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

Until now.

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

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

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

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

Fight on, folks, fight on.

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

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

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

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

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

Almost...

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

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

Watch this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facebook group Say No to NECEC reports:

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

Somebody seems to be cracking up here.

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

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

What a clown!  Oops, I meant клоун.

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

Who's paying for this comedy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He won The World Cup of Failure!

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

I see.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's another Skellyism:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Someone shared this with me.  It's PJM's recent Market Efficiency Update with the 2018/19 Market Efficiency Window list of submitted projects.  For the four identified "congestion drivers" (congestion points to be solved), PJM received 34 proposals (including two with no congestion driver at all - everyone into the pool!).  Of those 34 proposals to relieve congestion, 25 of them are greenfield projects.  A "greenfield" project is one that is built in a place where no transmission currently exists (let's turn that green field into an ugly transmission mess!) and needs new siting on new right of way.

Only nine of the projects make use of existing infrastructure that can be upgraded.  Just 9!  Prices for relieving "congestion" range from $0.1M to $291M, with the higher price tags being attached to the greenfield projects.  Of course it costs more to build new than upgrade existing.

Here's the first problem:  MARKET EFFICIENCY PROJECTS SHOULD NEVER BE GREENFIELD PROJECTS!

Greenfield projects need new rights of way, "negotiated" under threat of condemnation through eminent domain.  Nobody's property, and I do mean NOBODY, should be taken through the use of eminent domain just so someone else far, far away can save a few pennies on their electric bill.  The lights won't go out if market efficiency projects aren't built.  Instead, the market will provide its own solution to congestion if PJM allows it.  But PJM never does.

Therefore, with this slate of bad news on its table, here's a little advice for PJM.

Constructability studies:  Make sure you do them properly this time.  Factors that must be included are land use and ownership, to include recognition of historical properties, century farms, conservation land, and residential areas.  These are the kinds of property takings that inspire entrenched opposition.  This kind of opposition is what kills transmission proposals.  Another is "transmission fatigue" -- repeated attempts to site new transmission in a community.  Once a community comes together to oppose transmission, it is better armed for the next battle.  Even waiting a generation to try again doesn't make for success.  It is imperative that any constructability study recognize the possibility of opposition.  But, pretty much ANY greenfield project is going to meet with opposition, and you never know what you're going to get until the community finds out about the project.

How could PJM overcome this?  How about a public community meeting to discuss the finalists that make PJM's finalist list?  Go see what the community thinks about your proposal BEFORE you approve it, PJM.  BEFORE your transmission owner goes crying to FERC about needing the abandonment incentive.  How about BEFORE any consumer money gets spent on another hare-brained greenfield market efficiency project, PJM?  How about that?

PJM still hasn't learned its lesson.  Market efficiency projects aren't compelling enough to build new lines.  Ever.  Better give those upgrades another look.

Although important legislation to prevent the use of eminent domain for overhead merchant transmission projects was defeated at the Missouri legislature, landowners are not defeated.

This one small battle in the larger war re-framed the issue in a big way that will have repercussions nationwide.

Tax revenue?  We should use eminent domain to take private property in order to increase tax revenue?  Wasn't that the problem in Kelo v. City of New London?  Should out-of-state private companies wield eminent domain for their own profits based on inflated promises of increased tax revenue?  If that's the case, no one's property is safe.  This is bigger than one merchant transmission project.

And then there's that "green energy" thing.  Should private property be confiscated in order to pretend the electricity we waste is "greener?"  The right of eminent domain was granted to public utilities in the last century as a way to electrify the country.  In more recent times, this purpose has been lost as we slipped down the slope of using eminent domain for less compelling reasons, such as generation choices and electric rate issues.  The first tenet of eminent domain use for electric projects should always be absolute necessity.  Will the lights go off if the transmission project isn't built?  If the answer is no, then eminent domain should be prohibited.  End of story.

These are the issues that will be discussed in the wake of HB 1062, and advocates will enter the next battle in this war better prepared.

This legislative battle saw the rise of a crew of property rights heroes who deserve our recognition and thanks.

Representative James Hansen showed true leadership and dedication to his constituents by sponsoring this legislation and working tirelessly to shepherd it through the legislature.  Be sure to thank him for taking a stand for property rights.

Ralls County Commissioner Wiley Hibbard worked enthusiastically throughout to support this legislation on behalf of his constituents.  There were times he was in Jefferson City throughout the night.  There can be no better public servant than Wiley Hibbard, and he deserves a wealth of thanks for his efforts.

Marilyn O'Bannon, Eastern Missouri Landowners' representative never stopped her efforts to get this legislation passed, even when an accident left her with only one good arm in the middle of the battle.  Marilyn's work ethic and grace under pressure should be lauded by all GBE opponents.

Paul Agathan, the best lawyer landowners have ever had contributed greatly to the effort, even though he was bogged down with PSC briefs for the GBE sales case AND appeal for the CCN case at the same time.  He's amazing and landowners can't thank him enough for his work on their behalf.

Landowners Phil and Doris Brown put huge effort into this battle, providing advice and material and taking the initiative on many things to keep the issues clear and truthful.

Russ Pisciotta, Block GBE representative, continued to dedicate his time on this issue and was a fierce advocate for the legislation.

Please take the time to thank these individuals for the countless hours spent on this initiative.

And now let's recognize all the landowners and supporters who not only made the trek to Jefferson City for the rally in April during a very busy time of year, but blanketed legislators with calls and emails of support for this legislation.  Thank you, each one of you!

So, what's next?  Continuing this war as it was before the legislative session.  GBE's CCN has been appealed.  A decision has not yet been made on the GBE/Invenergy sales case by the PSC.  Briefs have been filed.

GBE/Invenergy need numerous county assents in Missouri before they can construct anything.  That battle is looming on the horizon and it's not going to be quick or easy for GBE/Invenergy.

If we believe Invenergy, a permit would be needed from the Illinois Commerce Commission that is years away.  It hasn't even been applied for, and even if it is granted several years down the road, appeals look promising thanks to the precedent set by Illinois Landowners Alliance several years ago.

If we don't believe Invenergy, major changes are coming to GBE before the end of the year that will require new state regulatory approvals.

Delay, delay, delay.  And as we all know, delay is our friend.  And I'll share something here... I truly believe GBE will never be built.  Have faith!  You are going to win this battle!

No sense crying over spilled milk when there are so many battles left to fight.  Every effort to defeat GBE builds strength for the opposition.  Keep fighting!

PJM filed rebuttal testimony in Maryland last week, and in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, admitting that existing infrastructure is a viable alternative to the IEC-East.  In his new testimony, PJM Vice President for Planning Steve Herling stated that two existing lines owned jointly by BGE and PPL present a feasible alternative to the Transource IEC-East.
 
Both of the existing lines were completely rebuilt within the last five years, and stand empty on one side of the towers.  Both lines originate within two miles of the new Transource-proposed substation, and can be reached from the substation via an abandoned transmission right-of-way.  Both lines operate at the same voltage as the IEC, and one of the lines, the Conastone-Otter Creek, terminates in the same substation as the proposed IEC-East. 
 
Addressing the new statements from PJM, Stop Transource spokesman Barron Shaw stated, “Finally PJM has admitted what was clear to the rest of us long ago: those brand new lines owned by other utilities could be used instead of the IEC-East.   It has taken them nearly two years to admit this, and they only did it under immense pressure from the state of Maryland.  Not only is their process flawed, but their defense of this unnecessary project has been dishonest.  PJM has lost all credibility.”

Wow, what has happened to investigative journalism?  Nobody has time to do it properly anymore, instead relying on the statements of corporate spinners as "fact."

And that's exactly what happened to the Columbia Missourian's article that wrongly says Block GBE and Wiley Hibbard lied about tower heights.  Reporter Sidney Steele's analysis pivoted on an email interview with Jack Cardetti, hired Clean Line spinner, where he claimed tower heights would be no higher than 150 ft.  This is a straight up fabrication and doesn't match record evidence submitted to the PSC.

The Grain Belt Express application to the PSC states at page 24:

It is plainly stated that structures may be taller than 150 ft.

In addition, the Construction Plan for GBE, dated June 2016 and submitted for the record at the PSC includes this table, which gives upper height measurements for all structures exceeding 150 ft.

Lattice structures would be 120 - 200 ft. tall.
Monopole structures would be 120 - 160 ft. tall.
Guyed structures would be 120 - 200 ft. tall.
Lattice crossing structures would be 200 - 350 ft. tall.

The Statue of Liberty, without the base (because the graphic clearly shows the Statue without the base) is around 150 ft. tall.  It is indisputable that GBE would include structures taller than the Statue of Liberty.

The Columbia Missourian's "ruling" and rating of Block GBE's claim as "false" are clearly FALSE.

The Columbia Missourian owes Block GBE and Wiley Hibbard a printed apology and retraction.

UPDATE:  Even when her error was pointed out to her, this student reporter continues to insist she was right.  What's it going to take to stop her from spreading fake news?  A lawsuit?  The Columbia Missourian should know better than to let student journalists put their company at risk by printing false information and libeling Block GBE.  It's time to take it up the chain and let the Missourian know what you think.  Email [email protected] and ask that they print a retraction and apology at once.

Here's where Sidney made her error... according to the article's sidebar, Sidney used the testimony of Wayne Galli to make her "finding" that transmission tower heights would be no greater than 150 ft.  Of course, Galli's testimony said no such thing.  What Sidney is relying on is this, an exhibit to Galli's testimony showing a depiction of "typical" tower structures.  The "typical" structures show a maximum height of 150 ft.  Typical, Sidney, TYPICAL.  It does not show the dimensions of every tower.

Moreover, Galli's exhibit is only one small part of the evidentiary record at the PSC.  Clean Line also put into evidence its application stating that taller structures will likely be required, especially for crossings.  And the weightiest piece of evidence Clean Line entered was its "Construction Plan" designed by an engineer, which clearly shows the heights of these taller structures at 350 ft., along with a range of heights for "typical" towers up to 200 ft. 

Sidney chooses to dismiss this part of the evidentiary record, insisting that she must use the one piece that is most recent, while ignoring equal evidence filed earlier in the proceeding.  Sorry, Sidney, that's not how evidence works.  The GBE evidentiary record is one body.  Unless evidence is withdrawn or amended, it all has equal weight.  A newer piece does not supersede all older pieces.  Dates have no place in an evidentiary record.

What Sidney should be reporting is that Clean Line submitted conflicting evidence about tower heights into the record.  That's what her investigation reveals.  It does not support a "finding" that Block GBE's statement about towers being taller than the Statue of Liberty is false.  In fact, the evidence supports Block GBE's statement as true.

Sidney's article says

The official plan on record is the Construction Plan!  Galli's testimony is not a "plan" for GBE.  Galli's exhibit is but one small part of a larger evidentiary record, it's not the ONLY record.

And who is Jack Cardetti?  How come his name has never been associated with Clean Line before, and he is not a Clean Line employee?  He's part of this "team."  He's a lobbyist working for GBE to defeat important legislation.  What he knows about the technical aspects of GBE could fit in a thimble.  His assertion that no tower will be higher than 150 ft. isn't based on engineering knowledge.  It's based on what he wants Sidney to hear (and write).

Perhaps if he had any knowledge about transmission, Jack would realize how ridiculous his statement about tower height limits truly is.  Physics, Jack, physics!  If you stretch a heavy cable between two towers, the greater the distance between the two towers, the greater the amount of sag on the cable.  It's easy to pull it tight if the towers are close together, but as the distance between the two towers increases, the weight of the cable causes it to sag and it cannot be pulled tight.  In order to accommodate sag for crossings of greater distances, such as across a wide river, the tower heights have to be increased in order to allow for the physical sag of the cable while still meeting ground clearance standards.  Another physics lesson:  Uninsulated transmission cables get hot.  As they heat up, they expand and increase the amount of sag.  This also is taken into account when designing proper tower heights.  Jack's assertion that no towers will be higher than 150 ft. is ridiculous.  He can't promise that.  He's not an engineer.  He has no idea what he's talking about.

But he sure fooled silly little Sidney.

Sideshow Jack has created a sideshow argument meant to distract your attention at this crucial time.  HB 1062 isn't about tower heights.  Keep your eyes on the prize folks, and continue to contact your senators to urge them to support this legislation.  Emailing the Missourian and demanding a retraction and apology is an amusing dalliance for those with extra time.

This whole thing belongs in the circus.

UPDATE NUMBER 2:  (And, yes, double entendre).  Sidney has suddenly changed her mind and updated her article to "half true."  Finally, she recognizes that the Construction Plan is valid evidence.  But she rushes to make light of its tower heights, insisting that "most" of the towers could now be less than 160 ft., or maybe 140 ft.  The Statue is 151 ft. 11 in., according to Sidney.  160 is still more than 151.  And she acknowledges that the Construction Plan says "up to 200 ft."  She even acknowledges that the Block GBE meme that she found so offensive she needed to write this article in the first place says "up to 200 ft."   And she even mentions that the towers at the river crossings could be up to 350 ft. tall, taller even than the Statue, plus her base.

Why then, is Sidney still trying to insist that Block GBE is "misleading"?  It's not.  It exactly matches the Construction Plan on file at the PSC.

Sidney is behaving very unprofessionally by continuing to insist she's right, even half right.  Now her article is a hot mess of contradictory baloney and she's probably sorry she ever wrote it in the first place.

Poor, misguided Sidney.  Pants on fire, dear.

Advice from a spinner: 

There is nothing less contrived about delivering the canned talking points written by public relations spinners.

Contrived - adjective - deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously.
Created or arranged in a way that seems artificial and unrealistic: the ending of the novel is too pat and contrived.

What is "your own, natural voice," and how does one master using it when delivering a contrived statement?

This is pure garbage, brought to you by Central Maine Power's paid public relations spinners as they advise officials from the Town of Jay on what to say at various meetings and hearings on CMP's New England Clean Energy Connect transmission project.

C'mon, either the Town of Jay naturally supports the project and can come up with their own talking points, or its simply acting as a shill for CMP and needs talking points handed to it.  Obviously the latter.

What kind of collusion is this?

CMP's spinners can "craft specific statements for anyone in Jay" that can be delivered by human puppets operating remotely without strings.  Isn't technology wonderful?  No strings!

Except that kind of stuff always appears to be the contrived nonsense it is.  But now we learn it can simply be overcome by using your own "natural" voice.  Easier said than done, Spinmeister Lady, easier said than done.

So, now Mainers find out that the Town of Jay has been nothing but a mouthpiece for CMP.  I don't think many of them are surprised, however they are angry, as they have every right to be.  Just two nights ago, the Town of Jay illegally rejected a citizen petition to allow a Town vote on the NECEC.  You have to wonder if that action was also orchestrated by CMP.  In fact, does the Town of Jay do anything of its own "natural" initiative?

While shocking, this kind of utility puppeteering of elected officials, regulators, and sycophantic business and community groups is nothing new.  It has happened so much in the past that it's been a regular part of the utility transmission approval playbook.  I'm sure Connie and Elizabeth know it well.  Front groups, advertising, closed-door-lobbying, and advocacy buys are how the utility tilts the playing field in its favor, and these same tactics have been used over and over again on different transmission projects.

It all costs money.  Lots of money.  Who pays for it?  The utility may wrongly believe that it is the consumers who ultimately pay the cost of the transmission project.  In a traditional cost-of-service project, that would be the captive ratepayers who benefit from the project.  In NECEC's case, as a merchant project, it will be the electric ratepayers in Massachusetts, who have voluntarily contracted to purchase transmission capacity on NECEC for a set price.

Do Massachusetts ratepayers want to pay for this kind of nonsense?  Is it legal to require them to do so?  Many states have strict rules regarding the kinds of costs that may be folded into cost-of-service rates.  Lobbying and advocacy buys are generally prohibited from recovery and must be absorbed in utility profits (shareholders pay these costs because they only benefit the company, not the ratepayers).  In addition, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an Opinion in 2017 prohibiting recovery of these kinds of costs in interstate transmission rates.  It's pretty cut and dried that the cost of advocacy programs shall not be recovered from ratepayers.

Except NECEC is a merchant project.  Its rates are voluntarily negotiated and a price is set in the contract.  The transmission owner cannot increase that rate later to cover the cost of advocacy buys.  CMP probably built in a fixed budget for advocacy in its contract with Massachusetts, and it has been spending freely.  Massachusetts ratepayers will pay that cost regardless, with any difference between the budget and actual costs either becoming additional profit for NECEC, or decreasing CMP's profit.

All the costs of CMP's advocacy buys end up in the electric bills of Massachusetts ratepayers.  Every last one of them needs to think about that every time they flip the light switch to use some of that great "clean" Canadian hydropower their government has mandated.  And it's going to get pretty expensive, because the citizens of Maine aren't backing down.  At some point, CMP is going to meet or exceed its advocacy budget, and then the cost of continuing this farce comes out of company pockets.  How might CMP decrease services elsewhere to make up for this loss?