC meeting. That meeting is open to the public, if you would like to attend and make comment.

Despite what looks like certain doom at PJM, along with a court case that has not been resolved in its favor, Transource has been busy! It announced an agreement with Franklin County to drop its opposition. The agreement was a mystery until now. It comes in the form of a partial settlement between Transource and Franklin County in the PUC case (which ended with a denial in 2021). You can read it here:

transource-franklin_co.
File Size:	202 kb
File Type:	transource-franklin co.

Download File

Why is Franklin County agreeing to drop its opposition to a PUC case that is over?

Transource PA intends to refile the IEC Project with the Commission.

Seems like Transource is trying to reconfigure this project as a reliability project. However, it is going to need PJM's approval or it won't be able to recover its costs from ratepayers. Is Transource going merchant with IEC, or is PJM going to come out in September and negate what it recently said about IEC causing uncontrolled congestion and reliability issues?

So, what does Franklin County get from this deal?

Transource PA will pay Franklin County a one-time payment of $5,000,000.00 (Five Million Dollars and No Cents) to off-set potential environmental impacts, if any, of the IEC West Project in Franklin County caused by the actions of Transource PA or its contractors. The funds may be used at Franklin County's discretion. In addition to the conditions set forth herein, this payment is conditioned upon Transource PA receiving all necessary, independent third-party permits, recommendations, or approvals otherwise required by law from the Franklin County Planning Department, Southampton Township, Greene Township, Guilford Township, Quincy Township, and Washington Township related to the IEC Project, including, if necessary, an NPDES permit, substation notification and compliance letters and driveway permits.
Transource PA shall notify Franklin County within fifteen (15) days after the line is energized and shall remit the payment required in this paragraph to Franklin County within thirty (30) days after the line is energized and placed in service.

In exchange for $5M, Franklin Co. agrees to take on all liability for environmental impacts caused by Transource or its contractors. That seems rather risky to me. What environmental impacts could Transource cause while building IEC, and how much could those cost to remediate? This is more like an insurance policy without any limit on how much Franklin Co. may have to pay out.

In addition

As part of this Settlement, Transource PA also agrees to provide an allowance of up to $4,000,000.00 (Four Million Dollars and No Cents) associated with micro-siting within the
1,000-foot corridor granted by the Commission upon approval of the IEC Project. This allowance will be used by Transource to accommodate siting needs that may be identified prior to construction.

What? Transource will allocate up to $4M of ratepayer money to micro-siting? How much does micro-siting cost? The paragraph reads like this extra $4M is an internal budgeting issue. This allowance will be used by Transource, it's not being paid to Franklin County. It is completely unclear how money can solve micro-siting issues. Micro-siting refers to making slight adjustments to the project's alignment to go around certain impediments. It can require different transmission structures, or slightly longer spans. $4M is a very small amount of money when it comes to building transmission lines. Who gets first dibs on having their micro-siting issues settled before Transource runs out of money? Will Transource pick and choose which landowners benefit?

An what about eminent domain?

Franklin County agrees not to oppose any of the eminent domain applications related to the IEC West Portion of the IEC Project associated with PJM Project 9A that are currently pending before the Commission. Franklin County further agrees not to oppose any eminent domain applications as may be necessary for the reconfigured East Portion of the IEC Project.

So Franklin County won't oppose any eminent domain. Not sure they really have a say in it, unless it is land owned by the County.

And what about land, or conservation easements, owned by the County?

Transource will not be required to obtain from Franklin County any additional land rights associated with County property interests (e.g., including situations in which the County has rights associated with an agricultural easement) as Transource may identify.

Franklin County has agreed not to interfere with any land rights Transource wants, including the right to cross conservation easements that the county may have purchased from landowners with county taxpayer funds in the past. If you put your land in an easement thinking that it was protected, Franklin County has agreed that it is not protected from Transource.

It also contains the condition that other utilities also receive their land rights, including on the eastern portion of the project in York County. If that doesn't happen, Franklin County gets zilch.

This Joint Partial Settlement is also conditioned upon Transource PA, Mid-
Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC ("MAlT") (or an affiliate), and PPL Electric Utilities
Corporation receiving all necessary land rights in York and Franklin counties in order to
construct the IEC Project, as reconfigured.

It's also contingent upon approval for a new filing in Pennsylvania, and an amendment to its approval in Maryland.

This Joint Partial Settlement is further conditioned upon approval of the IEC Project, as amended in Pennsylvania and Maryland. If either the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission or Maryland Public Service Commission deny the IEC Project, as amended, either Transource PA or Franklin County may elect to withdraw from this settlement and may proceed with litigation, including litigation of their original positions.

And Franklin County agrees not to oppose any of those fillings, as well as any other filing Transource may make.

Transource PA will be able to represent in its filings before the PA Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and any other regulatory agency or court that it has reached settlement with Franklin County and Franklin County withdraws its opposition to the IEC Project and no longer opposes it.

Transource now owns Franklin County in any future filings.

Why, Franklin County, why? Seems like this is not going unnoticed by the voters of Franklin County, tossed under the bus. The elected officials who thought this was a good idea did so at their own risk.

And why would the PA PUC approve this settlement? Settlements need to be approved or they are not valid.

Get out your battle gear, folks! Here we go again! It seems transmission never truly goes away, it just crawls behind the baseboard for a while to take a nap.

1 Comment

PJM Opens New Transmission Window To Serve Data Centers

7/15/2024

0 Comments

Here we go again!

As if all the new transmission that came out of PJM's 2022 Window 3 isn't enough already, guess what? PJM miscalculated.

That's right... the data center load in Northern Virginia is much bigger than PJM thought when it planned and selected a bunch of new transmission projects last year.

Here's PJM's latest plan.

PJM shared at its TEAC meeting last week that it was going to open a new window for transmission to import an additional 4,500MW of generation to "data center alley." This time, the generation is supposed to come from wind, solar, and storage in Illinois. Illinois, people! Numerous new transmission lines from the Midwest to Loudoun County, Virginia. That's 700 miles of new transmission!

How is it supposed to get there? PJM burned up all its existing transmission corridors last time by using up the Doubs-Goose Creek corridor to save the Sacred Cows. There won't be any new transmission going through Doubs this time around. There also won't be any new transmission coming from the east. Seems Pennsylvania is tapped out for exports this time around.

PJM claims:

Most of the additional generation required to meet load growth 2028 vs 2029 is sourced from PJM West.

That's going to look like this:

PJM is targeting new project approvals for this window at the end of this year so that transmission owners can get started failing at building them next year.

Sometimes, I get up in the morning and wonder if PJM is just punking us all by pretending that all this new transmission can actually get built. When project after project fails, the data centers causing this problem are going to leave for more powerful pastures elsewhere, and then PJM can shrug and say, "Well, we tried!"

It's time to start participating in TEAC meetings again. I'm sure they've missed all of us these past couple months... see ya there!

0 Comments

PJM Sets A Precedent

7/15/2024

0 Comments

At its July 9 Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee meeting, PJM proposed a re-route of the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link (MARL). MARL is a giant extension cord for importing West Virginia coal-fired electricity to Loudoun County's "data center alley."

Loudoun County just can't stop approving new data centers, even though it has no way to power them. Now Loudoun's data center addiction is impacting people in other states... people who will have their property taken using eminent domain so that Loudoun can have more electricity for its data centers. Loudoun County is not going to stop building data centers until its voters MAKE them stop building data centers. That would happen in a hot minute if Loudoun County's SACRED COWS were impacted by the data centers.

This is the Sacred Cow Zone. A look at an electric infrastructure map shows a pristine donut hole surrounded by high voltage transmission lines, substations, and generators on all sides. But there's nothing in the Sacred Cow Zone!

What's a Sacred Cow? A person with more money (and therefore more political influence) than you. Examples include Jackie Kennedy, who took umbrage at a proposal to run a power line through her pony club in the Sacred Cow Zone back in the 1960's. Legend has it that caused the line to end up in Jefferson County, West Virginia instead. It's the reason we have that 500kV transmission line right across the middle of our county today. Another example might be the movie stars and their wine-making friends who objected to a different 500kV high-voltage transmission line in the mid 2000s called TrAIL. That line got pushed south into Fauquier County instead of impacting the Sacred Cows.

If you want to nauseate yourself a bit you could read the fakeass "report" the Sacred Cows threw together to plead their case that they are much, much too sacred to be impacted by the MARL. They really think they are much more special than you. Their views! Their wine! Their horses! Their environment! They even claim to be DC's "central park", where harried rich and important people can go to escape the daily grind of grinding the less fortunate into the dirt. If they thought they were going to get some sympathy from that report, I suggest it's time to buy a mirror and take a really good look. Your arrogance is showing and people are laughing at your utter snobbery. Get over yourself!

Because of Jackie Kennedy's pony club and resident movie stars, PJM was also attuned to the history of the Sacred Cow Zone. It created a "work around" re-route up front, and now it has pulled the ejector button before even TRYING to propose a route through Loudoun. It went from this

to this

It's a miracle! The Sacred Cow Zone has been saved again! However, in doing so, other landowners who were not previously affected are now affected. In fact, those landowners in Northern Loudoun will have their property taken using eminent domain to widen the existing right of way, as confirmed by FirstEnergy's representative at the meeting. Those sacrificial lambs get no consideration because they are not rich or important.

You may find it surprising that the Sacred Cow Zone is more important than the C&O Canal National Historical Park! The re-route crosses the C&O twice whereas the original route didn't cross it at all. Let's trash a national historical park that regular people from all over the region visit to escape snobbery and selfishness... in favor of snobbery and selfishness. Is the Sacred Cow Zone really more important than a national park?

What is not really surprising is that the Sacred Cows didn't even think about using their Sacred status to actually help others. Maybe if they did, they wouldn't be sacred anymore? In exchange for continuing their Sacred status, the Cows proclaimed their mission:

To support the overall PJM Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP) to inter alia supply the rising power needs of the region’s data center industry

Keep that in mind... the Sacred Cows love PJM, transmission lines, and data centers... as long as they are Not In My Back Yard!

And the whole debacle is going to cost all ratepayers in the region $167 MILLION more! We're going to have to pay $167M to keep the Sacred Cows sacred and free from all that nasty infrastructure needed to power the data centers that keep their tax burden low. What a world!

The real irony here may be the fact that a transmission line necessary for Loudoun's data centers has been pushed out of Loudoun and onto landowners in other states.

PJM claims it is not setting a precedent by re-routing a transmission line to spare certain rich and powerful people and dump it on others without the resources to fight back.

How are you enjoying the email bombardment, PJM? The Sacred Cows just couldn't wait to strut their arrogance for the people impacted by the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project and assure them that if they, too, started having a tantrum at PJM that they could have the transmission line moved out of their community, also.

See? I'm already right about that. PJM IS setting a precedent that if you don't want a transmission line in your community you simply have to make some demands and pull the ejector button and you're spared, like magic! But if PJM is NOT setting a precedent, like Stu assured me they were not last week, then PJM is going to have to explain to those folks in Maryland why they are not Sacred Cows that deserve special treatment. What'll it be, PJM?

0 Comments

Why Can't We Use Existing Rights-of-way for MPRP?

7/13/2024

3 Comments

This question has been asked over and over and the answer is multi-faceted and much too long for Facebook.

First, let's acknowledge that existing transmission lines in the region are serving a purpose. They are providing a public service to provide electricity to customers. Public utilities have service territories, where they either generate power or buy power to serve their customers. They may own some of the transmission lines in their service territory, but sometimes another utility may own a line through their territory that was constructed to serve its own customers elsewhere. You would have to do some research to find out who owns any particular transmission line you see.

A utility owns both the transmission line and the existing easement or property it sits on. The easement has to be a certain size to meet safety code requirements. The bigger the lines, the bigger the easement. The utility has exclusive rights to the easement it owns, and the transmission lines on it. The company paid for and constructed that line, and it was only allowed to take the amount of land it needed for the line, and no more. The cost of this public service is reimbursed to the company by ratepayers who use it.

When the line needs repairs, the company that owns it is responsible. When the line needs to be upgraded, the company that owns it is responsible. Under current law, a company would have "first dibs" to upgrade or expand its line when it's needed. Some have asked why PSEG cannot use eminent domain to take another company's line and use the land for the MPRP? Utilities are immune to eminent domain in most cases. Isn't it ironic, since they can use it on us? Utilities are immune to eminent domain because they are providing a public service on that land. If another entity was allowed to take that land from them, there wouldn't be a transmission line and the public service of providing electricity would end. I'm sure you can appreciate that nobody is going to take the lines that serve you.

Therefore, PSEG has no right to take another company's transmission line that is in use and tear it down to erect their own line. Heck, PSEG is not even a legal public utility in Maryland and has no utility rights at all at this time. If that line needs to be rebuilt, the company that owns it has "first dibs" to rebuild it on the easement it already owns.

Some have asked why PSEG can't just hang some new wires on the existing towers owned by another utility? Because those towers were not designed to carry that extra circuit. Transmission towers are structurally engineered to carry the load they are designed for. They are the property of the utility that owns them to use to maintain and expand its own system when needed. If BGE was ordered to let PSEG use its transmission system for its own line, what would happen when BGE needed another line? It would have to take a new right-of-way, since PSEG had used theirs for its own line. PSEG cannot own a line that is on someone else's right-of-way. Furthermore, it would be unsafe to try to string some new lines on a tower that doesn't even have a place to put them. Sometimes, transmission companies think ahead a bit and build oversized towers that leave room for a future circuit to be added. That is not the case in the MPRP area.

So, what is PSEG doing in Maryland anyhow if they're not a public utility that serves customers in the state? Our regional transmission system is operated and planned by a regional transmission operator called PJM Interconnection. PJM makes sure the system is safe and reliable and that your lights stay on. PJM is constantly monitoring its system, which consists of transmission lines owned by many of its members, like BG&E, or PSEG. PJM runs a robust planning process and orders new lines, upgrades, and rebuilds that are recommended by its Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee (TEAC). TEAC meetings are held once a month, and are open to the public. But most of what PJM talks about is way too complicated for regular people and they are generally not involved.

Last year, PJM opened a new planning window to find transmission solutions to a reliability problem caused by 7,500MW of increased data center load in Northern Virginia, combined with 11,000MW of generation closing around the region. Numerous companies submitted 72 different project ideas for PJM's consideration. For big projects such as this, PJM's planning process is competitive. That means all those transmission ideas were competing with each other to be selected. PJM evaluated them for constructability and price, trying to find the best projects that solved the reliability problem for the cheapest price. In order to be competitive, some companies submitted their project ideas with financial cost caps that would guarantee a final price for the project, no matter what happens in the mean time. There are all sorts of ways to increase the price even with a cost cap, but I'm not going to get into that really complicated topic just now.

Maryland public utility BGE submitted a bunch of project ideas wrapped into a package in conjunction with other local public utilities. None of those projects had cost caps. While they had estimated costs attached, they are not held to the estimate. Spend as much as you want! One of the project ideas in this package was to rebuild existing transmission lines from Pennsylvania to a substation named Brighton. That project did not connect with the Doubs substation. It looked like this:

This transmission idea wasn't just one transmission project but a series of transmission upgrades that were considered as a package. None of these lines connected to Doubs, which feeds power to Northern Virginia. We do not know why BGE didn't propose connecting to Doubs, and we don't really know why PJM selected PSEG's MPRP project instead. The only clue we have is PJM's project evaluation risk matrix.

PJM decided that PSEG's MPRP was the best project in this list, and they ordered it and assigned it to PSEG. PSEG is being held to its guarantee that it will have this project finished on time and on budget. It is in a big ol' hurry because, for PSEG, time is money.

Once PJM selects and orders a transmission project, it's like a momma bear with a cub. PJM will protect that transmission project and refuse to second guess itself at all costs. The only thing that can stop PJM is a denial by the state utility commission in the state(s) where the project is located. In that case, PJM will have to go back to the drawing board and start its planning process all over again. Because these are competitive projects, PJM can't just pick another one.

There have only been two instances where PJM has made a change to a transmission project it ordered. The first occurred several years ago when it was facing a denial of its planned Independence Energy Connection by the Maryland Public Service Commission. It got that far, folks, right up until decision time! In that instance, there was a locally-owned and operated transmission line that had recently been built that had room for another circuit (remember the planning ahead thing?). Citizens asked why PJM had assigned a whole new transmission line on new easements to a non-local transmission company similar to PSEG when there was an existing line with open space that could hold a new circuit on the existing towers. The Maryland PSC wanted to know also, and PJM and the transmission company fell on its sword and re-assigned that part of the project to the local utility to construct on its existing towers. However, there were other parts to this project in Western Pennsylvania that were not changed because there was no existing transmission line with room for another circuit. Only part of that project was changed, and the company continued trying to get approval from Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania denied their permit and the entire project was shelved. Turns out the years-long delay in permitting obviated the project and it was no longer needed anyhow. The project was never built.

The second instance is happening right now. PJM selected a transmission line connecting West Virginia coal-fired power plants with Loudoun County, Virginia's "data center alley." A portion of this project is a greenfield line through western Loudoun on new easements. When PJM evaluated this project, it noted that obtaining approval for new easements in Loudoun might be a problem, so it created a "work around" on a different route, if needed. PJM planned for this project's route in Loudoun to be rejected. Just as PJM thought, the people in Loudoun opposed the line, and they used their money and political power to get their county government to demand PJM pull the ejector button and put the project on the alternate route. PJM is currently considering the re-route. However, this re-route is not exactly on "existing rights-of-way," no matter how they try to spin it. The re-route "along existing lines" expands the existing easement and takes more property from people on the existing line using eminent domain. The people on the re-route got mowed over by the important people in Loudoun who didn't want to have any impacts from new transmission to serve Loudoun's data centers. They were stabbed in the back and thrown under the bus in order to save the rich people in Virginia's wine and horse country. And they're going to remember it for a long, long time.

"Using existing rights-of-way" is not always the panacea it seems. It's basically a NIMBY argument and pushes impacts on to others. Even when a transmission line is rebuilt entirely on existing easements, there are still impacts from construction, as well as permanent impacts from having much higher voltage running on an easement you may be so unlucky to have on your property. Rebuilds need new access roads for construction. A new gravel road across your field, even temporary, will cause permanent and lasting impacts. Just try getting all the rock out of there afterwards, or fixing the compaction that has happened. You probably won't enjoy living with the construction traffic on it during construction either. A rebuild on the existing easement may take out more trees along the easement, proclaiming them "danger trees" to the new transmission line. It's a way of widening the easement without actually paying you anything. Rebuilds aren't fun for the people who are subject to them, and horrendous for people whose home gets gobbled up by an expanded easement.

The lesson here is that moving a planned transmission line to an existing easement has only happened under certain circumstances. The first is having space available to take a new line on existing towers. That isn't present with MPRP. The second was PJM having an alternate route already in mind. That also isn't present with MPRP.

Getting PJM to change its mind and cancel MPRP entirely in favor of some other project that has not even been proposed is a very heavy lift. So heavy, in fact, it may be nearly impossible. PJM will have to be forced into it, and that's not going to happen quickly, easily, or inexpensively. If you want to pursue this strategy, my advice is to hire a licensed engineer with experience and credentials working cases just like this before a regulatory commission to take a look at the PJM system and come up with an alternate plan. Citizens don't have the right credentials to design the transmission system and PJM will just ignore them (and the PSC will ignore them as well). You need to point to a viable plan that has been thoroughly vetted by a professional with experience designing the transmission system. Even then, PJM will fight you on this and attack your expert. He needs to be flameproof. But, if you're in it for the long haul, this is your avenue, and the choice is yours. It won't be quick. It won't be cheap. It won't be easy.

Perhaps by the time you're done fighting that very long battle (with no guarantee of success) the transmission line will have obviated itself. The data centers aren't going to wait around for a new extension cord that is mired in years of legal battle, they're going to go somewhere else with available power.

If you're going to find another solution for MPRP, make sure it's one that the entire community finds acceptable, otherwise you're playing into the NIMBY game PJM and PSEG hopes you will play. Nobody really wins that game. Someone alway gets stabbed in the back and tossed under the bus to save yourself. The transmission planners and companies want you to do this because they're the ones who win... they get to have their project and someone who has to live with it is miserable.

There are plenty of transmission projects that have been cancelled entirely without anyone being thrown to the wolves because the community came together and presented a united front... we won't have this here in our community in any way, shape, or form.

Good luck, MPRP opponents! Carry on!

3 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

Another Senator Vows To Stop NIETCs

I Know You Are, But What Am I?

Kafka, Flounder, And A Rip In Time

How PJM and FERC Caused Huge Spikes in Regional Power Bills and New Transmission

Where's the Customers, Invenergy? (Appellate Court Version)

DOE Uses Your Money to Bribe Transmission Advocates

Transource Says It Will Refile IEC Project With Pa PUC

PJM Opens New Transmission Window To Serve Data Centers

PJM Sets A Precedent

Why Can't We Use Existing Rights-of-way for MPRP?

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