All Categories

FERC is NOT an Appeals Court for State Transmission Permitting Decisions You Don't Like

8/23/2017

This mistake gets made a lot. Usually it is made by regular people who don't understand the transmission regulatory world, courts, or the concept of jurisdiction. Experienced energy attorneys look down their noses on people who make this mistake.

But what happens when this gross error is committed by one of their own, who should know better? Is it just a mistake of the most foolish kind, or is it a conscious choice to attempt to scare people who don't know any better to believe they are powerless?

This guy has a glorious sounding pedigree in the energy regulatory field. A client might think they could trust him to give sage advice about the regulatory world.

But then he wrote an article for legal trade journals that said this:

The developer of the Grain Belt Express line, Clean Line Energy Partners, is now considering its options, including going back to FERC and getting federal approval for the project. FERC has previously granted the Grain Belt Express line authority to charge negotiated rates more than three years ago.

*blink* *blink* *huh* *wha????* FERC cannot grant "federal approval" to an electric transmission line. Not no way, not no how. It also is not relevant to approval of a transmission line that FERC granted negotiated rate authority to the project (whether yesterday or 20 years ago).

This author has sadly conflated and confused Sections 1221 and 1222 of the Energy Policy Act and FERC's jurisdiction over transmission rates. And he did it in such spectacular fashion that even the lowliest transmission opponent is probably snorting with laughter.

Section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act granted FERC permitting authority over interstate electric transmission projects located in National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors in the event a state was unable to act. Section 1221 was litigated extensively and the courts effectively neutered it. It no longer functions. But here's the thing... any 1221 projects must be located in an NIETC designated by the U.S. Department of Energy. There currently are no NIETCs designated by DOE. None. FERC can't do anything about Clean Line's failure.

Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act enables the U.S. Department of Energy to "participate" in transmission projects financed by third parties. There has only been one project to ever take advantage of Section 1222. It cost nearly $100M and 5 years to get through the process. And that project is completely stagnant and no closer to being built because it is a merchant project with no customers to finance it. Section 1222 has NOTHING to do with FERC, which is an independent regulatory agency under DOE's bailiwick. DOE does not have any authority over what FERC does. FERC has no role whatsoever in the 1222 process, which is handled solely by DOE's Office of Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability (OE).

Transmission permitting and siting is state jurisdictional. That means that states have sole authority to permit and site transmission. But for the two instances listed above, state utility commissions are the end of the road for proposed transmission projects. However, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) does have jurisdiction over interstate transmission rates. Rates -- the amount transmission companies can charge for the transmission of electricity. FERC's jurisdiction is limited to rates, not the permitting of the actual transmission infrastructure. However many years ago it was, FERC approved Grain Belt Express's rate scheme, subject to future compliance filings. FERC only granted permission for GBE to charge certain rates to future customers. This has nothing to do with permitting the actual project, only with how much the project can charge its customers.

Joseph Donovan's contention that FERC could approve the project is completely ludicrous.

So, what was the purpose of that article? Was it intended to "scare" Missouri into changing its mind? Is the Missouri Public Service Commission supposed to change its mind and approve the project? Are the Missouri Courts supposed to reverse themselves to allow approval of the project? Is the Missouri Legislature supposed to be so afraid of FERC that they change Missouri law? Or are transmission opponents supposed to join forces with experienced regulatory attorneys to point their fingers and laugh at this guy?

Let me start.... feel free to join in at any time...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

5 Comments

PATH's Long Run Costs Consumers Millions

8/22/2017

3 Comments

Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

That's the sound of electric ratepayers taking a $7.4M kick in the shorts.

This afternoon, PATH auctioned off its last remaining properties in the tri-state area that it senselessly purchased for a high-voltage transmission line that was never built and never even needed.

PATH paid $8,714,553 for the seven parcels of land that were auctioned today. The total auction sales today amounted to $1,240,100. This leaves a delta of $7,474,453. And who pays for that? You do. I do. Every one of PJM's 65 million ratepayers pays a share.

But that's not all. We've also paid PATH a return (interest) on these properties ever since they were purchased. We continued to pay a return on these properties even after PATH was abandoned in 2012. While PATH marketed and sold some of the properties it owned during the last 5 years, it never marketed the very expensive substation properties. Instead, PATH told federal regulators it was going to transfer these properties to its affiliates "in the future."

Well, the future finally arrived today, and the Kemptown substation site was sold to the highest bidder. PATH was so anxious to have the site that it paid $6,830,553 for it back in 2008. Wanna know what it fetched at auction? You're a glutton for punishment, aren't you? The proposed Kemptown substation site sold for only $960,000. That's a difference of $5,870,553. I think perhaps PATH overpaid, and then failed to get a good price for it by complete and utter failure to market the property. But why should they? You picked up the tab, and the more PATH spent, the more it made.

PATH also sold a couple of lots on Big Woods Road. It purchased the lots for $860,000. The lots sold for $105,000. That's a loss of $755,000.

PATH sold the last two of several lots it spent $4.5M purchasing at Rivers Edge Subdivision in Loudoun County for the purpose of trying to force the release of a conservation easement held by the county. Lot 5, containing 17 acres, with a 500kV transmission line cutting it right in half, fetched a whopping $64,000. PATH paid $285,000 for the same lot back in 2009. That's a loss of $221,000.

Lot 12 in Rivers Edge, an irregularly shaped lot consisting of 43 acres chopped all to hell and back by the same 500 kV transmission line went for $111,000. PATH paid $689,000 for it. That's a loss of $578,000.

And, finally, just over half an acre of West Virginia property bisected by a subdivision road fetched a whopping $100. Yup, that's right. A piece of property PATH wanted so badly that it paid $50,000 for it has pretty much no value whatsoever. Not only does the new owner get to pay taxes on their purchase, but also subdivision road fees. What a bargain! This property is a loss of $49,900, but I think we should be thankful that we didn't have to pay anyone to take it.

So, who bought these properties? I don't know. The bidders were identified only by numbers. What will the new owners do with the properties? Who knows... but I think one of them is still zoned agricultural...

Nice touch holding the auction in the same hotel where PATH held its "Open House" meeting for landowners back in the fall of 2008. Hey, remember when PATH made the Holiday Inn staff go outside and take away the table borrowed by the opposition to display literature? Good times, good times. Getting the stink eye from the two old farts in AEP logo polo shirts was just like old times, too bad they ran for their lives before we could stop and say "hi."

Is this what PJM means when they say, "PJM is charged with planning for the future so that consumers have the most cost-efficient power when they need it. This solution is the most reliable and cost effective and will save consumers million in the long run."? I'm pretty sure PJM said those same things about PATH. And PJM was wrong. And that's cost consumers millions in the long run. And what a long, long, loooooong run it's been.

3 Comments

Clean Line's Sugary Empty Threats

8/18/2017

3 Comments

Any good grandparent knows what happens when you fill a toddler with sugary snacks and drinks... they turn into short-attention span race cars... zooming through your house at breakneck speed, harassing the cat, jumping on the bed, and dumping out every puzzle and game in the house in 30 seconds flat.

That's sort of what happened with Clean Line's Mark Lawlor after the Missouri PSC denied Grain Belt's application.

It took a while for Clean Line to stiffen its upper lip and say anything. The first words were Michael Skelly casting aspersions on Missouri, its institutions, its government, its people. And then he said:

“We will review the order in detail to determine next steps for the project,” adds Skelly. “We are currently assessing all existing authorities available to move the Grain Belt Express project forward, including but not limited to legal appeals.”

Clean Line executives said Wednesday that they were weighing their options for the Grain Belt Express power line, though they acknowledged that the “legal and regulatory conundrum” could add many months or years to the project if they decide to keep trying.

Right, vague talk about appeals. Blah, blah, blah. Sort of sounds like a whipped puppy, doesn't he? *snort* *sniffle* *wahhhhhh* Have a lick or two of Clean Line's delicious lollipop and dry your tears...

And remember, GBE's attorney promised the PSC that a dismissal would mean the project is dead and that a separate but ineffective favorable opinion would only be used to convince the counties to grant assent. Unfortunately, some of the PSC Commissioners took him at his word.

Sometime later Wednesday afternoon Mark Lawlor got ahold of that lollipop and went on a sugar-fueled romp among the media, supposing all sorts of things he could do to move a dead and denied GBE project forward. Each comment got more outrageous until Mark's pinnacle with a Fox News station out of Illinois, where he said,

"So, the Grain Belt Project will deliver enough power for over a million homes, and will do so at costs that are extremely competitive with wind energy that is clean and renewable.”

No, really, that's exactly what he said, listen to the recording on the video here. What is it that Clean Line will be delivering that will be extremely competitive with clean wind power? It can't be clean wind power, so it must be dirty coal power? Gas? Nuclear? All of the above? I think the sugar was running amok by that time and Mark's brain and mouth were running in different time zones.

What other stupid things did he say?

“We absolutely want to do the project,” said Mark Lawlor, development director for Grain Belt Express. But he added: “Unfortunately, the message that we’re getting from Missouri is that investments of these kind might be better spent in other places.”

Lawlor said the four commissioners’ belief that the project was worthwhile but not approvable under state law “makes for an interesting argument” if Clean Line decides to instead seek federal permission to proceed.

Clean Line director of development Mark Lawlor said another hearing would be sought, but that the company also was exploring legal options.

He added that Clean Line would push ahead with the project, despite the setback in Missouri.

“This is a Missouri problem, it’s not just a Grain Belt problem. This says any transmission line looking to build in Missouri cannot set foot on the commission’s doorstep until there’s permission from counties for a road permit,” said Lawlor.

“It’s too important to our country, and to our energy future, to just walk away,” said Lawlor. “This project is just as valuable today as when we started and probably more so.”

The project’s developers and other supporters harshly criticized Wednesday’s PSC ruling.

“It’s going to apply to future infrastructure projects — not just ours, but anyone who wants to come to Missouri and build transmission lines or pipelines, they’re gonna pay attention to this,” said Mark Lawlor, vice president at Clean Line. “It sends a bad signal to the marketplace.”

He argued that Grain Belt Express and projects of statewide significance should be decided by the PSC.

“It’s certainly not what the legislature intended,” Lawlor said. “It’s certainly not how the commission has worked in its 113-year history, but that’s somehow where we found ourselves today.”

Lawlor said Clean Line would need time to determine its next course of action.

A lawyer representing clean-energy interests said that another appeal is a near-certainty. Mark Lawlor, Clean Line’s vice president for development, wasn’t quite as definite.

“I think it’s sort of placed the burden on Clean Line to go ask the courts to sort this out,” he said. “Because of this legal quagmire, the project can’t move forward. It’s a broken system. It’s a problem for Missouri.”

Lawlor said there are a few options that he and his staff are evaluating. One is to essentially take the case back to the state appeals court – the same body that took the position that in part has led to this “quagmire,” as Lawlor called it.

There is actually a chance that the same court that ruled against Clean Line’s interests could see things differently, according to Renew Missouri’s James Owen.

“There are aspects of this that haven’t been presented before,” he said. “We can point out things that haven’t been thought about.”

The legislature is another avenue, according to Lawlor. He suggested they might want to study the pertinent law and ask themselves, “Is this what we meant to do here? Is this what we want, to have county commissions decide which infrastructure moves forward in the state?

“It would be in legislature’s interests to sort this out.”

There is also a federal avenue through which Lawlor said private developers can partner with the Department of Energy to develop infrastructure.

But Lawlor claims that the issue goes beyond Clean Line’s desire to build a high-voltage transmission line across Missouri. The new administration of Gov. Eric Greitens “has made a point of saying, ‘Missouri is open for business, we want investment in our state.’

“This decision runs counter to that.” As it now stands, he predicted that, “Other investors are going to look at Missouri and this will enter into their decision as to whether this is a good place to invest money.”

Wow, that was pretty impressive, for a company that seems to be out of money.

Lawlor's false bravado seems to have rubbed off on Clean Line president Michael Skelly the next day. Skelly says:

“It’s impossible if you’re building a multi-state transmission line to get agreements from all 30 counties that you might cross,” said Michael Skelly, the president of Houston-based Clean Line, which is planning about $9 billion of power lines across the Great Plains, Midwest and the Southwest.

Clean Line has at least three options it is considering, according to Skelly. It can appeal the decision, seek a change of state law or bypass the state by asking the U.S. Energy Department to approve it.

“If none of those three work, we’re toast,” Skelly said in an interview Wednesday.

And then he passes the lollipop to Clean Line's PR lady:

Clean Line’s other options, said spokesperson Sarah Bray, include asking the PSC for a rehearing, working with the state’s legislature to revise pertinent laws or seeking U.S. Energy Department approval under Section 1222 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. The latter would authorize the department to take part in “designing, developing, constructing, operating, maintaining or owning” new transmission.

“The project is certainly not dead,” Bray said.

Bray told RTO Insider that Clean Line was “encouraged by the PSC’s determination that the project is in the public interest and will benefit the State of Missouri.”

That sugary lollipop the PSC handed them has done nothing but fuel delusions of grandeur that the company can't accomplish. And it's going to waste a bunch more time and money. Instead of being "toast," like it promised, the company wants to add years to its project schedule pursuing the impossible dream.

And what are Clean Line's options?

Seek rehearing. Will the PSC suddenly change its mind and do something the courts said was illegal and issue GBE a permit? No, that's not realistic. But a request for rehearing is prerequisite to appeal.
Appeal the PSC's denial to the Missouri courts. Is the Western District Court of Appeals going to reverse itself? There are no new arguments on this issue. It's all been said and done before and the appeals court and the Missouri Supreme Court rejected them all. What makes Clean Line think it's different or special at this point in time? The law is the law. The courts follow the law.
Repeal or replace Sec. 229-100 of Missouri law that says a transmission project must have the assent of the county commissions through which it passes. Read this carefully. Is Missouri really going to give up local control to have its fate dictated to by out-of-state companies with foreign investors? This statute has been in effect for years. It's not realistic to think it can be legislated away at the request of some Texas company in a big fat hurry. This is unlikely to happen, even if Clean Line spends years buying support to repeal it.
Ask the U.S. DOE to partner on this project under Sec. 1222 of the Energy Policy Act. Does Clean Line have $100M lying around to fund another 1222 process? Even if it did, the federal government wants to sell the power marketing authorities that would partner under Sec. 1222. Once sold, the PMAs would no longer have any government authority, but would be owned by private entities that have to adhere to state law. And let's be realistic here... even with Sec. 1222 being used on Clean Line's Plains & Eastern project to usurp state authority, that project is going nowhere. It's dead. No activity. Sitting in limbo. Has no customers to fund it.

None of these sound like workable options. They would add years and hundreds of millions of dollars to the project. Clean Line doesn't have years. The big wind farm building boom is waning with the federal production tax credits that will sunset in just 3 years. When the PTC goes, so goes any economic advantage for big wind. Because the PSC denied Grain Belt's application the other day, all those contracts between GBE, MJMEUC and Infinity Wind are void. The contracts were contingent upon PSC approval. All that would have to be rehashed at a later date. Pricing would change without the PTC. Any opportunity and savings attached to those contracts during the recent PSC application will have to be completely re-done. And that's the thing, unless appeal is granted (highly unlikely) Clean Line will have to prosecute a fourth application before the MO PSC with no guarantee of a favorable result. The MO PSC swings wildly from side to side.

And then let's talk about Illinois, where the Supreme Court has taken up the issue of whether or not Clean Line is a public utility that should be granted eminent domain authority. Even if Clean Line spends all this money trying to bust through Missouri's brick wall, eventually the Illinois Supreme Court is going to issue a ruling that can nullify it. All of it. It doesn't matter what Missouri thinks if the Illinois permit is vacated. Why waste a bunch of time and money in Missouri when it can all be for naught once Illinois rules? I thought Clean Line put spending money in Iowa on hold pending the Illinois outcome. But yet they want to do that exact thing in Missouri?

Honestly, these guys are dumber than a box of rocks. It sounds to me like they're just spewing out a bunch of empty threats and big talk that they can't accomplish. Perhaps they'll come down off their sugar high soon? Because Clean Line is dead. Go away, Clean Line. You will never succeed.

3 Comments

Clean Line's Delicious Lollipop

8/17/2017

3 Comments

Yesterday, the Missouri Public Service Commission held out a tasty, sparkly, beautiful lollipop for Grain Belt Express. But instead of carefully handing GBE the lollipop to enjoy, the Commission plunged the lollipop into the nearest pile of manure and walked away, leaving Clean Line scrambling to dust off its lollipop before having a lick, and then sharing it with MJMEUC, environmental groups, and the media.

Don't lick this lollipop!

What exactly happened at the PSC yesterday?

Grain Belt Express's application was denied. Done. Finished. Not approved. Case over.

But then the PSC did something unfortunate. It issued what can only be dubbed a useless opinion on the case it had just denied. The denial is the only thing with any legal effect. It doesn't matter if they might have approved it, or whether they think it was worthwhile, because it's denied and the useless opinions in the "concurrence" have no authority or effect. The project is denied.

Of course, Clean Line begged for this favorable opinion separate and apart from a denial, and the Commission spread it on pretty thick. An actual approval couldn't have been so biased and one-sided. During oral arguments, Clean Line's attorney said it would use the useless opinion to convince county commissions to assent to its project. But it looks like Clean Line has used it for everything but.

Clean Line has used the useless opinion to try to shield itself in the media so it doesn't have to utter the word denial.

Clean Line has used the useless opinion to beat up on the PSC and the State of Missouri in the media.

Clean Line has used the useless opinion to make its former customers think their contract is still binding and convince them to sit around like good little sheep and fail to pursue replacements for supply contracts that expire in 4 years.

Clean Line has used the useless opinion as the proposed basis for future legal action.

Clean Line has used the useless opinion to pretend it would make a good platform for federal usurpation of the Missouri PSC's authority. The Commission whined in its concurrence that the courts had overstepped onto Commission authority. If they think the Missouri court system stuck its nose where it didn't belong, then the Commission ain't seen nothing yet if the Feds get involved.

Lastly, did Clean Line use that useless opinion to unlock the investor money vault and give its investors false hope that the opinion had some value and effect? I wonder how the Missouri PSC might have ill-advisedly overstepped by producing knowingly ineffective and overly complimentary opinions that give investors false hope for a project that has failed? At least one Commissioner had the good sense not to sign that thing.

The Missouri Public Service Commission's "Concurrence" is a powerless, feel-good, useless opinion that does not matter. It does nothing. It has no legal force or effect. It's just a piece of paper.

The only thing that matters from yesterday is the Order denying Grain Belt's Application. Grain Belt Express was denied by the PSC. It cannot be built in Missouri. That isn't some easily scaled "hurdle," it's a 16-story brick wall. Missouri said no. End of story.

The Missouri Landowners Alliance's attorney told the AP everything they needed to know yesterday.

"They're done at this point. We won. They can't build the line," said Paul Agathen, an attorney for the Missouri Landowners Alliance. "So it's up to them as to what steps, if any, they take."

So there Clean Line sits, holding its dirty PSC lollipop, hoping everyone has a lick. Just say "no" to that lollipop or you're going to end up with a mouth full of....

Next... what happens when a Clean Line employee consumes too much sugar? Stay tuned...

3 Comments

The Clean Line Blame Game

8/16/2017

3 Comments

In the wake of the Missouri Public Service Commission's denial of Clean Line's Grain Belt Express project today, fingers were pointing everywhere.

Clean Line's Michael Skelly blamed the PSC.

“The PSC’s decision to deny approval of the project, despite the clear public benefits, sends a clear message that investors contemplating new infrastructure projects should not come to Missouri. Today’s ruling is inconsistent with good government and sound public policy and it is our hope that moving forward Missouri will work to remove barriers to building new critical infrastructure projects.”

The PSC blamed the courts.

Instead, the commission said it was bound by a court opinion rendered earlier this year on the Mark Twain Transmission Project. That case involved the issue of assent — or permission from counties to use right-of-ways to construct the project.

Screwball environmental fringe group Renew Missouri blamed the governor.

"...the decision on the Grain Belt Express today shows our new Governor’s administration isn’t serious about economic development and household budgets as promised. Just more talk with no action.”

Let's pause here and put on our thinking caps, shall we?

What's the problem?

Grain Belt Express did not have necessary county assents.

Whose fault is that?

It's Clean Line's fault, of course! None of this would have happened if Clean Line had produced county assents.

And why couldn't Clean Line produce county assents?

Because it treated county commissions and affected landowners like they didn't matter. Instead of offering something landowners could accept, Clean Line thought it prudent to ignore landowner concerns and request eminent domain to take their property against their will. If Clean Line had truly worked to find a way to get landowner support, the county commissions may have granted assent.

But Clean Line didn't.

The denial of Grain Belt Express is only Clean Line's fault.

3 Comments

Grain Belt Express Strikes Out - Denied by Missouri PSC for the Third Time!

8/16/2017

5 Comments

Citizens across Missouri are celebrating today in the wake of the Public Service Commission’s (PSC) denial of Grain Belt Express’s (GBE) application to build a high-voltage transmission line across the state. The application, GBE’s third, was unanimously denied at a PSC meeting this morning. The Commissioners stated that they are constrained by a recent court opinion that requires local county assent before the PSC can grant a permit.

Block GBE-Missouri President Russ Pisciotta stated, “This is a huge victory for the impacted property owners and property rights. We are so thankful to all that made this possible.”

Key to the landowners’ victory is the steadfast opposition to the project by County Commissions. A transmission project must receive the assent of the commission of each county crossed prior to approval by the PSC. In Ralls County, where support of the project was rescinded, Presiding Commissioner Wiley Hibbard says he will continue to stand with his constituents.

“I am very pleased that the local control of county commissioners was upheld by the PSC. Local officials have much better insight on how these projects will affect their counties. Please know Ralls County is not against green energy, in fact our Ralls Co. Electric Co-op has over 500 megawatts of wind energy currently available. Anyone interested in taking advantage of this clean energy opportunity without taking our land by force is welcome in Ralls County,” said Hibbard.

Caldwell County Presiding Commissioner Bud Motsinger said he has tried to reflect the opinions of voting constituents.

“I am very pleased that the PSC has listened to the public comments and public opinion. It is very important for local citizens to express opinions on issues that concern them and their county. This is an example of community involvement protecting the future of Caldwell County,” said Motsinger.

Block GBE-Missouri believes that offshore wind is a viable option for the east coast, without disrupting and clear cutting thousands of acres halfway across the country in the Midwest. Offshore wind is a reliable and consistent supply because it blows during peak times, when terrestrial wind often cannot produce. Block GBE believes distributed and locally sourced renewables provide economic development to the area that will use the energy produced, and keeps energy dollars at home, where they provide local jobs and tax benefits.

Block member Jennifer Gatrel stated, “It was never about whether or not the energy was renewable, but about disruption and loss of production for the many family farms, as well as reduced property values and permanent hazards for landowners in GBE’s path. Use of eminent domain to coerce cooperation, and poor compensation, did little to convince landowners to sacrifice their wellbeing for the benefit of consumers in Missouri cities and other states far away.”

During oral arguments on the issue earlier this month, GBE’s attorney shared with the Commission that if the project was dismissed, it was dead.

“Farmers are long term thinkers. We plan in decades, not years. We will fight this as long as it takes. Property rights are worth protecting,” said Block GBE spokeswoman Jennifer Gatrel.

BACKGROUND: Grain Belt Express was a 780-mile high-voltage direct current transmission proposed to run from Kansas to Indiana to move wind energy from the Great Plains to the East Coast.

5 Comments

Todd Burns: Liar? Or Just Stupid?

8/10/2017

5 Comments

It's one or the other. Let's contemplate this...

When I asked Todd Burns what his company's return on equity was, he appeared confused. He didn't know what a return on equity was. It was only after I explained what it was that he finally remembered that Transource's return on equity for this project is "10 to 11 percent" something like that. FACT: Transource has applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a 10.9% ROE. The matter is currently in settlement discussions, with an administrative hearing possible if a settlement is not reached.

I met a handful of the Transource guys and gals the other night. Most attempted to be personable and avoid direct lies while trying to answer my increasingly hard questions. And then I worked my way up to Todd Burns.

He also had trouble admitting that Transource has received an incentive from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that allows the company to file to recover all its sunk costs from ratepayers in the event that PJM decides to abandon this project.

So, do the lawyers and bean counters at "Transource" (really utility giant AEP, because Transource has no employees of its own) not share basic information, such as return on equity and who pays if the project is abandoned, with Todd Burns? Todd needs to hustle home to Columbus with great alacrity and find out about all this stuff! Otherwise, he looks rather stupid to a public who does know about it. Or maybe he looks like a liar who was pretending to be uninformed so he could avoid the question? As if that could happen.

Todd Burns also seemed to be confused about a lot of other facts during an interview with the Waynesboro Herald Record. Despite that, the reporter managed to write a great, balanced article. The Herald Record has the best coverage of this issue that I've seen (other media take note!) What was it that Burns said?

Burns said some of the negative feedback is based on misinformation about the project. “There’s a lot of confusion and a lot of things being said that aren’t accurate,” Burns said.

I blame you, Todd. I think most of the "misinformation" is coming from you. Please, allow me to demonstrate...

“Burying lines causes problems,” Burns said. “If a line fails and it’s underground, it can’t be located and fixed immediately. That’s what happened recently on the Outer Banks.
“The environmental disturbance is greater to trench and bury a line than to run it overhead. And it’s ten-times more costly to do it underground.”

It is NOT "ten times more costly" to underground lines. In fact, it's only twice as costly, roughly. AEP has been claiming undergrounding is "ten times more costly" for years, along with a whole bunch of other excuses for taking the cheaper and easier option of aerial lines. And the technology does exist to determine where a fault is on an underground line. And you probably can mark an underground line to prevent all by the biggest idiots from pile driving onto it. I'm not buying the environmental disturbance thing, either. I've seen what transmission companies do to rights of way when building overhead lines. So, let's update these excuses, because they sort of sound like a lie to me.

As well, who cares how much it costs to underground lines? If the landowners require undergrounding, then that is the cost of fixing this "bottleneck." Are you saying that unless you can build this cheaply that all the savings for the DC-Baltimore elite will evaporate? A more expensive project doesn't clear a cost-benefit analysis? Then, obviously, this project isn't worth doing. It is not incumbent upon Pennsylvania and Maryland landowners to sacrifice by allowing the cheapest project you can build in order to move cheaper power to the city. If you want them to sacrifice for the cities, then the landowners need to have input into how the final project looks on their property. And by having input, I mean actually making the determination -- I don't mean having an opportunity to toss comments down a black hole at Transource where they are completely ignored. The only way a landowner can have effective input is when eminent domain is not an option. Anything else is coercion, not negotiation. Which brings us to...

“I’ve heard people are concerned about land use and whether they will be able to use their properties,” Burns said. “People will still be able to work under the power lines, although obviously there would be a limit on building underneath them. The land is still useable.”
Burns said property owners would be compensated for the easements through their land. “We’re going to be acquiring easements from the landowners and compensate them for it. They will retain the rights to certain activities,” Burns said.
He said property-owners shouldn’t be worried about the threat of eminent domain. “Our approach is we negotiate fair market value for anything that has to be acquired,” he explained. “We use eminent domain less than three percent of the time.”

If you want to see how landowners can still work under high voltage transmission lines, carefully watch the AEP videos on this page. Nuisance shocks, EMF, and big brother monitoring your activities on your own land? What's not to like? But wait, there's more... like aerial spraying of the right of way with chemicals to keep growth down, or power line workers coming on your property for maintenance or repairs and leaving gates open, driving large equipment through your fields, and disturbing the soil. The truth is that you will have picked up a parasitic tenant on your land... in perpetuity.

"Compensation" for property taken may be less than you'd expect. After all it is a value created by an out of state company, that will never even lay eyes on your place, from market studies of similar land sales of property in your county. It is Transource's idea of the value of your property, not yours. As well, you may only be paid for the property in the right of way, when the right of way itself devalues the rest of the parcel. Payments for damages will be argued over in court for years... at your expense, if you don't accept what the company wants to give you.

I'm pretty sure Transource land agents will use the threat of eminent domain 100% of the time in order to coerce the landowner to sign on the dotted line. That isn't negotiation, that's coercion.

Burns said he is confident the Independence Energy Connection will save customers money not just in the greater metropolitan areas south of here, but locally. “The driver is to give customers in this area access to lower costs,” he said. He said it is too early to estimate what the cost savings might be, or whether local, independent energy companies will pass the savings on to customers. “They may have other initiatives that will affect your bill,” Burns said.

Perhaps Burns needs to talk to his underlings, who have readily admitted that the lion's share of the savings is for customers in the DC/Baltimore area. And PJM agrees with that. That's why 80.52% of the cost of this project will be paid for by DC, Baltimore and Northern Virginia Customers.

Those who receive the benefits (in this instance cheaper power) pay the costs. That's how PJM works. Any savings for the project area (benefits) are not commensurate with the cost to the community and the individual landowners. Their costs are much greater than any benefit they may receive.

And I hate to let Burns know, but one of his underlings actually confirmed that market efficiency projects perform a leveling of costs across the region. If power is cheaper in the cities, the cost of it must rise somewhere else. All that cheap power "bottlenecked" in PA and MD and unable to reach the cities? Those are the prices that are going to go up once the "bottleneck" is removed.

And then Burns admits he has no hard evidence of how (or even if) this project will lower local electric bills. Then he supposes that local electric companies may keep any savings that develop for themselves. Of course... always thinking ahead, that Todd, to explain now why bills will never go down after this project is built.

Todd is not telling the truth about project benefit. But he may not be the only one with a penchant for prevarication. Transource spokeswoman Abby Foster made up a whole bunch of satisfied and happy landowners out of thin air.

Despite the many negative comments exchanged from person to person around the packed community center, Transource officials said there was also positive feedback.
“We found in this area, people understand the greater need for infrastructure,” said Abby Foster, community affairs representative for Transource Energy. “Everyone here benefits from something being on someone’s property.”
Foster said the positive comments she heard came from residents who see the financial benefits of easements on their properties as well as the benefits of costs savings on energy bills.
She said some residents don’t like the exact location of the proposed line across their properties but are willing to have it shifted to a different location on their properties.
“There’s a lot that has shifted because of public input,” Foster said.

Why are there no quotes from these people? Why didn't the reporter talk to any of them? Is that because they don't exist? These must be the mysterious folks who have requested monopoles, because those people are just as elusive. What it seems more like is that Transource is making up a mythical landowner who is pleased because Transource is altering its plans to suit Mr. Mythical. A company that presented its public image as "take it or leave it" would be seen as unfavorable by the public. One that pretends it is bending to the will of the people may curry more favor. But when there are no happy people in reality, it's all an illusion. Nobody wants this transmission line on their property.

And as far as that “everyone here benefits from something being on someone’s property” line, puh-leeze. I heard that from one of the Transource people at the open house. It was the tagline of the night. And it sucks. It doesn't work on the public, just so you know, Transource. Other companies have tried it before you. It is met with anger and confusion. It has no relevance for affected landowners. Just because we use eminent domain and rights of way to take property for public use does not mean that everyone should gladly sacrifice for the selfish needs of others. And that's what this is... rural sacrifice for urban benefit. This project isn't needed to keep the lights on. It's only "need," according to PJM, is to make power cheaper in the cities to the south. Those cities like to keep their pretty skylines lit up all night long. There's no reason at all to keep an office tower lit inside all night. Maybe if the cities quit wasting so much electricity, they wouldn't need to call older, more expensive plants to generate during peak load a few days out of the year. And then we wouldn't "need" gigantic transmission towers in Pennsylvania.

Let's wrap up with this...

“We’ll look at a route that strikes the best balance,” Burns said, mentioning recreational activities, historic value and land use concerns. “You rarely come up with one that’s gonna satisfy all those things. Ultimately, it will be at the state level to decide where it goes.”

It is up to the state to decide WHETHER it goes, not just where. Opposition to this project is huge and gathering mass every minute. Loud, forthright opposition kills transmission projects. Todd Burns is going to need to get himself educated quickly! Or else quit lying. He's not very good at it.

5 Comments

How Dare you, Dominion!

8/8/2017

5 Comments

I was completely floored to hear how rude, insulting and arrogant Mr. Chuck Penn of Dominion was on the Kojo Nnamdi radio show yesterday. Shame on you, Chuck! You sure didn't paint your company in a good light. In fact, you only served to create new enemies. I'm one.

Now, I met Mr. Penn several years ago and he was quite the friendly personality. But, then again, he was getting what he wanted at the time (and so was I). Either he's been drinking too much Arrogant Bastard ale of late, or he's really been a nasty person all along.

The story presented on the show concerns a transmission project Dominion wants to build in Prince William County, Va. The transmission line is "necessary" to serve a proposed new data center owned by an Amazon subsidiary. And Dominion wants to run it through private property. Of course, the affected landowners objected. Their local elected county officials responded by backing the landowners. Dominion's "preferred route" was blocked by the creation of a conservation easement along the route. The Virginia State Corporation Commission then selected the next route option that plows through the nearby Carver Road community. Carver Road is an historic African-American community. Dominion (and Mr. Penn on the radio) played this up as a rich, white community dumping unwanted infrastructure on a less affluent African-American community. This is the stuff movies are made of, right? Except the Carver Road community has joined forces with the community on the original route to oppose the transmission line on any route. The original group is fighting just as hard to have the route moved out of Carver Road as they did to have it moved out of their own neighborhood. This is the epitome of a community working together to benefit everyone, despite Mr. Penn's best efforts to portray it as racial. I'm guessing that Mr. Penn doesn't speak for Carver Road... after all, he works for Dominion. Mr. Penn thinks the county should release the easement so Dominion can build its project along the original route.

How about this? How about Dominion doesn't build its project at all?

Opponents said that the data center isn't even a sure thing, and even if it was, this project is nothing more than a gigantic service line, necessary only to serve the data center.

There is a route that goes along the highway and comprises some buried sections of line. The Virginia SCC says they did not select that route because it was "too expensive." Penn said that route would cost $100M more than tearing up one of the affected neighborhoods with an overhead line. And then Dominion and the SCC sit around and talk about how all ratepayers in the region will pay for the transmission line so they need to build it as cheaply as possible.

The opposition pointed out that 97% of the transmission line benefit will be for Amazon and asked why Amazon isn't paying 97% of the cost? If you or I built a house up on a remote mountain and then wanted electric service, we'd have to pay to run our service line from the nearest distribution line. This project is nothing more than that on a grand scale. Why should Amazon have no cost responsibility for its own service line? Because of economic development, jobs, taxes, and all the wonderful things it could possibly bring to Prince William County? Who did the cost benefit analysis on that to prove that the benefits of the data center are greater than the cost to the ratepayers?

And then we get down to the fundamental question... why must a handful of landowners sacrifice their economic and environmental well-being to host a transmission line for a data center that economically benefits the entire region? If the project can be built on a more expensive route that nobody objects to, and Amazon covers the cost of its service line, where's the harm to the ratepayers of using the more expensive route? The true cost of a transmission project is one that finds a route that doesn't harm anyone. If that includes burial, so be it.

The idea that certain segments of society (either black or white) must sacrifice for the whole is outdated and unacceptable any longer. This isn't the 1930's when that was necessary to electrify the country. "But for" the data center, this project isn't necessary.

I find Dominion's attempt to play communities against each other completely disgusting. Instead, the communities should be fighting their common enemy, Dominion. The communities are to be commended for refusing to fall for Chuck's ruse. United they stand, divided they fall.

And Chuck should quit being so ugly to people. I'm sure his momma taught him better than that.

5 Comments

Abandoned PATH Properties, Get Your Abandoned PATH Properties Here!

8/8/2017

1 Comment

PATH is holding a fire sale this month on all those abandoned properties it purchased nearly 10 years ago. Need a gigantic farm property that's not zoned for an electric substation?

How about a nice vacation cabin in West Virginia that's been sitting vacant and rotting for years?

Or perhaps you're in the market for a big lot in a very exclusive Loudoun County, Virginia, subdivision and you don't mind having high voltage transmission lines running through the middle of your property?

Then don't miss these PATH absolute auctions on August 22 and August 23!

Finally, 5 years after the PATH 765-kV transmission line project was officially abandoned by PJM Interconnection and the PATH companies, the property PATH bought with your money is being auctioned off. PATH has been marketing some of these properties for years, with no takers. What kind of a property is marketed for 5 years with no offers? What's wrong with these properties? Buyer beware!

While actively seeking to build the project between 2008 and 2011, PATH purchased outright around $30M worth of real estate to be used as future substations and right of way for its transmission project. Each property has some story attached that serves as an excuse for purchasing it way above its market value at that point in time. Need an ending point for your project? Purchase a farm zoned agricultural and then set about battling the county about re-zoning it. Need to have a conservation easement lifted? Purchase a bunch of property near the easement and then hire lobbyists to influence the governmental entity that holds the easement to release it. See an opportunity property where the owners are struggling financially? Purchase it now and worry about how you may use it later. After all, it's not YOUR money, it's coming out of electric ratepayer wallets, and you're earning a big fat return on every dollar you spend.

How much return? Well, initially, 14.3%, later 12.9%, later still 10.9%, even later 10.4%, and finally, 8.11%. As long as you own those properties, you may collect the corresponding return on your investment from ratepayers.

But when you sell the properties, you must credit the sale price to your unpaid balance upon which the return is calculated. For example, if the balance of your investment is $100, and you sell a property that is included in that balance for $5, then your new balance is $95. An 10% return on $100 is $10. A 10% return on $95 is $9.50. So, by holding onto your properties as long as possible, you will collect the maximum amount of return. So it really wouldn't help your profit margin to sell these unneeded properties quickly. You must hold on to them until the rest of the ratepayer debt is paid and a regulator orders you to dispose of them, then auction them off at fire sale prices and make the ratepayers pay all the auction and commission expenses off the top of the credit they will realize from the sale of property. And then you can hope the ratepayers don't find out about it.

Whoopsie!!!

So, for all those PATH opponents who have been living in suspended animation for the past 5 years wondering if PATH was going to dream up another project to use those properties for a transmission line, you're released from your continuing torture. The PATH companies are finally going away and won't be using the properties for a future transmission project. Now you only have to worry about what a new owner may do with the properties. And how much you ultimately paid, of course. Creative accounting, and feigned uncertainty combined with a failure to effectively market vacant property, will squeeze the last possible penny out of your wallet.

PATH... the gift that keeps on taking.

How do these guys sleep at night?

1 Comment

Grain Belt Express's Worst Nightmare

8/8/2017

2 Comments

Legal transcripts contain an index. The transcript of last week's Missouri Public Service Commission Oral Argument in the Grain Belt Express case includes the word "nightmare."

There was a bit of debate regarding exactly what constitutes Grain Belt Express's worst nightmare. PSC Chairman Hall thought issuing a non-appealable favorable finding (but not a permit) for GBE to use as leverage for assent of county commissions would create GBE's "worst nightmare" of hanging in limbo forever. However, GBE's attorney was quick to correct him. He said dismissal of the application was GBE's "worst nightmare," because dismissal means the project is dead. Chairman Hall started to disagree, then changed his mind. I still think a dead project is better than a limbo project, at least it has finality and stops costing the investors money that maybe they don't want to invest anymore.

Chairman Hall thought GBE's idea that a "favorable finding" by the PSC would convince the counties to give assent to the project "naive."

CHAIRMAN HALL: Yes, I have a few. I want to start with your alternative argument that
the Commission go through the Tartan analysis, determine that Grain Belt has met each of those factors, but then withhold issuing the certificate. Would that be an appealable decision?
MR. ZOBRIST: I think it would be because if you construe Neighbors United to say that you cannot issue a CCN, you're making these other findings and you're simply withholding it at that point. To be honest, I really haven't thought through that. It may be -- it depends on what your language is. I think if you say that this part is final, you view it as appealable, that that might be something for us to take a look at because it may not be an appealable order until either --
CHAIRMAN HALL: I think that would be your worst-case scenario. Then you're sitting in limbo here and you can't take the order up. MR. ZOBRIST: Well, I'm being the optimist, Chairman. I'm assuming we get favorable factual findings on the public convenience and necessity. We'd use those to go to the county commissions and say the Public Service Commission has weighed in and says the public is not going to be harmed and you should issue your county assents and then we'll be back. Now, if you -- if you deny it, if you dismiss it, then I think --
CHAIRMAN HALL: Well, that's --
MR. ZOBRIST: Pardon me. Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN HALL: That, to be perfectly blunt, seems a little naive to me that this commission's decision on public interest is going to sway the county commissions, and so --
MR. ZOBRIST: Like I said --
CHAIRMAN HALL: I think the reality is that that would be almost your worst nightmare because then the case just sits in limbo here and you can't take it up on appeal.
MR. ZOBRIST: Well, let me put it this way. The nightmare is if you just dismiss it out of hand because then the project's dead. The
problem --
CHAIRMAN HALL: I would say that's better than this because at least then -- oh, okay. I'm sorry. I'm with you now. Keep going.

The transcript also contains derivatives of the word "baffle." As in

I mean, I completely understand Mr. Zobrist's argument. I'm baffled by yours.

So said Chairman Hall regarding MJMEUC's argument that the ATXI decision supports the issuance of a conditional permit for GBE.

I'm thinking that the hearing did not go well for GBE. Chairman Hall did not seem to be buying the arguments that the ATXI decision wasn't relevant to the GBE case. In order to declare the ATXI decision inapposite, GBE would have had to distinguish itself from ATXI, and it completely failed to do so. Instead it put forth arguments that were "naive" and "baffling" that urged the Commission to defy the courts and issue a CCN with language that tells the court their ATXI decision was wrong. If the Missouri Supreme Court declined to do so, it's not the place of the PSC to attempt to re-interpret the law. The law is clear, and the courts have spoken. Done.

And speaking of specious arguments, the attorney for the Sierra Club and other parties really stepped in it. He told the Commission,

We've also raised the possibility of a county veto being in violation of federal law, and this is based solely on my general knowledge, but it seems that local interference with interstate commerce and electricity would violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Federal Power Act gives FERC authority over interstate transmission lines. The state still has authority to regulate the siting of interstate transmission lines, but they're otherwise preempted.

This guy's "general knowledge" is flat out wrong. The Federal Power Act only gives FERC authority over interstate transmission RATES. It does not give them permitting or siting authority. FERC cannot approve transmission projects. The states have complete jurisdiction over the siting and permitting of interstate transmission lines and are not "preempted" from acting. With this kind of stellar legal analysis, can we believe anything this guy says? The Sierra Club needs to mind its own business and stop trying to interfere in state transmission permitting cases. They only succeed in making themselves irrelevant.

So now it's up to the Missouri PSC to decide what to do with this case. The ATXI decision does preclude the issuance of a CCN for GBE. Any attempt to go around it, as suggested by GBE and its sycophants, will most likely be struck down by the courts. GBE's attorney has to recognize this. He seemed nearly hysterical in his anger and frustration when it appeared that he failed to convince the Commissioners to go along with his "path forward." Remember, the nightmare isn't keeping this case in limbo, but in dismissing it. While logical thinking says that limbo is the worst thing that could happen, for some reason GBE is looking forward to it. It's almost as if GBE is already hanging in limbo, unable to unlock enough cash to continue operations unless it receives some sort of "favorable" opinion from the MO PSC. It doesn't seem to matter if the favorable opinion hangs the project in legal limbo, or results in a future court vacating the favorable opinion. It's all about having that piece of paper right now.

The Missouri Public Service Commission holds the key to the Clean Line money vault. Without it, the project is dead... and likely the other Clean Line projects as well. In the wilds of Mayberry, an animal so injured it cannot recover is put out of its misery. It's a kindness to end its suffering. GBE is suffering. It cannot be saved. It's time...

2 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

FERC is NOT an Appeals Court for State Transmission Permitting Decisions You Don't Like

PATH's Long Run Costs Consumers Millions

Clean Line's Sugary Empty Threats

Clean Line's Delicious Lollipop

The Clean Line Blame Game

Grain Belt Express Strikes Out - Denied by Missouri PSC for the Third Time!

Todd Burns: Liar? Or Just Stupid?

How Dare you, Dominion!

Abandoned PATH Properties, Get Your Abandoned PATH Properties Here!

Grain Belt Express's Worst Nightmare

About the Author

About
StopPATH Blog

Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
Email me

Archives

Categories

About the Author

AboutStopPATH Blog

Archives

Categories

About
StopPATH Blog