All Categories

Prohibiting Greenwashing

10/8/2019

I saw this petition to the Securities and Exchange Commission in my morning utility dreck.

Some outfit calling itself the Energy and Environment Legal Institute has filed several requests to the SEC asking that it prohibit corporate greenwashing. The latest is a great read about Amazon's greenwashing, and so is its original request featuring greenwashing by such companies as Apple, Exxon, and Exelon.

All these companies make big claims to their investors about how much they're contributing to stopping climate change. Except, they're not. Not really. Their contributions are, quite literally, a green fart in a climate change windstorm. Their emission reductions average less than 1/10th of a percent of the 53.5 billion tons of carbon emitted annually.

Such statements mislead investors by giving them the false impression that the emissions are cuts are at all significant or meaningful. Regardless of one’s views on climate science, simple math shows that no registrant can affect climate in any discernible manner. No single registrant is “saving” the planet. All U.S. registrants taken together can’t “save” the planet by even by eliminating all their emissions. The math is simple. Claims to the contrary are false and/or misleading.

The Commission should issue new climate guidance to registrants instructing them that, if they choose to talk about climate, they must do so honestly and with full disclosure with respect to the significance of their actions. If a registrant wants to report that it has cut its emissions by 25 MILLION tons, it should also be required to report that, in the context of a world where manmade emissions amount to 53.5 BILLION tons, the 25 MILLION tons of emissions cuts amounts to 0.047% of global emissions.

The requests also highlight such sleight of hand as shifting emissions on to other parties. Example: Exxon claims it will reduce flaring. This means that it captures methane and sells it to others that burn it. In addition, many companies have shifted their manufacturing overseas in order to claim that their U.S. operations are "clean." The latest request highlighting Amazon's climate claims hit my amusing irony button. Amazon claims it will meet the Paris Climate Agreement 10 years early. Except corporations aren't part of the agreement, and the agreement has no deadline. Amazon makes a big deal out of its electric vehicle fleet... except where does the electricity come from that powers the fleet? Carbon. No corporation uses 100% "clean" energy. The electric grid doesn't work that way. These corporations are merely purchasing the "right" to claim they use renewable energy, while the actual renewable energy is used by others who purchase the actual energy, not some separately marketed make-believe right to make greenwashing claims.

So, if corporations are pulling their investors' legs about how environmentally sustainable they are, they're pulling the legs of their customers even harder. If these corporations were honest with investors, they'd tell them that greenwashing sells. The silly people who no longer eat meat or drink with straws are eating it up, believing they're making a big difference by buying the products of greenwashed companies.

But if these companies themselves aren't making a difference, how much difference did I make last week when my waitress disdainfully sniffed, "We don't have straws," and I had to gingerly drink out of a sloppy bar glass? Ew. Did I save the planet that afternoon? The climate hysteria has gone way beyond "I'm making a difference" to "I'm going to make you make a difference." And that's where it's about to run aground.

Greenwashing is nothing more than expensive PR.

So, just remember, you're not really making a difference. You're just paying more to pretend that you are. The only way you can actually save the planet is by ceasing to exist (because eating babies is cray-cray).

As before, Amazon could vanish from the Earth – i.e., have zero emissions now and forever – and this would make no difference to global emissions, atmospheric greenhouse gas levels or to climate.

0 Comments

Is NIMBY Political?

10/7/2019

3 Comments

Is it a "political" thing when somebody doesn't want invasive infrastructure that doesn't benefit them in their backyard? By its very nature, NIMBY-ism is supposed to be a selfish thing - Not in My Back Yard. My, me, it's all about me, right? I'm pretty sure it's all about me's sense of place, not me's politics. Why, then, does E&E News file this story under "Politics?"

Is it because the NIMBY in this story has a career as a political lobbyist? What if she was a brain surgeon? Would E&E file it under Health & Science? NIMBY this and NIMBY that - NIMBY is enjoying a new liberal media renaissance. But it's all about NIMBY resistance to "clean" energy projects. I haven't seen any NIMBY gas pipeline stories filed under politics. Is it simply about turning NIMBY into a political issue, where NIMBYs are sorted by their political affiliation into "good" NIMBYs we support, and "bad" NIMBYs we revile? Do some NIMBYs deserve to host invasive infrastructure due to their political views? Is there some political chess master somewhere who decided to seize upon NIMBY and use it as a political tool?

Here's the thing... NIMBY isn't political at all. Groups who oppose invasive infrastructure in their communities are politically blind. It's about the community, not the politics. Opposition members who try to draw politics into their battle are routinely shunned from the group. Opposition works because the group is non-political. Trying to make opposition political in order to disband or disperse it doesn't work.

Nobody wants invasive infrastructure in their community, especially when they don't benefit from it. And opposition is working to delay and cancel projects.

What's wrong with NIMBY?

Susan Ralston does not mind opponents attacking her for being part of the "NIMBY people."
"My husband would say, 'Well, what's wrong with NIMBY?'" she said while drinking a skim latte at the Four Seasons Hotel in Georgetown. "So what if I don't want it in my backyard!"

So what indeed! If it doesn't go in her back yard, would it go in someone else's back yard? Would it turn into back yard hot potato until it ends up in the back yard of someone who wants it, or someone without the knowledge or resources to successfully oppose it? That's the glittering generality being attached to the NIMBY renaissance.

David Murray, executive director of the SEIA chapter that covers Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia, said that in general residents tend to question solar energy because it is fairly new. People who live near fossil fuel plants historically did not have the luxury of fighting the operations, he said.
"A number of folks say, 'I like solar, but I don't want it near me, and I don't want to have to look at it,'" he said. "Communities who live near coal plants didn't have an option to live near those. We kind of ignore the fact that historically, fossil fuel plants have been in communities that haven't had that opportunity, and they are now feeling the effects of increased air and water pollution."
"Anytime you have folks who are willing to spend a lot of personal money to ensure they don't have to look at solar panels — that's going to make it more challenging for us to transition away from fossil fuels," he added.

Fossil fuel plant neighbors didn't have an option or opportunity? Of course they did. It's just that they were crushed by the politically connected who didn't want those things in their back yard. Where were these political folks back then? So now we want to "socialize" the misery by releasing fossil fuel plant neighbors from their burden and placing it elsewhere, preferably in "red" states. Is it their turn? Or just because they're not part of the political elite who drive the liberal media? How about we stop with the utility scale renewables and make every community responsible for their own energy burdens and avoid sacrifice for benefit of others entirely?

Adding to the false political narrative are political front group "investigators" such as the "...Energy and Policy Institute, which tracks opposition to clean energy nationwide." It's only about opposition to clean energy? What about opposition to dirty energy? Does nobody care where their funding comes from? It comes from mysterious dark money organizations who provide grants and donations to "clean energy" fronts, like the Energy and Policy Institute (hey, there's even mention of this mysterious group's founder "having ties to" Tigercomm). Hmm... what is that smell?

"One of the challenges in researching this stuff is that there is often no money trail to follow," Anderson [of the Energy & Policy Institute] said, adding, "I don't think everyone who shows up to events in the community is an agent of the fossil fuel industry. But it's hard to suss that out."

The anti-solar groups appear to be separate from front groups that are propelled by fossil fuel interests, said Anderson.

Both anti-wind and -solar activists are often tied to conservative ideology, Anderson said. "They are sort of a different tier of more NIMBY-type activists who are not necessarily being paid but they are clearly being influenced by these conservative groups," he said.

Oh my, tied to? You don't say! Because Anderson can't find any money changing hands, it's now all about conservative "influence." As if being NIMBY is a choice that is influenced by politics? It's either your back yard or it's not! Energy and Policy Institute loves to find "ties to" things and associations between unrelated groups in order to make up stories about who is behind the front groups this front group gets paid to expose. It's a front group hall of mirrors!

Bad guy once bought something from WalMart, and WalMart makes political donations to a party I don't like, therefore, Bad Guy is working for the political party I don't like and must be a really bad guy. That's how "ties" work. What a load of baloney!

What is the common denominator in all of these bad NIMBYs against "clean energy" project stories? I'm not fooled. Are you? Maybe it depends on your political affiliation.

3 Comments

Social Media Proves Too Real For Invasive Projects

10/3/2019

1 Comment

Big, invasive infrastructure projects have lost the social media battle. This isn't new, it happened before the war even started. There's no way these projects can ever win the social media battle. However, that doesn't stop them from trying. But, they're only fooling themselves!

Take a look at this silly article in a "renewables" publication. Oooh... use of NIMBY in the headline and throughout the article. Name-calling is one of the seven common propaganda devices named decades ago by a now defunct U.S. organization, the Institute for Propaganda Analysis.

Name-Calling: "Giving an idea a bad label and therefore rejecting and condemning it without examining the evidence." This is the use of negative words or labels to create prejudice against some person, group or idea. If you fall for this you have been driven to reach a conclusion without examining the evidence.

Interesting these folks need to use propaganda to try to convince their own people that they can win this war. They need their own people to believe anyone who opposes industrial wind is a self-interested "NIMBY" who shall be dismissed out of hand without consideration of his or her arguments. That's pretty revealing right up front. The industry dismisses the concerns of community members automatically. How could such a project fool the community into believing they care? They can't.

Who writes this drivel? A "clean" PR firm drumming up business for "Corporate social media strategy and management." Take a look at this company's website. They have written extensively about their "success" with digital media campaigns for "clean" companies. And, hey, look... they have a facebook page. Maybe you want to connect and let them know what you think about their article? They've created a post about it. They want your comments. The irony of Tigercomm itself being taught the very lesson it writes about is just too delicious. Let them know what you think about the opinion expressed in their article.

Such as:

There’s a growing concern within the wind industry that in communities considering hosting wind farms, the loud minority of opponents is increasingly trumping the silent majority of supporters who want the jobs and revenue that come with projects.

Minority? Majority? Where's the unbiased poll numbers? Or is this contention just created out of thin air to support Tigercomm's opinion? My experience has been that the only ones who support a new wind farm or other large infrastructure project, such as an electric transmission line, in a community are the ones directly profiting from it. It's pretty much impossible to buy an entire community, but wind farms do try, with their "Good Neighbor Agreements" that effectively gag signatories from vocal opposition. If the vocal opposition is such a minority, why would a wind farm pay to gag them? It's well known that being against something generates more energy than being for it. Why don't wind farms use their cash to pay the silent majority to be vocal, instead of paying the vocal opposition to be silent?

At best, Nimby pushback is raising costs through delays. At worse, half-a-billion-dollar wind farms are dying because 50 people shouted at their county commissioners during a public meeting.

My, aren't we creative and colorful? That's a pretty loaded statement. That make-believe community probably only consists of 52 people who spoke out for or against the project (rarely shouting). When faced with a threat, rural communities circle the wagons and it's the whole of their energy that is so powerful, not just a handful of shouters.

Facebook is “the new town square” in rural areas, according to Avangrid Renewables’ director of communications, Paul Copleman, as it’s eclipsed traditional local newspapers, many of which are dying.

Nimby groups organise online, then they show up in the room. The wind IPPs have ceded the digital ground to such an extent that “the opposition is eating our lunch”, according to Matt Wagner, manager of renewable energy development at Detroit-based DTE.

It's the digital town square because it's composed of real people with real relationships to each other communicating without the media filter controlled by corporate public relations spinners like Tigercomm. Real people, real information. But it's only a window into the town square room. The real interaction happens in the community, in person, a place that the corporation isn't.

Projects are being built in communities that see undeveloped land as something to be conserved, rather than a resource to be used.

Oh my! The community IS using its land as a resource. It's growing food for a profit! "Undeveloped land" is fully developed to its best and highest purpose - agriculture! Contrary to urban legend, not all land has to be covered with man made infrastructure to be useful. Furthermore, it is up to the owners of the land in the collective interest of the community to determine the best use of their resources. The last thing a farmer needs is some city folks coming in and telling them how to use their land. This is a complete no-brainer and at the very heart of rural resistance to infrastructure intended to serve the cities.

Nimbys are being helped with outside organisers and money, much of it from incumbent energy sources.

Oh, for goodness sake! Would you stop with the "dark money" lies? True grassroots opposition raises its own money. In more than a decade of working with grassroots opposition groups, I have NEVER seen ANY money given to these groups by outside organizers. Grassroots money comes from the community, in small amounts. Any opposition coming from industry is deployed by the industry in tandem with what the grassroots organization is doing. Industry opposition attempts to siphon grassroots energy for its own purposes, but the two are not connected or coordinated. Grassroots opposition is the independent leader and industrial opposition is simply an opportunistic parasite. Industry opposition would never trust grassroots organizations to spend its money to best serve the industry. They spend it on their own campaigns to oppose things, they don't give it to us. Now, I know you think it bolsters your name-calling devices to say "NIMBYS" are financially supported and controlled by your corporate opponents, but it's simply not true and the only ones who believe it are the ones whose narrative it fits into -- namely the climate change shouters. These folks don't show up in small towns to participate in individual infrastructure battles therefore they are irrelevant. Enough already with the "dark money." You have absolutely NO PROOF to back up this claim.

The good news? Among the IPP staff on the front lines of community engagement, there is a growing consensus that the industry must up its digital game by more proactively meeting community members where they are — online, not just across the table at the diner.
In a series of interviews with IPP staff, we found widespread agreement on the advantages of increased digital engagement, as well as basic best practices.
They shared nearly a dozen benefits the industry is missing due to digital constraints, including insulating persuadable community members against the predictable arguments of critics; profiling and amplifying supporters’ stories, and creating a credible alternative information source to Nimby Facebook groups.
Interviewees also collectively produced a list of digital best practices for their executive teams to consider, which included starting communicating early, before opposition groups form and gain momentum — it’s a race to define; showing wind farm benefits through supporters’ stories, captured on camera; and showing people the experience of those currently living near existing wind farms.
As Apex Clean Energy vice-president for public affairs, Dahvi Wilson said: “Opponents of one company’s projects can encourage and strengthen opponents to another company’s projects. Like it or not, we’re in the digital boat together. We need more companies to increase their investment in digital community engagement.”
At the staff level, the consensus for upping the industry’s digital game is solid and growing because, as Adam Renz, manager of business development for Pattern Energy, said: “Social media can de-risk projects.”

Insulating persuadable community members? Insulating them from what? Keeping them in their sterile corporate bubble where the only facts they learn are cherry-picked for their favorable opinions? Do you folks even realize where you are? You've invaded these people's community! They live there! They hear and see lots of stuff in their community. They're real people with real lives. You cannot digitally control real people.

Presenting "stories" of people who love wind or transmission does little to convince people to support it. Everyone realizes those are paid-for opinions and dismisses them out of hand (sort of like how the NIMBY and "dark money" arguments are supposed to work).

In my 10+ years of grassroots opposition organizing and strategizing, I've seen nothing but failure from corporate social media campaigns. They cannot be sanitized effectively, and that's the foundation of public relations. If a corporation creates a Facebook page, the opponents will swarm it and post negative comments. The corporation must delete comments and block people. The tide of opponents is so strong though, that more keep coming. The Facebook page is like a ghost town, with all comments deleted or not viewable (like where a post says it has 72 comments, but when you try to view them, only 1 shows up, and it's complimentary). There's a certain look to infrastructure company social media campaigns that defies the very nature of social media. They are a one-way street with no interaction. Social media is about interaction. Without that, it's just a webpage. Essentially, infrastructure company Facebook pages are nothing but a website. But they're a fun-filled website where opponents get to post their opinions for everyone to read (until they're removed by the corporation). We have fun playing cat and mouse with you folks when we have free time, or just need a quick giggle to get through a difficult project.

Get ready, Tigercomm... isn't it almost time for lunch?

1 Comment

When You Don't Get What You Want Fast Enough...

10/1/2019

0 Comments

Remember FERC's Transmission Incentives inquiry? The ink is hardly dry on the hundreds of initial and reply comments filed at the agency this summer, but the greedy utility industry just can't wait to create an easy way to increase their profits. Or maybe they're not confident that they can twist enough arms at FERC to get their own way and have given up on that in order to pursue another way to get what they want?

In FERC's inquiry released this spring, the agency sought opinions about the security of our transmission system, and ideas about actions it could take to boost security in the form of incentives.

Security
27. Enhancing the physical and cyber-security of existing jurisdictional transmission facilities, including new facilities, can improve the facilities’ ability to contribute to the reliability of the bulk power system. Addressing the security of the transmission system is a priority of the Commission.

Q 32) Should the Commission incentivize physical and cyber- security enhancements at transmission facilities? If so, what types of security investments should qualify for transmission incentives? What type of incentive(s) would be appropriate?
Q 33) How should the Commission define “security” in the context of determining eligibility for incentive treatment? For example, should the Commission define security based on specific investments or based on performance of delivering increased security of the transmission system?

FERC intends to deal with this issue, although it is questionable whether "security" is a basis for awarding financial incentives under Sec. 219 of the FPA, which is the only existing statute authorizing FERC to award transmission incentives.

So, what the heck is this?

Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Joe Manchin (D-WV), James Risch (R-ID), Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Angus King (I-ME) introduced last week a bill designed to help strengthen the nation’s electric grid.

The Protecting Resources On The Electric grid with Cybersecurity Technology (PROTECT) Act directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to incentivize cybersecurity investments by electric utilities.
The measure also establishes a grant and technical assistance program for advanced cybersecurity technology at the Department of Energy (DOE).

Key provisions of the bill include directing FERC to issue a rulemaking on rate incentives for advanced cybersecurity technology and establish a grant program at DOE for utilities that are not regulated by FERC to deploy advanced cybersecurity technology.

Our Congress critters have introduced legislation to create a new statute just to deal with security issues. Does this indicate that the critters believe security isn't covered by Sec. 219 and needs a separate mandate? If that's the case, there are a whole bunch of other issues FERC is considering in the context of Sec. 219 that also fall short. Or are they just marching in tune to their campaign donors to speed things up? We all know FERC is going to take its own sweet time on the incentives inquiry. Like a really, really long time. Increased utility profits just can't wait! Does this mean that all the other issues covered in FERC's inquiry will find their own home in separate new legislation? Is FERC going to be left holding a deflated balloon, where all the transmission incentives have migrated away from Sec. 219? Why not amend Sec. 219 instead of creating new legislation? This whole thing makes little sense.

Anyhow... what would this proposed legislation do?

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Commission, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council, and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, shall conduct a study to identify incentive-based, including performance-based, rate treatments for the transmission of electric energy subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission that could be used to encourage—
‘‘(1) investment by public utilities in advanced cybersecurity technology; and
‘‘(2) participation by public utilities in cyberse- curity threat information sharing programs.

So, let me get this straight... in addition to FERC considering this very same issue in its transmission incentives inquiry, it's also going to conduct a taxpayer-funded "study" in consultation with a bunch of other quasi-governmental agencies, some of which actually have the authority to simply order utilities to undertake increased security measures? The Commission itself, as well as NERC, have existing authority to order utilities to undertake security measures to protect their systems. If this was such a big problem, you'd think they'd do so quickly, before China turns the lights off. Instead, we're going to waste money "studying" ways to reward public utilities for protecting their own systems, a duty they already have.

INCENTIVE-BASED RATE TREATMENT.—Not later than 1 year after the completion of the study under subsection (b), the Commission shall establish, by rule, incentive-based, including performance-based, rate treat- ments for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce by public utilities for the purpose of benefitting consumers by encouraging—

‘‘(1) investments by public utilities in advanced cybersecurity technology; and
‘‘(2) participation by public utilities in cyberse- curity threat information sharing programs.

We've got to provide financial "encouragement" for utilities to protect their own systems? Instead of ordering utilities to protect their systems, we're going to pay them extra in order to do so voluntarily? This is nothing more than allowing utilities to set the price at which they agree to be regulated. Ridiculous!

Furthermore, guess who pays the extra incentives? You do, I do, everyone does, in their electric bill. Congress is giving away our money because they believe it "benefits" us. They've even built in a protection for us...

RATEPAYER PROTECTION.—Any rate approved under the rule issued pursuant to this section, including any revisions to that rule, shall be subject to the requirements of sections 205 and 206 that all rates, charges, terms, and conditions—

‘‘(1) shall be just and reasonable; and
‘‘(2) shall not be unduly discriminatory or pref- erential.

Requiring consumers to pay extra to "encourage" utilities to protect their systems, when the same protection could be had by simply ordering utilities to fulfill their obligation to keep their system safe, is not just and reasonable. It's unjust and absurd.

But, we're not done yet!

ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, and the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council, shall establish a program, to be known as the ‘‘Rural and Municipal Utility Advanced Cybersecurity Grant and Technical Assistance Program’’, to provide grants and technical assistance to, and enter into cooperative agreements with, eligible entities to protect against, detect, respond to, and recover from cybersecurity threats.

While big, corporate, public utilities will benefit from increased rates paid by their consumers who use their systems, small publicly-owned, cooperative and municipal utilities won't be left behind. These small utilities are operated in the interest of their customers and don't turn a profit. Whatever it costs to serve is the price their ratepayers pay. Except with this legislation, these utilities will just be handed some cash to use to provide benefits to their customers. That cash comes out of the U.S. Treasury, that we all pay into. So while public utility customers pay to "secure" their own systems, we all pay to "secure" the small not-for-profit utilities so their customers don't have to shoulder the cost. Does this even make sense? Nope. The cost-causer should pay the costs for service.

Why are all taxpayers paying to secure the systems of small town municipal utilities? Is cyber security that much of an issue that we have to act now and spend a bunch of taxpayer money? If so, just order these utilities to secure their own systems and collect the costs from their ratepayers. No financial incentives to "encourage" them. No taxpayer dollars to get the job done (or be wasted, like a lot of federal grants).

This is utterly ridiculous. Let your Congress critter know you don't support this and want your utility service to be made safe now through regular ratemaking.

0 Comments

Transmission Line Deciders Cited for Conflicts of Interest

9/23/2019

0 Comments

On August 20, 2019, Commissioners of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission stunned hundreds of onlookers at the Madison headquarters by dismissing a lower cost, non-invasive alternative developed by PSC staff engineers and selecting the Cardinal Hickory Creek (CHC) transmission line. At their one and only public discussion on the topic, Commissioners offered no factually based explanations.

Unsurprisingly, their omissions ignited wide suspicion that commissioners had acted on behalf of their personal affiliations with utilities at the expense of electric customers and communities.

Last Friday, the Driftless Area Land Conservancy and Wisconsin Wildlife Federation acted on facts in the record and formally motioned PSC Commissioners Mike Huebsch and Rebecca Valcq to recuse and disqualify themselves from the case due to conflicting affiliations with utility interests.

The motion cites Commissioner Valcq’s years of work in a law firm supporting the profit making interests of WE Energies (WEC Energy Group), who is 60% owner of American Transmission Company (ATC).

Wisconsin Public Service Commissioners are required by state law to give equal consideration to electric customers who pay the long-term, high-interest debt on all new utility projects as well as look out for the financial stability of state for-profit utilities.

While electricity use has been flat over the last ten years, Wisconsin utilities have benefited from historic rate and meter fee increases. A successful law suit by a
coalition of manufacturing users in 2016 showed that Wisconsin utility spending towards transmission doubled from 2005-2015 while customer payments to meet this
spending increased four times.

Among conflicts of interest cited for Commissioner Huebsch are his past and ongoing collaborations with the transmission builders and other utilities in the design of
regional planning that ATC used in the CHC proposal. During the PSC hearings in June, a witness representing this planning confessed that its assumptions and outcomes were never reviewed by impartial industry professionals. The economic planning Huebsch backed defined future customer spending, future customer usage and eliminated competitive alternatives -- all leading to large electric bill increases and CO2 emission
increases over time.

Specifically, Huebsch’s planning input helped establish $200 to $282 billion in new power plant spending across the Midwest and, unexplainably, it assumed that flat electricity use would suddenly start increasing. Introducing further economic harm to electric customers, Huebsch backed planning limited increases in energy efficiency investment to 10% and, astonishingly, predicted there would be no increases in installations of solar on homes and businesses through 2031. Despite intentions for the expansion planning to favor the economics of the CHC proposal, PSC staff estimates found it would not meet minimal monetary requirements in 8 out of 11 cases they evaluated.

For these and other reasons, most observers expected Commissioners to choose the PSC staff’s alternative. Named the "Base with Asset Renewal Alternative", it is founded on rebuilding two, 1950-era transmission lines at the Mississippi River at Cassville, Wisconsin. Staff reported to Commissioners that their alternative would have comparable reliability benefits, comfortably meet state economic requirements and would cost only $900,000 compared to $2.2 billion Cardinal Hickory Creek would require of Wisconsin and regional ratepayers.

It is expected that the Commission’s Administrative Law Judge will respond to the motion to disqualify Commissioners Huebsch and Valcq from the Cardinal Hickory Creek proceeding in the near future.

The motion can be accessed on the PSC website.

0 Comments

Climate Confessions

9/20/2019

2 Comments

Shuffling through the mini-mountain of utility dreck that greets me from my email each morning is a task best performed with a large pot of coffee. Most of it is so dry and boring that it spontaneously combusts on its way to the cyber trash. But every once in a while you come across a tasty nugget, like this admission from an investment analyst panning American Electric Power.

Please note that the future cash flows from these assets are supported by long-term power purchase agreements (“PPAs”) and in the case of the Santa Rita East Wind Project, virtual power purchase agreements (“VPPAs”), better enabling these assets to pad American Electric Power’s future net operating cash flows. One of the driving forces behind those PPAs and VPPAs is a growing corporate need to appear to be “green” and that involves acquiring the rights to the electricity produced from renewable power plants (even if those corporate entities aren’t directly consuming the electricity produced). Another reason involves the ever-growing demand from utilities all across America to source a growing percentage of their electricity (meaning total electricity sold to end consumers) from renewable sources (whether for long-term corporate planning purposes or for regulatory reasons).

So, going green is nothing but a scam? Of course it is! Corporations aren't actually using "green" electricity to power their businesses, they're just pretending they are because millennials want to believe the actions of others are making up for their own carbon footprint.

NBC got seriously mocked recently for its "Confess Your Climate Sins" project. The self-proclaimed "climate warriors" apparently don't practice what they preach, despite a growing (and profitable) greenwashing epidemic that attempts to control society. Eating meat? That's bad all of a sudden, and not for the health reasons your doctor has been warning you about for decades. Eating meat is bad for the climate. Ditto plastic straws and single-service eating utensils. Save the planet, catch a hideous disease from poorly washed restaurant ware. Air conditioning is bad. Sweat away your carbon guilt instead. Honestly, how much of this is an actual problem, and how much is sheep-controlling propaganda pushing a political agenda?

There's only so far it can go before it jumps the shark. And as it speeds up, we're getting closer and closer to waking up to bullshit in your cup.

The dishonest "greening" of corporate America mentioned in the AEP analysis is also on the same trajectory. Do people really choose products from companies pretending to be "green," even if they're more expensive? Maybe only the climate sheep who secretly eat bacon locked in their closet at 2 a.m. and absolve themselves of their climate sins by anonymous online confession. The rest of us don't care. Corporations aren't using green energy! They're making guilt payments to renewable energy producers so they can pretend to use green energy. The analyst recognizes the scam of renewable energy credits, or RECs, which are "the social attributes of renewable energy." What's a social attribute anyhow? It's a completely manufactured concept that an electron of energy generated has two revenue streams. The first is the sale of the actual energy produced. An electron is generated and someone buys and uses it. It's the only real attribute. The second assigns a fake "social attribute" REC to the electricity generated and bought by someone else. You can purchase this "social attribute" even though someone else has actually purchased the electron that created it. Corporations purchasing RECs are purchasing nothing at all, engaging in a gigantic scam that allows them to claim they use renewable energy even when they don't. It's nothing more than corporate virtue signalling used as a marketing ploy to sell more product at a higher price to the greenwashed masses who think they're absolving their climate sins by using their favorite shampoo "made by green energy" so that they can offset that sin and get their Starbucks in a disposable cup and grill a steak on Saturday night. And it's only going to work for so long. In fact, the hypocrisy of the climate change religion is actually starting to leak out. At some point, the hungry, diseased, dirty, and sweaty masses are going to revolt completely. It's inevitable.

Hey, guess what? Rich east coast communities don't want to be burdened by offshore wind, although they profess to love green energy. I wonder how many of them confessed to NBC?

Dear Liberal Media Climate Change Gods, hear my confession and absolve me of my sins. Although I preach to others in order to shame them about their carbon footprint, I don't want an electric cable buried under MY beach. Can't we find some downtrodden serfs in a red state and force them to host renewable energy infrastructure to power our waterfront McMansions? Pass the bacon, but do it quietly. In wind energy's name I pray, Amen.

Clean energy is great, as long as it's in someone else's backyard.

Big wind is busy repowering all their taxpayer funded wind turbines so they can lock in production tax credits for another 10 years before the tax credit goes away entirely. And it's generating literally tons of landfill waste! The fiberglass blades cannot be recycled and must be crushed and landfilled. I couldn't use enough plastic straws in my lifetime to equal just one obsolete wind turbine blade, so quit preaching about the straws already.

And then there's the SF6 thing recently making news. Apparently it's worse for the climate than CO2, and it's mainly used by the electrical industry. So, as we increase transmission and substations to serve renewable generators in order to save the climate, we're actually destroying it faster.

The electrical industry continues to be the largest user of SF6 because of its superior properties as a gaseous dielectric insulating medium to prevent high voltage electrical breakdown and electrical explosion hazards. Advantages resulting from its high dielectric strength, compared to air, nitrogen, oil and fluorinated ketones, include size reduction of electrical equipment, superior arc-quenching protection in circuit breakers, self-healing of arcing products, large current interruption, noise-free operation, minimal moisture problems, lower fire risk, absence of carbon deposition, and low maintenance cost.
Currently, electrical utilities and equipment are responsible for consuming 80% of the 10 000 tons of SF6produced every year, an amount which is growing with the increasing global production and demand for renewable forms of energy, such as wind and solar. As a result, there has been an increase in the number of connections to the electricity grid compared with the traditional fossil power stations, with the consequential rise in the use of switchgear to deal with arcing and to stop short circuits.

Climate religion is expensive. And the money it generates is all going into the pockets of corporations, so naturally they have a pecuniary interest in promoting it. The "green" movement started decades ago by environmental groups has been completely co-opted by corporate America because it increases their profits. And this is why American Electric Power wants to buy renewable generators and build new transmission lines to serve them. It's about profit, not climate religion. Does Nick Akins eat bacon? Google couldn't help me, but I bet he loves bacon.

But I do know he loves chicken wings. Chicken wings are meat. I wonder if he confessed to NBC?

I only love green energy because it increases my company's dividend and ultimately my bonus. I'm sitting here with a beer (not that cheap, weak, wind-powered Budweiser yellow beer, but a full-bodied, expertly crafted Arrogant Bastard Ale) and I've got chicken wing sauce all over my face. What time's the game?

Keep building "clean" energy infrastructure near the rich and powerful. Take away their bacon, and their air conditioning. Revolt is brewing because the majority aren't buying into the green religion. One day very soon these folks are going to wake up and realize their cup is full of crap and they've been had. And then the popes and bishops of climate religion are going to cry big crocodile tears. Boo. Hoo.

2 Comments

Knocking A God From Its Pedastal

9/15/2019

0 Comments

There was a news article many moons ago that quoted PJM Interconnection's government schmoozer as saying "PJM answers to no one." True in practice, but maybe not on paper. To whom do the handful of regional transmission organizations and Independent System Operators answer? On paper, perhaps, it's the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In practice, it might as well be no one. FERC does little to make RTOs/ISOs answerable to the consumers they're supposed to serve. As a result, RTOs do whatever they please and answer to no one.

The RTO does whatever it wants and suffers no consequences. If its planning or data is off, there is no accountability. Payment of damages is not the solution since RTOs are not-for-profit entities wholly supported financially by electric consumers. Essentially, consumers harmed by the actions of an RTO would be suing themselves.

Except now the Texas Supreme Court is considering whether the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) should pay damages to a company that built several new power plants based on ERCOT projections that subsequently went under because ERCOT's projections turned out to have been wildly wrong.

Panda Power built three power plants earlier in this decade, investing billions of dollars based on projections from the state’s grid manager that Texas desperately needed more generation to meet growing electricity demand. But those projections turned out to be wildly wrong — Texas, in fact, had plenty of power — and Panda ended up losing billions of dollars and putting one of the plants into bankruptcy, unable to sell electricity at prices sufficient to cover debts.
The Dallas company is now in court, alleging that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas intentionally manipulated the projections to encourage new power plant construction and relieve the political pressure that was building on the grid manager to increase generation in the state. The case has implications that reach beyond whether Panda gets its money back to issues as profound as the reliability of power grid, the integrity of the wholesale electricity market and the accountability of an organization whose decisions affect thousands of businesses, millions of people and billions of dollars.
The Texas Supreme Court is considering whether ERCOT, a private, nonprofit corporation, is entitled to sovereign immunity, a well-established legal principle that protects governments and their agencies from lawsuits. The high court’s decision, expected later this year, could determine whether electricity buyers and sellers can hold the grid manager responsible for pricing errors, mistake-ridden forecasts or life and death consequences of power outages.

Sovereign immunity? What's that? Sovereign Immunity is a judicial doctrine that prevents the government or its political subdivisions, departments, and agencies from being sued without its consent. The doctrine stems from the ancient English principle that the monarch can do no wrong.

Ahh... here were are again at the question of RTO godliness. Except RTOs are not governments or government entities. They are industry cartels, run by a membership of for-profit utility corporations, sanctioned by a federal regulator. So, who is responsible when an RTO makes a huge mistake that costs another party financial harm? The consumers who "benefit" from the RTO actions are also responsible for its mistakes. Is it that RTOs just provide so much benefit that they are allowed to make some mistakes that come off the "benefit" tally?

It seems that way, if you take in the big picture. RTOs routinely make mistakes in their transmission planning. Often, an RTO has ordered a new transmission project that is proven to not be needed. Once an RTO orders a transmission project, consumers pay for it. But what happens when a transmission project consumers have been paying for is found not to be needed after all? Consumers still pay for it. Even when it is not built, the utility "ordered" to build it is held harmless (because it was only doing what it was ordered to do), and is shielded from taking any financial responsibility for the project. Abandoned transmission ideas are fully recovered from ratepayers, plus interest. And we're not just talking about minor costs here, we're talking about billions of dollars paid for bad transmission ideas that were cancelled before putting a shovel to the ground.

But what if RTOs found themselves liable for their mistakes? In the Texas case, it would mean that the company who built the unneeded power plants is made whole, and consumers in Texas would foot the bill for the failed power plants. How is that any different that what happens every day as a result of failed transmission plans? A transmission line is fully recoverable, but a generator is not? Is that because a transmission line is "ordered" and a generator assumes its own risk based on RTO forecasts? Why are transmission lines more necessary than generators? They ought all be put in the same basket.

This is an interesting case to follow. Will RTOs finally have to answer to someone? Will consumers get tossed under the bus again? And how do we fix the escalating problem of RTO mistakes? No accountability increases mistakes. If there is no penalty for a mistake, accuracy goes out the window.

And what about those for-profit utilities that constitute RTO memberships? When are they going to be held responsible for their own errors? In reality an RTO rarely comes up with a transmission idea of its own. A transmission idea is brought to the RTO by the for-profit utility, and since the RTO is membership driven, the RTO is merely a rubber stamp for its members. The RTO gives the for-profit utilities a mantle of immunity, a sense that it answers to no one, and failure becomes unimportant because someone else will pay for it.

This article perhaps suggests that RTOs should be government entities, not for-profit utility cartels. Would that cure the error rate? Doubtful. It would just grant immunity to a bunch of inept governmental functionaries captured by for-profit utilities.

Perhaps the member utilities should be responsible for the costs of failed RTO planning? Of course, as the article points out, they would simply pass these costs onto their customers. However, the costs would become more visible to consumers and the for-profit utility would have to wear the failure in the court of public opinion.

If RTOs do not enjoy sovereign immunity, perhaps it's time to start holding them financially accountable for their mistakes.

0 Comments

Maine Citizens Bring Unwanted Transmission Line to a Vote

9/5/2019

0 Comments

This just in from Maine:

CMP Corridor Opponents Launch Citizens Initiative
Opponents of Central Maine Power's transmission corridor have filed an application with the Secretary of State to launch a statewide ballot initiative to stop the controversial project.
Tom Saviello , the citizen initiator of the effort, turned in bill language that would revoke the project's deeply unpopular permit approval from Maine's top energy regulator, the Public Utilities Commission. Revoking this permit, called a certificate of public convenience and necessity, would reflect the clear wishes of the majority of Mainers, who do not want the corridor to be built.
"CMP's corridor has drawn strong opposition from most Mainers," Saviello said. "Allowing Mainers to vote to block this project is only fair. We have to consider that nearly 25 towns have already voted to oppose the project, polling shows overwhelming opposition to the project, and CMP's awful scandals continue to get worse. Add to that the fact that Augusta has failed to listen to the clear voice of the people, and it's time for Mainers to take this matter into their own hands. We began the citizen's initiative process so this project will
get stopped in its tracks. Western Maine is too valuable to destroy."
Saviello is a former state representative and state senator from Franklin County, an area that would be heavily affected by CMP's corridor.
Sandi Howard, the director of Say NO to NECEC, will join Saviello in heading up the effort. Say NO to NECEC is a large grassroots organization that formed in opposition to the corridor.
"This corridor is bad for just about everyone," Howard said. "It's only good for a very select few. Augusta politicians and the state agencies who are supposed to protect Maine have failed, so we have to take this effort into our own hands. The citizen's initiative process is an enormous undertaking, but we have more than 20 thousand motivated Mainers who have signed up to help. They've called legislators, lobbied their elected officials, shown up at town meetings, and have even weighed in with Maine's energy and environmental regulators. The work they've done so far is already the broadest and most impressive exercise in direct democracy this state has seen in the modern era, and we know that Mainers are ready to get to work on this next step. We also know that CMP will use every legal trick, every lobbyist they can buy, and all of their influence in Augusta to push for their billion-dollar project, all while neglecting and overcharging their customers. This corridor is bad for Maine, and we don't trust CMP to build it."
The draft language will be considered by the Secretary of State's office in the coming days. Once the Secretary of State clears the language, corridor opponents will use their volunteer network to begin collecting petition signatures from Mainers. See draft language below.
An Act to Reject the New England Clean Energy Connect Transmission Project
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:
Sec. 1. Amend Order. Within 30 days of the effective date of this legislation and pursuant to its authority under the Maine Revised Statutes, Title 35-A, section 1321, the Public Utilities Commission shall amend the “Order Granting Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and Approving Stipulation” entered by the Public Utilities Commission on May 3, 2019 in Docket No. 2017‑00232 for the New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) transmission project. The amended order shall find that the construction and operation of the NECEC transmission project is not in the public interest that there is not a public need for the NECEC transmission project. There not being a public need, the amended order shall deny the request for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the NECEC.

Maybe Governor Janet Mills shouldn't have vetoed the legislation passed earlier this year. Now she's got a bigger problem on her hands.

Best of luck to the citizens of Maine in taking back their government from a foreign corporation! This is what democracy looks like!

0 Comments

Grain Belt Express IS NOT a Public Utility

9/5/2019

0 Comments

Initial briefs have been filed in the joint appeal of the Missouri PSC's issuance of a permit to Grain Belt Express.

Eastern Missouri Landowners Alliance, Missouri Farm Bureau and landowner Christina Reichert filed an appeal stating that the PSC has no jurisdiction to issue a permit to GBE because is is not an "electrical corporation" under Missouri law. If it's not an "electrical corporation," it's not a public utility entitled to use eminent domain to acquire easements.

It's actually pretty simple and follows the successful arguments made at the Illinois Supreme Court that vacated a permit issued by the Illinois Commerce Commission to Rock Island Clean Line, and a permit for Grain Belt Express that was vacated by the Illinois Court of Appeals. Clean Line (now Invenergy) doesn't own utility property in the state that qualifies it as a "public utility" under Illinois law. GBE also doesn't own utility property in Missouri, as defined by Missouri law. The PSC tried to pretend it did in order to issue the permit, concluding that a handful of easement options and a bank account with some cash was "utility property." By that definition, anyone with a quarter in his pocket is an "electrical corporation" because he could use that quarter to buy some utility property in the future. Cash can be used for many things, but you can't build a transmission line out of dollar bills. The easement options also fail because GBE does not own, control or manage any land. It has an option to purchase an easement at a later date, but it does not control the land at this time. The landowner can still do whatever they want with their land before the option is exercised.

But that's not the only problem with GBE, although you may think it is if you read this article. Try though it might to masquerade an an actual independent news source, Energy News Network (formerly Midwest Energy News) is funded and controlled by "Fresh Energy" which is in turn funded by numerous dark money "foundations" and renewable energy companies.

Since all these hypocritical environmentalists like to point the finger at grassroots opposition to invasive energy projects as being funded by "dark money" (which is absolutely NOT TRUE), the finger goes back at them and this time it IS true. Try finding out who funds FreshEnergy donor "Energy Foundation". Influence Watch calls it "...a left-of-center “pass through” charitable foundation founded by and supported by a network of left-wing organizations...". But, "In reality, it is a medium for bundling vast sums of money from donors to far-left political causes, under the guise of philanthropy." "News" source, indeed! It's nothing but dark money propaganda.

Anyhow... back to our show...

Perhaps a bigger hurdle for GBE is the fact that its business model and rate scheme do not meet the definition of public utility in Missouri. This point was argued quite well at the Illinois Supreme Court, however the justices found Rock Island was not a public utility because it did not own utility property, saving for another day a decision on whether its business model and rate structure prohibited it from meeting the legal definition of a public utility. And if you think that decision would have been a squeaker, it wasn't. Anyone watching the oral arguments could discern how the justices felt about it. Therefore, this argument is alive and well.

In Missouri, a public utility is under the jurisdiction of the PSC. Except GBE really isn't. It's rate scheme is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Under state law, a public utility must serve everyone indiscriminately, and must charge the same rates to similarly situated customers. But GBE won't do that. GBE will sell its service to only select customers who bid highest for its service, and it will negotiate a different rate for service with each customer. Imagine if your electric company did this. What if they refused to serve your home, but served your neighbors? And what if they charged your neighbors a much lower rate than they charged you for the same service? This isn't a public utility, it's a private enterprise. As a private enterprise, it isn't entitled to eminent domain authority to take private property for its own use.

That's pretty much been the basis of the arguments of landowners since day one. Clean Line, or GBE, can build whatever it wants, but it should never be given the power of eminent domain.

In addition, the Missouri Landowners Alliance has filed a separate appeal that hinges on legal errors made by the PSC during the course of its hearings. MLA was prohibited from accessing "confidential" information that made up the basis for GBE's testimony. If MLA did not have the information, it could not examine it nor question its validity.

Meanwhile, GBE is in a heap of trouble unrelated to its PSC permit. It still does not have the Missouri county assents it must have before beginning construction. Therefore, it's PSC permit is nothing more than a useless piece of paper. What do you think the chances are of the county governments assenting to GBE crossing their roads at this stage of the game... after more than 7 years of lies and harassment from GBE? In addition, GBE has not even applied for a permit in Illinois. Doing so would be at least a 2-year endeavor, probably greater, and the chances of the Illinois Supreme Court vacating any permit issued are huge.

So, what does Invenergy intend to do with GBE? Not what it told the Missouri Public Service Commission at hearing, obviously.

It's time to retire this white elephant. Merchant transmission does not pass the test of state public utility laws.

You can read the Joint Appeal Brief here.
And the Missouri Landowners Alliance Brief here.

0 Comments

Reform of Eminent Domain Law

9/4/2019

1 Comment

I was reading an article about eminent domain and pipelines in Texas the other day. Landowners there have had enough and are pushing for eminent domain reform in their legislature.

This caught my eye:

TACTICS
Pack said that contractors for the pipeline companies simply show up at residences, with no advance notice.
“They drive up, they knock on your door,” Pack said. “They’re all contractors. You don’t ever meet anybody that works directly with the company. They’re all contractors who are paid to get things done, to get you to sign. They tell you what they want to do, they make you a lowball offer and they try to get you to sign that day. And if you don’t, then they tell you that they’ll sue you for eminent domain.”
Pack said there is a phrase describing such tactics.
“Their immediate threat is, if you don’t sign, we’ll sue you for eminent domain and take it anyway. And that’s why most people sign. They call it pickup hood signings. Most people sign on the pickup hoods because, you say lawsuit and it scares them to death.
“They brag about a 95 percent settlement rate. The pipeline industry will tell you that there’s nothing wrong with the system, that they settle 95 percent of the cases. That’s not indicative of a fair system, that’s indicative of a system that’s so one-sided and so unfair that people are either afraid or can’t afford to fight.”

Pickup hood signings. Kitchen table signings. Binding legal documents being signed at the landowner's home without legal counsel of any kind. This just isn't right, and it needs to change.

Someone making a voluntary real estate transaction without a lawyer may be known as a fool. How many people have ever bought or sold property without a lawyer? Not many. Ask any expert and they would advise against doing so. Take a bad real estate transaction without counsel to court and the judge would probably laugh at your foolishness.

So why is this acceptable when for-profit utilities and other corporations with state-granted eminent domain authority want to acquire land rights? Why do we let corporations get away with taking advantage of landowners this way?

The corporation is well-represented by a fat legal team who writes the easement contract in the company's best interests. That's who's really calling at your door -- a high-dollar attorney whose job is to protect corporate interests and assist in creating profit. Except that guy (or gal) isn't at your kitchen table... he sends some "aww shucks" down-to-earth land agent whose job is to convince you to sign on the dotted line. Just a couple of good ol' boys doing a handshake deal and he can write you a check on the spot! What a deal!

Except it's not. And if you resist, they simply send others until they find an agent who fits your expectations better, or threaten to sue you (or maybe arrest you... it's happened). If you want professional advice before signing, it's discouraged. And, of course, it's on your own dime. Why?

Real eminent domain reform would make the utility or corporation cover the cost of an independent attorney of your choosing to represent you. All deals would happen at a lawyer's office, not on a pickup hood. The kinds of lies land agents tell to landowners would dry up if it was two attorneys negotiating. But that's too expensive, right? No. Having your attorney deal directly with the corporation's attorney cuts out the middle man, the land agent. The amount of money utilities spend on land acquisition contractors is astounding. But they're happy to do it because a land agent can tell you whatever lies facilitate your signature and then claim to have never said that if you repeat the story.

Having the corporation's attorneys prepare and present an agreement for landowner signature is also something that needs to go. A legal agreement should be edited by attorneys for both parties. Just because a corporation is offering one thing doesn't mean the landowner has to accept it. Prepare your own agreement, or edit theirs to suit your best interests.

If corporations had to provide counsel and negotiate with landowners in the sunshine before filing condemnation, things would be fair to both parties. Right now, they're terribly one-sided.

Why? Because corporations also write eminent domain laws to suit their interests and profits and your legislators just roll over and cash the campaign contribution checks.

It's about time we reform eminent domain laws in every state!

1 Comment

<<Previous

Forward>>

Prohibiting Greenwashing

Is NIMBY Political?

Social Media Proves Too Real For Invasive Projects

When You Don't Get What You Want Fast Enough...

Transmission Line Deciders Cited for Conflicts of Interest

Climate Confessions

Knocking A God From Its Pedastal

Maine Citizens Bring Unwanted Transmission Line to a Vote

Grain Belt Express IS NOT a Public Utility

Reform of Eminent Domain Law

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