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

The Path of Least Resistance Doesn't Exist

7/23/2019

0 Comments

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

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

Local governments have been hard on NextEra, and rightly so.
Jefferson County Commission Chair Betsy Barfield was sharper in her opposition to the project.

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

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

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

But they didn't.  NextEra tried to fly under the radar while selling "benefits" to impacted counties.
Property taxes associated with it could top $17 million in both counties over 30 years, with as much as $960,000 accrued in the first year. During the line's construction, 200 local jobs will be created and business to hotels, restaurants and stores could see an uptick.
Gosh, where have we heard these tired claims before?  I know!  It's part of every lame transmission project everywhere.  And what have we discovered?  The tax benefit claims are overblown.  Utilities are taxed at different rates on a state level and the distribution of benefits often siphons them away from affected localities.  Actual benefits are always less than proffered.  But let's look at that claim... $17 million divided by two counties = $8.5M each further divided by 30 years = $283,000 per year per county, further diminished by state utility tax policies.  Doesn't sound like much, does it, especially when offset by lowered property tax values for properties affected by the project, who can petition to have their assessed value lowered because of the depreciated value of their properties when crossed by a high voltage power line.  These counties would be lucky to break even, tax wise.  Oh, but wait!  Local jobs will be created by the transient workers on location to build the power line who will stay at local hotels, eat at local restaurants, and shop at local stores.  But 200 jobs?  It's going to take 200 temporary employees to serve a couple hundred line workers for a few weeks or months, before they move on?  This is utterly ridiculous, as transmission company claims usually are.

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

FDOT spokesman Ian Satter confirmed NextEra has not approached the agency with plans to consider Highway 27.
“Gulf Power has contacted our department to make us aware they will submit permits to cross state roads,” Satter said.
Oh, no, NextEra, you didn't!  You lied to local governments?  Lying about the viability of alternative routes doesn't work.  Just ask Transource, whose posturing against using existing transmission rights-of-way has pushed the company into the desperate position of trying to settle with opposition to build on those previously "unworkable" routes in order to avoid having its project denied outright.  My Magic Eight Ball tells me NextEra may soon find itself in the same position.  Seems like NextEra is simply opposed to sharing its golden egg with Duke Energy.  Building new transmission is a profit center for utilities, a golden egg of long term riches, where the utility collects a generous return on its investment over the decades of a project's useful life.  It's nothing more than a grandiose mortgage, and electric ratepayers are making the payments.

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

Keep fighting, Florida!
0 Comments

Another One Bites The Dust

7/23/2019

0 Comments

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

But that didn't stop Eversource's posturing.  Eversource did what every annoying transmission project does... searches for "options" to try again.  These guys just don't know how to take "no" for an answer.
Eversource, in a statement, said it was “deeply disappointed” with the decision.
“We will closely review the Supreme Court’s decision and evaluate all potential options for moving forward. It’s clear that the need for new energy sources in New England is greater than ever, and we remain focused on innovative solutions that will lower costs for our customers, improve reliability and advance clean energy.”
Ah... give it a rest, Eversource.  Northern Pass was a bad idea that you just kept dumping money into way past the point of prudence.
Eversource spent $249 million on Northern Pass through September 2017, including engineering, property purchases, attorney fees and application fees. Eversource was funding the construction through borrowing and stockholder equity.
Won't Eversource have some fancy explaining to do at its upcoming earnings call?  What fun!

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

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

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

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

Wind Catcher V2.0 - AEP's Shell Game

7/16/2019

0 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kansas Kabuki

7/13/2019

1 Comment

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

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

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

And then the KCC put on some new costumes for the next act... where Invenergy decided that 5 years just wouldn't be enough time to begin construction of its project and that the deadline was much too clear.  Invenergy wanted a 10 year extension cloaked in muddled opacity, but how was it going to get that without making another filing on the permit docket and potentially getting into a battle with Stallbaumer and other intervenors?  How could Invenergy change the Sunset date in one docket by activity in another?  The landowners who were parties to the original permitting docket have no expertise to oppose the sale of the project and had no place in the sale docket.  They were not parties to the sale negotiations or the confidential settlement that took place in that docket.  The goal was to change the Sunset date in the other docket without involving landowners.  Another act in the drama unfolded...
KCC staff obligingly filed testimony demanding Invenergy acquire a percentage of easements within one year or reapply, as if that had anything at all to do with the sale of the project.  If you looked at it from a distance and didn't know any better, it almost looked like the KCC staff had grown a set.  But it was sadly out of place... just an act to get the Sunset date introduced into the sale docket so it could be negotiated there without the interference of the landowners affected.

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

And so it is... staff and Invenergy made a filing to replace the Sunset date with a bunch of unclear and confidential requirements in the sale settlement.
Joint Movants request that the Commission issue an order in this proceeding that eliminates the December 2, 2019 Sunset Term and replaces it with the Settlement Deadlines set forth in Paragraph 9.e of the Settlement Agreement.
Those deadlines are:
1. By December 2, 2024, GBE shall have either (i) obtained executed easement agreements, demonstrably commenced negotiations to obtain easements, or instituted proceedings in state district court to obtain easements, or any combination thereof, for at least **-** of the total number of easements
required to construct the Kansas portion of the Project; or (ii) satisfied the Financing Requirement as defined in Paragraph 9.a. hereof. If unable to meet the requirements of the preceding sentence, GBE shall either, at GBE's election: (a) commit to **•••••••••• **; or (b) file for an updated transmission line siting permit under K.S.A. 66-1, 178.
Unless GBE has elected to proceed with an updated transmission line siting permit under K.S.A. 66-1,178 in subsection (b) in the preceding paragraph, by December 2, 2026, GBE shall have either (i) obtained executed easement agreements, demonstrably commenced negotiations to obtain easements, or instituted proceedings in state district court to obtain easements, or any combination thereof, for at least **-** of the total number of easements required to construct the Kansas portion of the Project; or (ii) satisfied the Financing Requirement. If unable to meet the requirements of the preceding sentence, GBE shall either, at GBE's election: (a) commit to ** **; or (b) file for an updated transmission line siting permit under K.S.A. 66-1,178.
Unless GBE has elected to proceed with an updated transmission line siting permit under K.S.A. 66-1,178 in subsection (b) of the preceding paragraph, if by December 2, 2028, the Financing Requirement has not been satisfied or if at least **-** of the total number of easements has not been executed, then GBE agrees to either: (a) file for an updated transmission line siting permit under K.S.A. 66-1,178; or (b) abandon the Project and allow all easements to revert to the landowners.

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

Financing requirement mentioned above: 

GBE will not install transmission facilities on easement property in Kansas until it has obtained commitments for funds in an amount equal to or greater than the total cost to build the entirety of this multi-state transmission project ("Financing Requirement"). To allow the Commission to verify compliance with this condition, GBE shall file the following documents with the Commission at such a time as GBE is prepared to begin to construct electric transmission facilities in Kansas:
1. On a confidential basis, equity and loan and/or other debt financing agreements and commitments entered into or obtained by GBE or its parent company for the purpose offunding GBE's multi-state transmission project that, in the aggregate, provide commitments for the total project cost.
An attestation by an officer of GBE that GBE has not, prior to the date of the attestation, installed transmission facilities on easement property; or a notification that such installation is scheduled to begin on a specified date.
A statement of the total multi-state transmission project cost, broken out by the categories of engineering, manufacturing and installation of converter stations; transmission line engineering; transmission towers; conductor; construction labor necessary to complete the project; right-of- way acquisition costs; and other costs necessary to complete the project, and certified by an officer of GBE.
A reconciliation statement certified by an officer of GBE showing that (I) the agreements and commitments for funds provided in subsection (i), above, are equal to or greater than the total project cost provided in subsection (iii), above; and (2) the contracted transmission service revenue is sufficient to service the debt financing of the project (taking into account any planned refinancing of debt).
Invenergy filed testimony on this request that said:
As further described in the Testimony of Kris Zadlo in Support of Joint Motion, attached hereto, the requested relief is consistent with the Settlement Agreement approved in the 19-253 Docket and serves the public interest by providing more certainty with regard to the progress and completion of the Project. First, the current Sunset Term requires Grain Belt to “begin construction” before a certain date, but does not define what it means to “begin construction.” Whether a project has “begun construction” is often subjective and difficult to measure. On the other hand, the Settlement Deadlines--which require Grain Belt to acquire a specific portion of easements or obtain financing commitments for the entirety of the multi-state transmission project by specific dates--are metrics that are easily quantifiable. Second, easement acquisition and financing commitments are superior indicators of progress on the Project than a vague requirement to begin construction. Third, by requiring specific progress on easement acquisition, the Settlement Deadlines increase landowner certainty.
What was the original requirement Invenergy needs to replace for clarity?
Grain Belt Express is allowed five years from the date of the Commission's Order to begin construction of the project in Kansas or otherwise be required to reapply.
Seems pretty clear to me.  If "begin construction" is unclear in that requirement, then how does it later become clear in a new requirement that "... GBE shall file the following documents with the Commission at such a time as GBE is prepared to begin to construct electric transmission facilities in Kansas..."? 

Logic aside, the bigger concern is that landowners are prevented from knowing the entire condition that supposedly "protects" them because it's confidential.  Kansans are just supposed to blindly trust that the KCC is protecting them in secret meetings with Invenergy?
Picture
Considering the way Kansans have been blindsided, lied to, and tossed under the bus by a government agency that's supposed to protect them, perhaps that is a step too far.

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

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

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

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

NIMBY Deja Vu

7/10/2019

0 Comments

 
Remember this?

Not In Michael's Back Yard

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

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

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

Michael wants to put them in your backyard.  Because...
Not In Michael's Back Yard
Is it the name Michael?  Or is it just serendipity?  Deja Vu, Mayberry!
0 Comments

Easement Payments Are Compensation, Not Benefit

7/10/2019

0 Comments

 
North American Wind Power thinks that "landowner easement payments" are a benefit of new transmission.  As if landowners are striking it rich being the victims of eminent domain takings.
The transmission line also creates several economic benefits, including added grid interconnection and future interconnection options, landowner easement payments, and county property tax payments.
A landowner is entitled to compensation when his land is taken through condemnation, aka eminent domain.  The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
COMPENSATION.  An attempt to compensate a landowner for something taken from him, often against his will.  Compensation is an effort to pay a landowner for his loss.  It's not a benefit.  At most, it's a trade.  Supposedly the landowner is made whole, given money for land he can no longer use.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consumer Organizations Drop a Little Common Sense on FERC Transmission Incentives Inquiry

6/26/2019

2 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

You may read the comments here.

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

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

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

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

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

Transmission Without Wires Causes Industry Freak Out

6/19/2019

0 Comments

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

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

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

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

And then all hell broke loose.

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

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

Alternative Transmission Inc. (ATI) filed an answer to all that sound and fury signifying nothing the other day.  Go ahead, read it, references to Nikola Tesla and all.
It is noteworthy that when Congress was considering the FPA legislation, many years earlier the polymath Nikola Tesla was testing wireless transmission of electric energy. FPA legislators likely were aware that wireless transmission was being researched, even though Tesla’s specific concept being developed at Wardenclyffe Tower on Long Island ultimately proved commercially unsuccessful.
May the ghost of Tesla haunt you and zap your cafeteria coffee maker into useless oblivion, EEI.  Innovation is the future, even if we have to drag you into it, kicking and screaming the whole way.  If the electric transmission industry does not evolve, it's headed for Dinosaur Land.
0 Comments

That Invenergy Cat is Busting Out All Over

6/19/2019

0 Comments

 
Meow, ladies and gents.

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

Last night, I had a dream.
Some important guests entered the soiree via the unassuming facade of the KCC. There, arrivals grabbed Invenergy's smoked chicken tostadas and lavender lemonade cocktails before venturing underground to tour the private lairs of KCC Commissioners.

Later the brightly-hued mob - dressed in-theme with the "Color Outside the Lines" motif - headed into a rainbow-lit tent for dinner. Fuchsia, cobalt and neon streamer-centerpieces zig-zagged from tabletops to the ceiling. Roasted root vegetables with truffle pea puree were plated to match.

The casually A-list throng including Kris Zadlo, Amber Smith, Cole Bailey, Glenda the Good Witch, Justin Grady, Leo Haynos, and Michael Skelly happily dug into their beef tenderloin and vanilla panna cotta.

Post-dessert, KCC chair emeritus Dwight D. Keen auctioned off two inaugural entertaining opportunities: choice of a cocktail party inside the KCC catered by Clean Line featuring a Houston Grand Opera private recital with food and libations by the affected landowners, or a right-of-way clearing trip through Southern Kansas to transmit power from Invenergy's Wind Catcher project into AEP's Tulsa delivery point. Bids for the offers quickly swelled past the five-figure mark.
And then I woke up and realized that none of that actually happened... at least not that the public knows about.

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

Or does it?
Picture
It sure was awful quiet in the wake of the KCC approval.

Another 6 weeks of blissful summer limbo before
0 Comments

The Transmission Tower Rodeo

6/11/2019

0 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This stupid lie needs to be retired.  It's only repeated by stupid people.
0 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    About the Author

    Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.
    In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history.

    About
    StopPATH Blog

    StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project.  The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

    StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view.  If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty.  People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself.  If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.

    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me

    Search This Site
    Got something to say?  Submit your own opinion for publication.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    August 2025
    July 2025
    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories

    All
    $$$$$$
    2023 PJM Transmission
    Aep Vs Firstenergy
    Arkansas
    Best Practices
    Best Practices
    Big Winds Big Lie
    Can Of Worms
    Carolinas
    Citizen Action
    Colorado
    Corporate Propaganda
    Data Centers
    Democracy Failures
    DOE Failure
    Emf
    Eminent Domain
    Events
    Ferc Action
    FERC Incentives Part Deux
    Ferc Transmission Noi
    Firstenergy Failure
    Good Ideas
    Illinois
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Land Agents
    Legislative Action
    Marketing To Mayberry
    MARL
    Missouri
    Mtstorm Doubs Rebuild
    Mtstormdoubs Rebuild
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    Newslinks
    NIETC
    Opinion
    Path Alternatives
    Path Failures
    Path Intimidation Attempts
    Pay To Play
    Potomac Edison Investigation
    Power Company Propaganda
    Psc Failure
    Rates
    Regulatory Capture
    Skelly Fail
    The Pjm Cartel
    Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes
    Transource
    Valley Link Transmission
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.