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

PJM Risks Reliability With Continued Support of Transource

11/26/2018

1 Comment

 
Oh, PJM, don't you know that when you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas?  PJM has killed its credibility with a recently issued "white paper" that purports to show the Transource Independence Energy Connection is still "needed."  Guess what?  Nobody believes you, PJM!  In fact, it looks like the only one who paid any attention to your white paper was RTO Insider, and even they balanced their story with opposition claims that PJM's recent re-evaluation was rigged.

I'm not even sure what the purpose of that white paper was supposed to be -- was it a publicity stunt?  Was it PJM's answer to expert testimony filed in Pennsylvania that showed how costly the project would be to ratepayers in that state, without any corresponding benefit?  If this is PJM's feeble attempt to step outside its cartel headquarters and interact with the hoi polloi, it failed miserably.

We've been hearing for more than two months that PJM thinks the IEC is needed "for reliability," but there has been no actual data shown to back up this claim.  There's still no public data, just vague assertions that "power flow results" indicate overloads on other transmission facilities that produce instability.  Without the actual results, this claim is baseless.  In fact, it looks like PJM is just making this stuff up as they go along.  But now the potentially overloaded lines (and a transformer) have been identified.  PJM claims that without the IEC, a TMI transformer, the Peach Bottom-Conastone, Hunterstown-Lincoln, Lincoln Tap-Lincoln, and Lincoln-Straban lines will overload in 2023.  If these are actual, real overloads, PJM had better get cracking on solutions other than the IEC, because the IEC is not going to be approved by the states.  PJM has no Plan B.  If we believe PJM, then the lights are going to go out in 2023 if the IEC isn't constructed.  What have you been doing with your time, PJM?  Isn't it your job to keep the lights on?  PJM claims, "A solution and estimated cost for a violation of this scope are typically non-trivial."  Typically?  Is that how PJM devises solutions to reliability issues?  By making "typical" determinations?  So there's absolutely no science to PJM transmission planning?  It's just a bunch of guys pontificating at the snack bar about "typical" things?  Doesn't PJM "typically" issue a problem statement on projected reliability violations and solicit competitive solutions?  Absent that, doesn't PJM look to the incumbent owners of the problem assets to devise solutions to overloads?  That's what "typically" happens.  It's not "typical" to re-package a failed market efficiency project as a solution to a developing reliability issue.  Perhaps other transmission owners could devise a solution to the reliability issue that is less costly and less invasive than the IEC, presuming a reliability issue actually exists.  But since PJM isn't making the "power flow results" that show a reliability issue public, it is subverting competition to the detriment of consumers.  Based on the evidence in this "white paper," I'm going to conclude that the purported "reliability" issue doesn't exist.

PJM is layering other transmission projects on IEC being built that may cause false reliability violations.  Approving new projects that require a transmission project that is not approved by the states and will not be built is a planning failure.  In addition, building IEC does nothing to update old transmission lines to increase their capacity.  The old lines will still exist.  Perhaps the entire AP South issue only exists because PJM refuses to update existing lines to increase their capacity.  It wasn't too many years ago when the rebuilding of one of the AP South lines to increase its capacity obviated the new $2.1B PATH transmission project.  PJM has learned nothing and continues to waste ratepayer cash on new projects while allowing existing lines to rot and fail.  Rebuilds, PJM, rebuilds!  Quit wasting our money and putting reliability at risk!

PJM also manages to confirm the testimony of Pennsylvania OCA's witness who says the "benefits" figure excludes the increases in costs to other zones.  PJM says:

New production cost simulations based on these updated parameters results yielded a $600.73 million present value of net load payment benefit (for zones where payments decreased).
For zones where payments decreased -- this means that any zones where payments increased were left out of the equation.  To calculate an actual benefit, PJM should have included all the zone payments, including those that increased.  That's the benefit number that should be used in the benefit/cost ratio analysis.  Instead, PJM used an artificially high benefit number devised only from zones that showed a decrease. This is crap, PJM!  Even a third grader could see where you screwed up your math.  When the decrease is balanced with the increase elsewhere, the benefit for the entire region is nominal.

And speaking of nominal, PJM says it used "Nominal Project Cost" in its evaluation.  What's a "nominal" project cost?  Nominal is an adjective.
(of a price or amount of money) very small; far below the real value or cost
So PJM used a project cost value far below the real cost and described it as "nominal."

We've got an artificially high "benefit" number compared to an artificially low "cost" number.  This is magic math.  It's not credible.  PJM's benefit/cost ratio is artificially manipulated to fit guidelines.  PJM's evaluation of benefit/cost has lost all credibility.

And speaking of costs, PJM says that it performed the required "independent cost evaluation" on the IEC several years ago as evidence that the current "nominal" costs are accurate.  An evaluation of a prior cost estimate does not magically make all new cost estimates valid.  If the costs change, then a new evaluation should be performed.  From the PJM manual:
For new economic enhancements or expansions with costs in excess of $50 million, an independent review of such costs shall be performed to assure both consistency of estimating practices and that the scope of the new Economic-based Enhancements or Expansions is consistent with the new Economic-based Enhancements or Expansions as recommended in the market efficiency analysis.
Uh huh.  "New" enhancements (transmission).  When does a market efficiency project become "new" and when does it become "old."  Wouldn't it be "new" until it's actually built?  Or does PJM's manual purport that a project becomes "old" after the initial evaluation?  That makes no sense when cost estimates can change, along with the method by which they are calculated.  A "new" cost figure requires a new evaluation.  Did any "independent" review of Transource's recently revised cost estimates occur?  Because it sure looks like Transource used magic math to devise an estimate that would compare favorably with PJM's recently revised "benefit" number.  Transource's cost estimate has no credibility.  A new review is warranted.  Without it, PJM's credibility is zero.

And one last thing... how about a nice bowl of alphabet soup? PJM says that IEC will increase CETL for the BGE LDA.  But that's mere gold-plating.  Increasing CETL for any LDA (zone) is not necessary (if it were, it would be a reliability issue).  CETL stands for Capacity Emergency Transfer Limit.  It's the maximum amount of energy that can be transferred into a zone on existing transmission lines.  Sure, IEC may increase the amount of energy that can be imported to BGE (Baltimore Gas & Electric), but increased imports are not needed for reliability purposes.  They are "needed" to import lower cost electricity into BGE, instead of using higher-priced electricity available in BGE.  And doesn't PJM's white paper say this already?  The addition of CETL does nothing to increase need for IEC from a reliability standpoint, and that's the purpose of CETL.  EMERGENCY, right?  BGE needs to have enough capacity to import energy in an emergency to keep the lights on.  Price is not an emergency!  There's plenty of power in BGE to keep the lights on in an emergency without the addition of IEC.  Therefore I can only conclude that PJM's introduction and use of CETL in its white paper is nothing more than an effort to confuse people with technical mumbo-jumbo that they don't understand.  Maybe that works with the average consumer, but it's not going to work on the regulators who are evaluating this project.

So, since PJM likes alphabet soup so much, here's what I found in my bowl to describe PJM's recent efforts to bolster IEC:

FUBAR
SNAFU
SUSFU
TARFU
FUBU
BOHICA

Go ahead, look it up.  Here's a link.

I guess it's all in how you stir your soup!

PJM's Transource IEC white paper is a complete and utter waste of time.  Reading it was like sipping a big cup of dumb.
1 Comment

Clean Line Tries to Sell Grain Belt Express

11/13/2018

5 Comments

 
Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!
Clean Line is trying to put together a deal to sell its failed Grain Belt Express project.  No surprise, really, the writing has been on the wall for at least a year now.  What is surprising is that some dunderheads signed an intent to buy it.  Musta been cheap.  I mean really cheap.  Fire sale cheap.

Despite Michael Skelly's blathering about how he was going to build the project (while his company fell apart completely) and how the lack of Clean Line employees was mere "personnel changes," it looks like this deal was a last minute thing.  Invenergy must have driven a hard bargain on price because without that last minute deal, Skelly was facing having to admit failure of the project in Missouri yesterday.  Yesterday was the deadline for Clean Line to file supplemental testimony detailing any changes to its situation at the Missouri PSC.  You can read Clean Line's and Invenergy's testimony here.  (Look up Case #EA-2016-0358).

Oh, and what a change!  Clean Line says it has entered into an agreement to sell the project to Invenergy.  Of course, this deal isn't final and is contingent upon both Missouri and Kansas approving the sale of the project in separate, newly filed proceedings.  Everything changes!

The owner of the project changes.  All the deals and contracts Clean Line has entered into on behalf of GBE will end and Invenergy will sign new contracts.  Might as well file a whole new application in both states, Invenergy, because this change changes everything.  Why in the world would both states approve GBE (or a permit extension) with a new owner based on the promises of people who don't even work for Clean Line anymore, much less Invenergy?  The whole premise is absurd!

So, welcome to the fray, Invenergy.  It's really not true that communities love you.  In fact, it seems some of them hate you.  Really hate you.  At least owning GBE and being hated by landowners in 3 states won't be anything new, will it?  But why?  Why would Invenergy want to purchase a failed merchant transmission project?  It's not like they can repurpose it as their own personal 700-mile generation tie line.  Perhaps Invenergy is just trying to keep up with its competitor, NextEra, who bought a different failed "clean" line in an attempt to bugger Invenergy's Wind Catcher deal with AEP.  Is this nothing more than some slapping and hair pulling between competitors?
NextEra:  Hah!  We own Plains & Eastern Clean Line!

Invenergy:  Oh ya?  Well, hold my beer!  We now own Grain Belt Express!

Honestly, what a waste of time and money.  Neither one of these projects are ever going to happen.  The reasons are myriad, such as...

Oh wait... why would I help you chuckleheads out?  There's a regulatory process in the works.  Surprise!  Surprise!  Surprise!

See ya in the funny pages, Invenergy!
5 Comments

"Some" Landowners Interfering With Investors' "Overhead Cash Registers"

11/10/2018

1 Comment

 
The arrogant renewable energy folks had a "forum" this week.  On the day of the "forum" a renewable energy news outlet ran a series of three obnoxious articles telling people that the electric transmission grid is outdated and overly congested.  The solution?  Lots more new transmission "for renewables."  (read wind).

This is never going to happen.  The reasons why are clear, if slightly beyond the thought capacity of an industry that continues to lie to itself.  Merchant transmission  has been a gigantic failure.  The articles gush on about troubled projects that have racked up one failure after another, while also noting the complete failure ("the wheels came off") of many others.  News flash:  They're all going to fail eventually!  Not one "renewable" merchant transmission project has been built.  They can't be built.

Reasons why include:

1.  No customers to pay for them!  Even when Clean Line thought it had the green light for its Plains & Eastern project, it failed to attract any customers to pay for it, and Clean Line bailed at the first opportunity to unload this cash cow onto a utility wannabe who thought it could use part of the project as leverage to profit off a real utility's plan to construct a wind farm and the world's longest generation tie line.

2.  RTO's are not designed to facilitate exports.  RTO's are purposed to serve their region and therefore costs of serving the region are visited upon the consumers in that region.  Exporting electricity to other regions does not serve anyone in the region.  Asking different regions to build new transmission to patch regions together to serve the renewable energy industry doesn't benefit anyone in any of the regions either.  One article even claims that new "renewable" transmission lines "represent potential overhead cash registers for their owners."  So, this is all about an industry cashing in for their own benefit?  But yet...

3.  "Some" landowners oppose transmission.  Why the modifier "some?"  What is that supposed to represent anyhow?  That only a handful of landowners object to superrich investors and foreign corporations erecting an "overhead cash register" on their land using the power of eminent domain to take private property?  Sorry, but you're wrong about "some," if that's supposed to mean a small number.  Eminent domain for private gain is widely opposed by both affected and unaffected landowners.  Only "some" landowners are in favor of it, those who don't live on the land and are looking for a quick payday, or perhaps those who obliviously believe they're going to be richly compensated for the use of their land (or quid pro quo payments for being a public advocate for the transmission project).

Or perhaps "some" is an attempt at denying the power of landowners to derail transmission proposals?  Even though landowners were the biggest impediment to Clean Line's projects, Clean Line still wants to claim its projects failed due to the efforts of "a major utility, and prominent state politicians" and "some landowners."  As if the landowners were not the impetus for the political opposition, and as if a major utility opposed more than one of Clean Line's projects?  It was the landowners, Sherlock!  They are powerful, and they are the primary reason transmission projects are cancelled.  Wasn't it Sun Tzu who said "know your enemy"?  Denying the power of your most stalwart enemy is a fool's paradise.

Here's the basic truth:  Eminent domain for the purpose of erecting an "overhead cash register" on private property is frowned upon.  Sure, there was that awful Supreme Court decision that eminent domain could be used for "economic development" purposes, but that came with overwhelming backlash.  Eminent domain's historical use by utilities to serve all customers cannot be extended to erect "overhead cash registers" on private property.  New "renewable" transmission isn't necessary to provide electricity.  The grid we have is managing to keep the light on (for the most part).  One person's desire to obtain a different kind of electricity does not override another person's right to own and enjoy property.  If a company desires to erect an "overhead cash register" on private property, it's going to need landowner buy in.

How to get there?  It's not any of the ways renewable energy companies and environmentalists have proposed.  Landowner aggregation schemes, increased easement payments, even royalties, are not adequate for "some" landowners.  "Some" landowners simply do not want to sell an easement for any reason.  The "eking out and incremental solutions" (in the words of Jayshree Desai, former CLEPT-O, now spending some other investors money as ConnectGen) doesn't reside in erecting "overhead cash registers" on private property.  It resides in new ideas for buried transmission on existing rights of way, along railroads or highways.  That's the solution.  That's the way to "...figure out longer-haul, bulk transmission to really change the fundamental supply-demand balance of renewables in this country," Ms. Jayshree.  Jayshree and her band of Don Quixotes wasted more than $200M of investor cash trying to build "overhead cash registers" on private property.  And still one of the Dons persists because he can't pull his head out of the clouds (or another place closer to the ground). 

Overhead merchant transmission is dead!  The renewable energy industry and its environmental sycophants should should stop wasting their money and efforts on "overhead cash registers" and invest it in underground solutions.  The cost of these solution must be borne by the beneficiaries, in this case it's the renewable energy industry, or its customers.  The rest of us aren't going to pay for it.  You want to make money?  You gotta spend money!  The answer is at hand.  Don't make me grab you by the scruff of your neck and rub your nose in it.

1 Comment

Market Monitor Says  PJM needs to reevaluate its rules governing cost benefit analysis and cost allocation for economic projects

11/9/2018

0 Comments

 
Ut-oh, PJM!  Trouble in paradise!  The independent monitor (MMU) of your activities thinks your "market efficiency" process isn't so efficient.  And it's probably costing electric consumers in the PJM region money in their electric bills.

In its recently released Quarterly State of the Market Report, the MMU recommended:
The MMU recommends that PJM reevaluate the rules governing cost benefit analysis and cost allocation for economic projects. (Priority: Medium. New recommendation. Status: Not adopted.)
This is a new recommendation of medium priority.  Time to get hopping, PJM, as if you ever take constructive criticism well.

Let's combine this with one of MMU's long standing recommendations:
The MMU recommends the creation of a mechanism to permit a direct comparison, or competition, between transmission and generation alternatives, including which alternative is less costly and who bears the risks associated with each alternative. (Priority: Low. First reported 2013. Status: Not adopted.)
This all adds up to fail.  PJM is failing to properly plan market efficiency transmission projects.  In PJM's world, the road to new market efficiency transmission projects is long.  However, the congestion to be alleviated by new transmission is fleeting and short-lived.  PJM knee-jerked when implementing FERC's competitive transmission Order 1000 to open a project window to alleviate congestion on its AP South Interface in 2014.  That's four years ago and counting.  By the time PJM got around to selecting and ordering a project to alleviate the congestion, the congestion had alleviated itself.  But PJM kept on with the project, believing that it is captive to its own bloated processes.  The project PJM ordered is the Transource Independence Energy Connection, and it's no longer needed.

But because Transource was granted an "incentive" to build its project by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that allows the company to recover all its sunk costs on the project (plus 10.4% return on its equity), no harm will come to Transource or PJM if they continue this unneeded project.  All the cost and risk is borne by electric consumers.

How unneeded is this project?  A look at the MMU's Congestion and Marginal Losses report section informs that congestion is now elsewhere.  The AP South Interface is a minor issue.
Differences in CLMP among eastern, southern and western control zones in PJM were primarily a result of congestion on the AEP - DOM Interface, the Cloverdale Transformer, the Tanners Creek - Miami Fort Flowgate, the Graceton - Safe Harbor Line, and the 5004/5005 Interface.
The AEP - DOM Interface was the largest contributor to congestion costs in the first nine months of 2018. With $120.4 million in total congestion costs, it accounted for 10.8 percent of the total PJM congestion costs in the first nine months of 2018.

Get that, PJM?  Congestion has shifted.  AP South no longer has a serious congestion issue.  In fact, it's minor.  In fact, it only contributes 1.8% of total congestion in PJM.
Picture
PJM could spend our money better chasing the 9 constraints that cause more congestion than AP South.  Of course, if they do, by the time they select and order transmission projects to alleviate this congestion, the congestion will have moved on elsewhere.  PJM is chasing its own tail planning market efficiency projects.  And this is why it needs to reform its rules on market efficiency transmission planning.

Once a project is approved and ordered, PJM will never admit failure.  Instead, PJM will continue to prop up unneeded market efficiency projects and throw good money (OUR money) after bad through questionable cost benefit analyses that keep the project (barely) alive.

There's no amount of magic math that will make the Transource IEC economically beneficial.  It's time to let this project go.  PJM has had plenty of opportunity to fall gracefully on its sword and stop the ratepayer bleeding.  Its recent re-evaluation of IEC was rigged, and even then IEC barely jumped the threshold.  Another opportunity arose when Transource recently adjusted its in-service date ahead 5 months.  PJM's Designated Entity Agreement with Transource required the project to be in-service by June 2020.  PJM could have cancelled the project instead of allowing the in-service shift.  The failure to meet milestone dates in the DEA is a breach of contract, and in that event PJM (the Transmission Operator) can default on the DEA.  Over and done.

Instead, PJM keeps wasting our money on its bad idea.  PJM is failing consumers.  Not only that, now it's been called out on its failure by its Market Monitor.  It's time to cancel the Independence Energy Connection.
0 Comments

What's Transource IEC Going To Look Like?

11/5/2018

0 Comments

 
I would have used the headline "Fun With Photoshop," except I used that one years ago.  Transource, bless it's blackened money-grubbing heart, is still trying to convince the communities that its transmission project will be an asset.  It's not working.  There's pretty much nothing Transource can say or do at this point to ameliorate the wide-spread, entrenched opposition to the project.  Telling further lies that contradict past lies isn't a magic wand.

For some reason, Transource sent out a "Project Update" on Friday that was akin to kicking itself in the ass.  Way to go, Transource!  Among the lies and half-truths were some images depicting what the project would look like if built.  Even though the pictures were incredibly tiny and presented an extremely long range view, they still managed to convey the awfulness of the Transource project.  I've often wondered why transmission companies do this to themselves... why do they send out photoshopped images of what their project would look like?  Do they try to make these images as horrid and frightening as possible?  It wouldn't be logical to create photoshopped images that look worse than reality.  Instead, we can probably discern that these images use all sorts of eye-tricking perspective and shading tricks to make the new lines as unobtrusive as possible.  Reality will probably be worse.  Much worse.  And still, Transource's photo simulations of its proposed project are a trainwreck.

How about this beautiful view?
Picture
I'm told that a group of artists was on location painting this stunning vista last week.  I'm sure they won't mind altering their paintings to look like the "after" photo.  Why, you can hardly notice the new power line stretching across the horizon!  (Except you can actually see the shadow of the lines from the "after" photo on the "before" photo.)
Picture
Even trying to make the line as light and blurred as possible, it's still beyond awful.  And where are the birds who will roost there and poop all over the crops grown below?  The photoshopper seems to have left some things out.  Also notice how the "after" picture is from farther away and includes a wider view?  These are not "before" and "after" of the same photo.

Here's another.
Picture
Lovely barn with a distribution line crossing the view.  I wonder how many photos and angles they had to sort through to find one that looked like that.  Now here's what happens "after."
Picture
Look, a whole bunch of new wires that aren't connected to anything!  No towers at all!  Or maybe they're connected to some of those special rusty towers that blend in so well they can't be seen?  They're pretty saggy, too.  I'm betting they're going to be much higher in reality.  And why is the sky in the vicinity of the new lines so much grayer than the rest of the sky?  It's all about that contrast!
And these are the photo simulations Transource wanted you to see!  Reality will be much different, but not in a good way.
Visual simulations are based on the level of design available at this time.  Moderate changes in structure height and location may occur following subsequent engineering and design refinements and minor modification of the alignment.
In other words, they're going to be taller and towers will be visible.  You're not doing yourselves any favors here, Transource.

I've heard that Transource has lots more of these photo-fibbed simulations for its entire route.  Maybe you should ask your friendly neighborhood land agent to show them to you?  Just so he knows why you object and perhaps will quit stopping by...

Barron Shaw from Citizens to Stop Transource took on a whole bunch of the other lies contained in Transource's email update.  You can read the facts here.

I'm only going to touch on a couple more things here, the first of which is Transource's insinuation that its failure to update its project costs before PJM recalculated benefits is the fault of landowners.
Why didn’t Transource have updated costs at the time of PJM’s annual cost / benefit analysis?
Transource is following a planning and engineering process that requires a variety of data. For example, land surveys provide Transource valuable data needed for construction bids. Since winter 2017, the company has been working with landowners to access properties to be able to complete that work. The survey information is one example of information that was part of the bid package provided to potential suppliers.
In other words, Transource says it would have had its costs updated last year if landowners had fully cooperated with surveying, cutting and drilling on their properties for a proposed project that has not been approved.  Working with landowners?  Whaddya mean, Transource?  You were working with lawyers, judges and the courts to force entry onto private property.  You live a rich fantasy life!  The real reason Transource waited until after PJM recalculated the benefits is so that it could estimate its costs at a made-up number that scaled the necessary benefit/cost ratio of 1.25.  Magic math!  Reality is that there is no cost cap for Transource's project.  It can and will spend whatever it wants and when its actual costs don't meet the benefit/cost ratio it will be too late.  Ratepayers will be locked in to paying for it.  The best we can do right now is rely on the expert testimony that has been filed which correctly pegs the Transource project at returning 3 cents for every dollar poured into the project.  Ratepayers lose 97 cents of every dollar they spend on this project.  What an outrage!

Here's another I take issue with:
Landowners are encouraged to work with right-of-way agents now, during the design phase of the project, to best incorporate property owner desires into the final placement of the facilities.
Final placement of the facilities?  You mean in the trash?  Because that's where the idea for this project is going to end up after state regulators fail to approve it.  I'm sure landowners may have other desired locations for the "placement of facilities."  Check your back, Transource!  Doesn't that statement seem a little, well, coercive to you?  Transource tries to make believe that this project will be approved and it's only a matter of where to put it.  No, the issue is whether to build it at all and that's far from being decided.  The way things stand now, it's not looking good for Transource, therefore landowners should continue to resist.  And hey now, didn't Transource say their cost update was delayed by not being able to design the project because of resistant landowners?  And now they have an updated cost, so we'll assume they're done "designing" it.  If there was a magic "design" window, it's already closed.

And then, there's this:
Transource has not filed condemnation on anyone
Except in its last "project update" in September, Transource said this:
The PUC process requires utilities to submit a condemnation filing during the application process. This filing includes property owners with whom the company has not yet secured a signed option to grant an easement agreement. Transource provided written notice and information explaining the process to landowners before filing the report in May.
Transource made a "condemnation filing."  Except they have not filed condemnation on anyone.  Which is it?  Is Transource lying now, or where they lying then?  Or are they simply lying all the time?

Like this:
Regions where IEC is proposed to be built — Franklin County, Pennsylvania, and Washington and Harford counties, Maryland — are located in benefiting power zones, as identified by PJM.
Where's York County?  Isn't something like 12 miles of this proposed project in York County?  That's right... York County will receive no benefit.  That's zero benefit.  Did Transource think nobody would notice their "clever" omission?

And finally, Transource thinks it knows better than Pennsylvania Administrative Law Judges:
Does Pennsylvania Act 45 of 2018 apply to IEC?
Transource PA has been granted utility status by the PA PUC. Act 45 excludes “public utility facilities” from the required approval and has no effect on this project's proceedings.
The judges reviewing this project have already made the determination that Act 45 does apply.  They did it months ago!  And in this scenario, their opinion is the only one that matters.

And speaking of the PUC judges' opinion, take a few steps back when you read the latest "project update."  Why, it reads like a rebuttal to the expert testimony recently filed by the PA Consumer Advocate, doesn't it?  Is this what Transource's rebuttal testimony is going to consist of?  Photoshopped awfulness and carefully worded half-truths?  Good luck with that, Transource.  You've got nothing.
0 Comments

PJM and Transource Scheme to Skew Benefit/Cost Analysis

10/29/2018

2 Comments

 
by Barron Shaw, Citizens to Stop Transource
In recent days it has become apparent that PJM and Transource are attempting to re-frame the proposed IEC high voltage line project that would cross preserved farms in Pennsylvania and Maryland.  The project was originally proposed and filed in both Pennsylvania and Maryland as a market efficiency project, for the sole purpose of reducing the price of electricity in the Washington DC metro market.[1]  As the case has progressed, both Maryland and Pennsylvania have expressed misgivings about the project, capped by the revelation two weeks ago that the IEC would result in a net loss of $480M across all PJM zones.[2]
 
Faced with near certain failure, PJM is trying to reposition the IEC as a reliability project.  Their contention is that unless the project is built, there would be serious reliability issues.
 
This is a desperate assertion made by an organization that has no credibility remaining.  PJM put this project forward as an “efficiency project” knowing that it would cause a significant increase in rates in Pennsylvania and surrounding states.  PJM turned a blind eye to using two newly constructed high voltage lines owned by other utilities that parallel the IEC-East that stand half empty, and when asked, said it wasn't their job to ensure their usage.  PJM allowed Transource to announce their new cost estimates one month after PJM announced their recalculated benefits for the project, in effect giving Transource the ability to provide the “right” answer and save the project from cancellation.  PJM selected Transource's proposed project, even though it was by far the most expensive bid, and included no cost cap.
 
Why would anyone believe PJM's assertion that this project was suddenly all about reliability?  The load forecast for the target market is flat, and every year the forecast is decreased.[3]  New high voltage lines in York and Harford County have been constructed and are operating at less than 50% capacity.  Recent and pending upgrades to move power across the grid in Maryland have drastically cut electrical congestion.  The project is simply not needed.
 
Regulators in both Pennsylvania and Maryland have spent millions analyzing this project for purposes of market efficiency, analysis that is completely useless in the context of reliability.  Transource has already spent upwards of $50M that will all be reimbursable to them, even if the project is canceled.  PJM has wasted too much taxpayer money already.
 
This project is dead, and it is time that PJM admits it and moves on... before people begin to question why PJM is needed at all?


[1] http://www.puc.state.pa.us/pcdocs/1548138.pdf page 7,8

[2] http://stoptransourcemd.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/OCA-Direct-Testimony-of-Scott-Rubin-Statement-1.pdf page 38. 

[3] https://www.pjm.com/-/media/library/reports-notices/state-specific-reports/2016/2016-maryland-and-dc-state-reports.ashx?la=en page 25-27
2 Comments

What Transmission Does to Landowners

10/25/2018

0 Comments

 
I'm a huge fan of landowners participating fully in the regulatory process.  I encourage them to file testimony, because they are the preeminent experts on their land and their business.  I'm thrilled when I see landowner testimony, and the testimony of Barron Shaw is a well-written account of what it would be like to be trespassed by the Transource Independence Energy Connection.

Mr. Shaw is the owner and operator of Shaw Orchards.  He also lives on the property, which has been in his family for generations, since the early 1800's.  More than 100 years ago, Mr. Shaw's ancestors started commercial operations as Shaw Orchards.

Being a farmer is not an easy life, but yet these brave souls do it anyhow.
Farming is hard. And the farming of orchard crops is arguably the most difficult. Every time it rains during the period of April through July, my apples are at risk from disease, requiring frequent and expensive protective chemicals. We have experienced two major exotic pests in just the last 6 years, with Brown  Marmorated Stink Bug, Spotted Wing Drosophila, and a third pest, The Spotted Lanternfly, which has spread to the next county will arrive next year if it is not here already. Most of the apple varieties we produce on the farm are worth little more now than they were 30 years ago, while labor, chemicals, and insurance, our three biggest expenses, have increased significantly in that time. The labor supply for the hard fieldwork is almost non-existent, and our crew size shrinks each year. My wife and I work an average of 12 hours a day, six days a week, from mid-March through November each year. We do not have a summer vacation.
Still, there is something intrinsically good about farming that is difficult to describe to those who have not experienced it. Maybe it is the challenge of overcoming all the adversity. Perhaps it is the knowledge that thousands, hundreds of thousands of people, have been nourished through our efforts. Or maybe it is a pride that our orchard is an important destination for thousands of people each year who would otherwise not be able to teach their kids where food comes from. Whatever the reason, in the sincere words of Washington, “I'd rather spend a day on my farm than be emperor of the world.”
Shaw Orchards grows and sells fruit and other crops, both wholesale and retail.  But the retail business and pick-your-own-sales are by far the most profitable, producing a return 300-1300% over wholesale prices.  Mr. Shaw concludes he would be out of business if he did not have a successful direct-to-consumer operation.

And what will Transource's new 130-foot right-of-way across Shaw Orchards do to Mr. Shaw's business?  It will make it a less desirable location for consumers.
It should come as no surprise that many customers who seek out family farms to buy fruit and vegetables are concerned with their health, and the health of their families. A large proportion of the population has concerns regarding the health effects of high voltage lines. Put simply, it doesn't matter what I think about the health effects of high voltage lines, if my customers believe that they are dangerous, then their presence will cost me money, either from people refusing to pick near them, or because they don't want food that is grown near them.
Perception is reality when it comes to the effects of proximate high voltage transmission.  No amount of electric industry studies, or overpaid stuffed suit "scientists" with utility-financed opinions can change perception.  And besides, it's impossible to prove a negative.  The electric industry simply cannot prove that high voltage lines do not have any detrimental effects on people and animals.

And, wait, that's not all.  The Transource IEC project will also cause a dangerous possibility when sited overhead of Shaw's existing irrigation system.
We use permanently sited irrigation in many of our fields, including the field that lies under the proposed power line. There are not only concerns about damage during construction, but concern that after construction is complete, an accident in the field could cause water under high pressure to jet into the line.

...a leak in the irrigation system presented a danger to those working under the lines. In this case, a break in the irrigation line under pressure was projected to fly 100 feet in the air, causing any person that came into contact with the system to suffer an electrical shock.
Is this an acceptable risk for the Shaws, who will not benefit in any way from the Transource project?  No, it's not.

And that's not all...  the Food Safety Modernization Act requires Shaw Orchards to comply with food safety regulations related to contaminated fresh produce.  Mr. Shaw has documented flocks of Starlings roosting on a nearby power line during migration.  If the Transource line is built across Mr. Shaw's fields, birds will sit on it.  And what do birds do?  They poop.  A lot.  Even the most feeble minded among us knows that if you park your car under a tree, power line, or other overhead roost, you should expect to find it covered in bird poop.  Now, who wants to eat fresh produce that's been pooped on?  Nobody.  And besides, it's illegal for Shaw Orchards to sell this contaminated fresh produce. It is not advisable to site power lines over fields of produce.

And what else?  The farm uses helicopters to spray crops, and it also uses drones. Examples of future drone usage include counting fruit tree blossoms to predict fruit load, and looking for insect infestations before they grow large.  A transmission line crossing fields makes use of these tools impossible.

The largest part of Mr. Shaw's property is preserved by Maryland's Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF).  He may never use the land for anything other than agricultural purposes.  If Mr. Shaw wanted to run an electric line through his property to serve a future development, he couldn't do it.  However, if Transource wants to run an electric line (and not just any electric line but a double-circuit 230 kV monster) through Mr. Shaw's property to serve electric consumers in Washington, D.C. as cheaply as possible, that's okay?  Preserved land should be off limits to ALL development.  And to make matters worse, if Transource is successful in taking a right-of-way through Shaw Orchards, it must compensate the MALPF for the amount it paid for the conservation easement.  Mr. Shaw would receive a one-time payment for the agricultural value of the land within the easement, although that land would be encumbered in perpetuity and impacts to his business would be devastating and permanent.

And here's a story about Transource's coercion tactics that simply must be told.
On August 9, 2017 Transource held an open house at Norrisville Elementary School. I arrived between 30 minutes and an hour after the event began. As I walked in from the parking lot, I was immediately recognized by a citizen who took me by the arm and asked if it was true that the Shaws were negotiating with Transource. I was confused, and said we had not even spoken to Transource. She told me that Transource had been telling people that “the Shaws are onboard” and that we were negotiating during the meeting. I asked her to take me to the person who told her that. On the way into the building, I was recognized by Transource’s Public Affairs person, Mary Urban (whom I had never met in person). She tried to welcome me, but we continued together into the event and met the Transource representative who had been spreading the rumor. He confessed to stating that he believed we were negotiating. I told him in no uncertain terms that my family was not negotiating and that he must stop spreading rumors  about me and my family. I admit to raising my voice. He was ushered out of the room by other Transource people.
Wow, Transource, your audacity knows no limits!  You have demonstrated that even with your pretend "Internal Practices for Dealing with the Public on Power Line Projects," your employees will do whatever they want.  If I expected the perpetrator of this audacious act to have been fired for his gross and flagrant violation of Transource's "Internal Practices," I'd probably be wrong.  But why not?  It's almost like Transource (well, really AEP, since Transource has no employees of its own) encourages violation of its practices if it helps the company reach its goal of signing easements.  There is nothing too dirty or disingenuous for AEP!

Mr. Shaw also makes a few observations about need for the project that are stunning in their logic and simplicity.  While PJM and Transource are scrambling to keep the public confused about the project so they remain in the dark, clear messages are so desperately needed.
In an editorial published in local papers on 9/21/18, PJM Vice President of Planning Steve Herling stated the core justification of the IEC: “After all, it would not be fair for customers in one area to consistently pay higher prices than others do simply because the system's design prevented some customers from accessing the lowest-cost electricity.” The implication of this statement is that all customers are entitled to the lowest-cost electricity possible. There is no assertion here that there is any law, regulation, constitutional guarantee, or even a policy that would indicate that there is something wrong with the status quo. Instead, he says, “it would not be fair.” This project is predicated solely on the assumption of an entitlement that is documented nowhere.

I believe that proximity to generating facilities should matter. People who live near generators should pay less for electricity. These are the people who tolerate the noise, the emissions, the visual impacts, and the other deleterious effects of large generating facilities. These are the people who absorbed the capital charges for existing facilities in their rates over the years. There is as little logic in Mr. Herling's statement as there is legal responsibility to approve a market efficiency project... none.
And this:
Large-scale transmission intended solely to decrease Locational Marginal Price (LMP) has the adverse effect of discouraging investment in generation capacity in the destination market. Maryland imports 47% of their electricity, and Washington DC imports 100%. For each megawatt that is imported into the  state, the decreasing price provides less incentive for generators to make an  investment in the state.
PJM cannot order generation, therefore it orders transmission.  Generation is left to market forces which are never allowed to work before PJM proposes a transmission line to obviate any new builds.  This system is broken and in desperate need of fixing.

Transource IEC is hardly a harmless infrastructure project for the Shaws and Shaw Orchards.  The impacts will be prolonged and severe.  The project will require Mr. Shaw to completely change his operations in and near the proposed new transmission right-of-way, and hopefully recover at some point in the future, while sustaining an instant loss.  For these impacts, Mr. Shaw and Shaw Orchards will not be compensated at all.  Instead, he may be compensated for the value of the land, not the value the land provides year after year.

And if the Transource IEC is not built?  What will be the impacts to others?  They may pay a few pennies more on their electric bills, according to PJM.  There's nothing "fair" about that.
0 Comments

Whitewashing Greenwashers' Fence

10/24/2018

2 Comments

 
Well, hey there, Corporate America!  The companies that stand to profit from building more wind, solar and transmission projects want you to whitewash their fence!

Come one, come all, step right up and grab a paintbrush!  Your regional transmission planning organization is ready to take your membership money and waste your time!
Honestly, the renewable energy industry has no shame.  Their greed knows no bounds!  They need to keep building renewable energy projects and new transmission to fill their pockets.  Its a parade of trade groups and self-serving "organizations" who want to find someone, anyone, to champion their goals.  They tell you that you must purchase more renewables from far off places, and that you need to pave the road to get them.  And Corporate America is their latest target.

The recycled Wind Energy Foundation is now the Wind and Solar Alliance, and they want corporations to join regional transmission planning organizations and demand new transmission to fulfill corporate renewable energy goals.  Except this idea is crap.  Regional transmission planning organizations don't care about your corporate renewable energy goals.  Sure, you can spend money joining, and then waste a bunch of time sitting through meeting after meeting, demanding new transmission, but it's a completely wasted effort.  RTOs don't even listen to what states want, why should they listen to Corporate America?

I'm going to use PJM Interconnection as an example, since it's the RTO that manages my service area, and one I'm familiar with.  Here's how PJM treats requests to build new transmission for renewable energy goals:  the requester, or sponsor, must agree to pay for the entire cost of a transmission project it desires to have built to meet its renewable energy goals.  In this instance, the requester may be a state with a renewable energy mandate or goal.  One state may not visit its laws upon the citizens of another state that may have different goals.  Just because, say, Maryland, has a legislative goal to procure more renewable energy does not mean that citizens of West Virginia, with considerably different (non-existent) renewable energy goals must pay a portion of the cost of a new transmission line to meet Maryland's law. 

A corporate renewable energy policy may not visit the costs of meeting its goal upon electric ratepayers in any state.  The ratepayers had no part in creating the corporate goal, and they shouldn't have to pay for it.

Why do corporations set renewable energy goals?  It's nothing more than public relations fluff.  "Buy our products because they are created with renewable energy!"  It's a marketing ploy.  Will consumers choose to buy a more expensive product because it supports the renewable energy business?  Maybe, depending on the upcharge.  A few pennies here and there may be something consumers are willing to give to the effort.  A sizable price increase that comes from renewable energy purchases and new transmission lines supposedly needed to get the energy to end user is not something consumers will support.  PR fluff is great when it's cheap, when someone else is paying the cost of creating it, but when it affects the corporate bottom line, even corporations cannot support it.  Every dollar a corporation spends on marketing (and energy) must find its way into the cost of the product.  Spending several billion dollars on a transmission line (even one cost shared by several corporations) will raise prices way past consumer tolerance.  Joining RTOs and demanding new transmission lines is a dead end.

RTOs may consider need when planning transmission.  But they're going to be looking at stuff like load, economics, and perhaps state laws.  When a new transmission project is approved and ordered by an RTO, the costs of the project are allocated to the consumers served.  Corporate energy goals serve corporations.  The corporation receives the benefit of meeting its goal through public relations and increased sales.  This cost simply cannot be allocated to all ratepayers in a region, who will not benefit from corporate goal fulfillment.  Trying to create a scenario where consumers benefit from corporate public relations schemes is an exercise in futility.  RTOs aren't going to fall for it, and neither is the agency that regulates them.

Even though the Wind & Solar Alliance has packaged up their fence painting scheme all pretty and created some bogus "report"* that says absolutely nothing, it appears that some big corporations aren't falling for it.
As global manager of renewable power for General Motors, Rob Threlkeld speaks often with both RTO and utility managers about transmission. When he depended primarily on power-purchase agreements with wind producers, “That would require a significant amount of transmission to be built.”
While he expects transmission to continue to be a challenge in meeting his company’s renewable energy goals, he is more focused now on green tariffs and sees a new resource on the horizon: the transmission capacity left in the wake of closing coal plants.
“As we shift the generation fleet,” he said, the question is, “How do you repurpose existing transmission?” Wind farms used to rely on all new transmission lines to bring the power to where it was needed, he said. But he sees that changing as coal plants close and reduce the load on parts of the transmission system.
“Don’t build new all the way; build new half the way,” he said. “Those are the types of discussions we have.”
I guess he must be thinking about his bottom line, perhaps GM only wants to pay for half a new transmission line to meet its goals?  Or maybe he realizes there is no free lunch here.  RTOs are never, and I do mean NEVER, going to plan for corporate energy goals and pass the costs off onto other electric consumers.  Trying to "re-purpose" lines that have been paid for by electric consumers, in order to now serve corporations, is just another way to shift the cost of meeting corporate goals off onto others.  Obviously Rob doesn't want to PAY to make GM greener.

If a corporation wants to polish its public image with greenwashing, it should be prepared to pay for it.  Power purchase agreements are paid for by the corporation.  If a corporation has to pretend that its actually using the energy it is paying for (as opposed to the fantasy REC product), then it may purchase capacity on merchant transmission.  That's a much cheaper option than paying the entire cost of a new transmission line.

However, the merchant transmission that has been proposed takes too long to build (wahhhh!)  That's merely because the merchant transmission that has been proposed in the past is THE WRONG KIND.  It's the overhead across private property kind that faces fierce opposition from landowners and regulators.  That kind of merchant project is never going to be built.  In fact, at least one state has outlawed that kind of transmission, and others have found ways to put a stop to designating these projects as "public utilities" who may wield eminent domain authority.  Maybe the corporates should support a different kind of transmission?  How about new technology that doesn't require eminent domain and therefore doesn't foment opposition?  It's a much better way to spend corporate funds, instead of wasting it supporting dead projects such as Clean Line.  Wake up, Walmart, before the people who shop your stores in their jammies find out their prices are increasing because you choose to waste money joining RTOs and testifying in favor of overhead transmission projects before state regulators.  They'd probably rather you spend your money paying your employees a living wage... so they can buy real clothes for their shopping expeditions.

The Wind & Solar Alliance is simply looking for someone to paint their fence.  They've gotten nowhere lobbying RTOs for new transmission to serve renewable energy goals.  Now they want Corporate America to do it for them.  You're smarter than that, right?
*Let's play a game!  How many typos can you find in the WSA's new "report?"  Doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it?  I wonder who proofread that... was it this member of WSA's extended team?  No, really, check it out.  There's another little surprise waiting for you there.
2 Comments

Eminent Domain Abuse Arguments are a Tool Strictly for Landowners

10/23/2018

0 Comments

 
There are so many things wrong in this rant, it's hard to know where to begin.  Was this the result of some kind of drunken truth or dare game?  It's all over the map and kind of hard to follow, but I think it's supposed to say that eminent domain abuse lawsuits cannot be used on clean energy projects by environmentalists.

So, wait, let me try to digest that again... environmentalists are using eminent domain arguments to stop clean energy projects?
Environmentalists are starting to use the same legal tactics they use to halt the construction of oil and natural gas pipelines against clean energy projects like wind farms, cutting into consumer choices for clean energy.

Yup, that appears to be what it says.  But where is this happening?  I'd love to read about it if it is!  But maybe it's not actually happening, except in the mind of the author.  Because a lot of the other things this guy claims just aren't true.  Such as:
In Oklahoma, legal fights have slowed the rollout of critical transmission lines and wind farms that could power other parts of the United States with emissions-free electricity. Wind Catcher — a 2-gigawatt, 300,000-acre wind farm planned for the Oklahoma panhandle — had to be scrapped after oil and gas opponents began to campaign against it, stiffening the spines of property owners in the path of the mega-wind farm’s transmission lines and making the project too tortuous and risky for investors. 
WRONG!  WRONG!  WRONG!  Dude, you weren't there!  You're just making crap up after the fact to fit your tortured rhetoric.  I really don't remember you from the Wind Catcher opposition group... probably because you're nowhere near Oklahoma.  (Of course, neither was I, however I was working remotely to help organize and strategize the landowner opposition).

Now let's get to your most bogus claim -- that oil and gas opponents began to campaign against it and that "stiffened the spines" of property owners in the path of the transmission line.  Who are oil and gas opponents?  Do they oppose oil and gas?  If they oppose oil and gas, why did they oppose Wind Catcher?  Perhaps your brain overran your hand and you meant to say "oil and gas corporation-funded opponents of Wind Catcher?"  Is that what you meant to imply?  Either way, you're wrong.  Oil and gas had NOTHING to do with landowner opposition to the transmission line.  And the "spine stiffening" you speak of occurred because of the coming together into an organized group of landowners.  It was landowners who inspired other landowners, not oil and gas folks.  The oil and gas folks were not the cause of any landowner actions.

You must spend too much time reading baseless, self-centered lies on the internet, Bill, if you think a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can't change the world.  In fact, that's the only thing that ever has!  The environmental groups and their groupies want people to think that clean energy got it's butt kicked by a well-funded, powerful industry instead of Robin Hood and his merry men, a small but dedicated group of opposing landowners.  Because if affected landowners can stop "clean energy" projects from confiscating their homes and businesses, it demonstrates just how weak "clean energy" and its environmental sycophants truly are.  But that's exactly what's happening... the "clean energy" charade cannot stand up to landowners protecting their land (perhaps even using eminent domain abuse legal arguments).  Stop trying to steal the landowners' victory and give it to "oil and gas."  Oil and gas folks were bit players nibbling around the edges of the landowner opposition trying to tap their energy to serve the oil and gas agenda.  And it didn't work.  And no money was given.  Landowners fully funded their own legal battle, and it cost them dearly.

Here's the next untruth:

If Wind Catcher is cancelled, has that "slowed the roll out" of the project, or has it STOPPED it?  It's dead and gone.  And there was nothing "critical" about the transmission line or wind farm.  In case you've never heard, in your long and distinguished energy journalism career, RTO/ISOs plan and order "critical" transmission lines.  These would be the lines necessary to maintain reliability, or to serve an economic or public policy purpose.  Southwest Power Pool did not order the Wind Catcher project.  It was completely superfluous... as in not needed.  Not "critical."

And who are these "investors" who ran away because Wind Catcher was too "torturous and risky"?  It looks like Bill thinks the project was cancelled because investors refused to put up the money to build it.  Here's what really happened... state regulators in Texas, acting in the interest of Texas electric ratepayers, denied AEP's application to add the cost of the wind farm and transmission line into rates.  The regulators did this because all the risk that that Wind Catcher would end up being an additional cost, instead of a predicted savings, was being placed on the backs of ratepayers.  Were ratepayers the "investors" Bill's talking about?  They were the only party taking on risk for Wind Catcher.
Similarly, in Iowa, the legislature banned the use of eminent domain for high-voltage transmission lines carrying wind energy across the state into Illinois. The state government would have used eminent domain to obtain rights of way from reluctant property owners in order to build these lines.
This is a false portrayal of something that actually happened.  The Iowa legislature banned the use of eminent domain for ABOVEGROUND MERCHANT TRANSMISSION LINES.  It determined that aboveground merchant lines were for private development purposes.  Therefore, aboveground merchant transmission lines may not use eminent domain to obtain private property.

What the Iowa legislature did not do is "ban the use of eminent domain for high-voltage transmission lines carrying wind energy across the state into Illinois."  That implies that all high-voltage lines carrying wind energy are banned.  Any transmission line for any purpose may still use eminent domain EXCEPT aboveground merchant projects.  And there is no such thing as a high-voltage transmission line carrying wind energy anywhere.  Transmission lines may not segregate or exclude electrons based on generation source.  An electron is an electron.  And a transmission line carries all kinds of electrons, mixed up into electric soup.

Bill is embellishing to fit his own disjointed narrative.

And then Bill invents the strawman "national anti-development forces."  Whut?  Who?  I've never heard of these people.  I'm not sure they exist.  If they do exist, they're not interested in transmission or wind farms, that's for sure.  Those projects are opposed by the landowners who are expected to live with them.  And only a landowner is entitled to use eminent domain abuse legal arguments!  Because only a landowner has standing to use an eminent domain legal argument.  A national anti-development activist, an environmentalist, or an oil and gas person, does not own the land proposed to be taken by eminent domain, the landowner does.  Therefore, only a landowner may use an eminent domain-focused defense.

And that's another huge problem that probably gets Bill's shorts all wadded and uncomfortable... environmentalists, anti-development activists, and oil and gas people, all pretend to be sticking up for landowner rights by covering themselves with what they feel is a popular petard... eminent domain abuse.  Truth of the matter is, none of these folks actually give a damn about landowner rights.  They pretend to, though, in order to attempt to siphon off the energy of landowner groups to serve their own agenda.  That's because none of these people have any citizen energy of their own.  They don't have a grassroots army.  The best they can do is create front groups that give an appearance of grassroots support.  However, purchased advocacy never performs to the level of true grassroots efforts.  For example, what if I gave you $5 to pretend to be pissed off about something?  You'd be acting.  However, what if I smacked your momma?  Bet you'd get genuinely mad for no money at all!  Paid advocacy is boring, but a true grassroots movement is exhilarating, energizing, and completely rewarding.  And it can't be faked.

Environmental groups who simultaneously speak out for and against landowner rights demonstrate a huge hypocrisy that is apparently confusing for Bill and The R Street Institute.  While environmental groups are for eminent domain when used to take private property for "clean energy" projects, environmental groups are also against the use of eminent domain to take private property for "oil and gas" projects.  So, are environmental groups for or against eminent domain?  Apparently there's some other standard to be applied that makes eminent domain suddenly a great idea... if the developer of a project pretends its project is "for clean energy."  But that really doesn't change the eminent domain argument at all.  It just makes environmentalists the ultimate hypocrites who should be ignored. 

Perhaps these are the people Bill is ranting about?

There's nothing wrong with landowners using eminent domain arguments to protect their land from energy projects of all kinds.  Environmentalists and oil and gas people need to stop confusing this issue for their own purposes.  Remember, only landowners have standing to use eminent domain abuse legal arguments.

And maybe Bill should re-think being done with school.  Some clarity and honesty in what he writes for publication seems sorely needed.
0 Comments

Public Hearing on Transource Rebuild

10/22/2018

0 Comments

 
The Transource IEC project requires upgrades to other regional transmission lines.  On the eastern half of the project, it's a rebuild of a BG&E line.  On its western half, the project will require the rebuilding of an existing 138kV transmission line owned by our friends at Potomac Edison (or Perpetual Estimate, if you still haven't forgotten the billing debacle of 2013).

The proposed rebuild and enlargement of this existing transmission line to 230kV runs from Potomac Edison's Ringgold substation in Smithsburg, MD to its Catoctin substation in Thurmont.  Landowners along this corridor may see taller towers and experience land disturbance.

The public hearings are for the public.  If this concerns you, show up and let the Maryland Public Service Commission hear your thoughts.

Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 7 p.m. – Ramada Plaza by Wyndham (Cumberland Room), 1718 Underpass Way, Hagerstown, Md.

Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 7 p.m. – Thurmont Regional Library, 76 East Moser Road, Thurmont, Md.

If you missed the Open House presentations earlier this year, you can take a look at the project application here:

Smithsburg Library, 66 West Water Street, Smithsburg, Md., and at the Thurmont Regional Library, 76 East Moser Street, Thurmont, Md.  Just ask the librarian to see the application.  I'm sure they've got it packed away in a box under a table (or maybe holding up the table, depending on how well your local library is funded) somewhere.

Additionally, here's a link to the company's webpage about the project.  It has a map.

In the news, FirstEnergy spokestoad Todd Meyers says,

“The Maryland Public Service Commission will hold the hearings on our application (Potomac Edison) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to modify the transmission line from the existing 138 thousand kV transmission line to a 230 thousand  kV transmission line,” said Todd Meyers, Potomac Edison spokesman.  “There’s a possibility that another much larger transmission that is under consideration, and I don’t know that exact route, and it has two pieces.  And one of the pieces, the more westerly piece runs from an area in Franklin County and it would run down into our Catoctin substation, which is in Smithsburg.”
Ahhh.... Toad, I see you still haven't lost your magic.  You can still trip over your own... tongue... while trying to deliver your company's messages.

Here's a map for the Transource IEC project.
Picture
It is indeed in two parts.  And it runs somewhere.  Congratulations!  Maybe next Toad can learn all about what "kV" stands for.  It stands for kilovolts, a unit of electromotive force, equal to 1000 volts.  So, a transmission line that's 230 thousand kilovolts is... wait, let me get my calculator...  *KABLAMMMMM*

Oh, Toad, you've still got it!  In fact, the Transource opposition wanted to speak to you in song:

Hahahahahaha!
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.