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

FERC Chairman Says Interconnected Grid is "Risky"

9/14/2013

0 Comments

 
FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff recently told folks at an energy forum:

"So we need to do what we can to minimize those vulnerabilities by ensuring that we can isolate portions of each one of those interconnects," he said, adding that "there are physical security issues that certainly have to be dealt with. I think the biggest risk is potentially attacks on the system at those critical nodes."

What Wellinghoff describes is already being accomplished on a smaller scale with distributed generation and microgrids that can be islanded in the event of an emergency.

Smaller systems increase reliability because their flexibility allows them to continue to function when separated from the larger system.  This is because a microgrid is a complete and functional electric generation and distribution system that can stand alone.  It's a "mini-grid."

Microgrids can be connected to each other, as well as to the larger, centralized grid, however they may also be disconnected in event of emergency to prevent centralized problems from affecting their operation.

Our traditional centralized generation system for electricity relies entirely on the transmission/distribution system to function.  Any faults in the T&D system cause blackouts for end users because the fault causes this system to lose its generation component and become incapable of generating electricity for the end users.

Increased reliance on long haul transmission lines to distribute renewable energy thousands of miles from point of generation to point of use increases the risk of failure for end users.  The most reliable system is one where generation of electricity occurs as close to the point of use as possible.  Less wire, less risk of failure.

So while Wellinghoff's reasoning is sound, his application is short-sighted because it doesn't look beyond the traditional centralized generation grid.
0 Comments

Clean Line Energy Pretends to be "The Voice of Consumers"

9/13/2013

3 Comments

 
Industry-funded front groups.  Every transmission developer uses them.  Nobody is fooled, but that never stops them from trying to influence regulatory approvals with an astroturf appearance of public support.
I've written plenty about the seven common propaganda devices and how they're used by transmission developers to facilitate regulatory approvals for their project.

Here's a quick and easy blog post.

Here's a longer, more technical explanation with real life examples from the PATH project that were part of the 2010 ATRR Formal Challenge that FERC granted and set for hearing (propaganda discussion begins on page 15).

Would it come as any surprise that Clean Line Energy is busy sending out promotional information to unsuspecting patsies via its own astroturf front group just days before the Illinois Commerce Commission public hearing?

No.  I wish I had a dime for every time I correctly predicted what some transmission owner would do next so that opposition groups could get there first and set an appropriate trap.  Me and my Magic 8 Ball would now own our own private island somewhere warm and transmission line-free.

Meet Clean Line Energy's astroturf front group.  This group falsely claims:
Consumer Energy Alliance is the voice of the energy consumer.  We provide consumers with sound, unbiased information on U.S. and global energy issues.  Our affiliates comprise a range of sectors from the energy industry, academia, small businesses, conservation groups to travel-related industries.
Where are the residential consumers?  They're not on CEA's membership list.  Those are commercial and industrial business groups.  However, Clean Line Energy Partners is listed as a "member" under the category heading "Energy Providers and Suppliers."  This organization is registered with the IRS as a C35 (Energy Resources Conservation and Development).  Does that sound like an organization run by "consumer voices?"  It apparently didn't to the IRS, either.  See CEA's very informative IRS Form 990 for tax year 2011 here.  It seems that a lot of money was spent "expanding dialogue between energy and consuming sectors."  Although, this organization can't seem to make up its mind whether it is advocating for clean or dirty energy.  Any port in a (revenue hungry) storm, I guess.

I give this an 8 out of 10 on the boldface lie scale.  It's only topped by the time one of PATH's front groups illegally claimed that it was a 501(c)3 non-profit organization.

FAIL, Clean Line, F-A-I-L!
3 Comments

Mon Power Story Makes People Angry

9/11/2013

2 Comments

 
Watch Toad blink and twitch his way through another fairy tale.

The people aren't buying it.  In fact, this story only makes them ANGRIER and more determined to show up at the upcoming public hearings in record numbers.

It seems many want to take Toad on for his lies.  How about it Toad?  Want to debate with your eager public?  Maybe we can all roll our eyes and make faces!

Anyhow, why not let the reporter know where she went wrong?  (Please be nice!)


2 Comments

Who's Looking Out For You?

9/11/2013

0 Comments

 
The State Journal tells us that PSC Chairman Michael Albert "appointed" a new Consumer Advocate today.

The Consumer Advocate is supposed to represent YOUR interests, little ratepayer.  The Consumer Advocate is supposed to be an "independent" division of the West Virginia Public Service Commission, created back in the 1980s.  The advocate's duties are set out under WV Code.

However, there's no actual language regarding any "appointment" in the code.  After all, what kind of an idiot would allow a guy who used to represent utility interests (some argue that he still does) to appoint someone to represent the interests of consumers?  The PSC has been advertising the job of Director of the Consumer Advocate Division all summer.  And now Chairman Albert has "appointed" someone under authority granted in some obscure PSC Orders from 1980/81. 

This begs the question... how is the Consumer Advocate Division "independent" from the PSC, when the PSC controls the Director's employment?

And does this mean that the Governor's Office is soon going to be advertising for the job of Public Service Commissioner?  Sweet!

Anyhow, let's hope our new "advocate" starts representing our interests real soon.... and fixes that ridiculously unprofessional website.  Maybe she has her own chili recipe that will help consumers.
0 Comments

PJM Opens "Market Efficiency" Transmission Project Proposal Competition

9/8/2013

13 Comments

 
...and they'rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre off!

Eager and hopeful transmission builders in PJM are now busy with their transmission line routing Etch-a-Sketches, drawing a new transmission line through your back yard, and hoping that their proposal will be anointed Miss Market Efficiency 2013 and take home the big prize.  In mid-August, PJM "began invit­ing com­pet­i­tive pro­pos­als for trans­mis­sion improve­ments to pro­vide relief at its 25 most con­gested locations."  According to RTO Insider, the deadline to submit new transmission proposals for consideration is September 26.

FERC's Order No. 1000 removed the historical "right of first refusal" to build new projects from incumbent transmission owners.  Under the prior scheme, when PJM determined that a new project was needed, it was first offered to the incumbent transmission owner in that zone.  If the incumbent declined to build it, then the project was opened to competitive bidding.  But I'm not sure that ever happened.  After all, what greedy transmission owner would ever turn down the chance to make more money with new transmission investments returning double digit interest?  Under the new scheme, when PJM identifies a new transmission building opportunity, a project proposal window is opened and all transmission owners who have been pre-qualified may submit new project proposals that solve the transmission issue.  PJM then descends into its secret underground lair with all the bids and makes a subjective selection of the contest winner.

PJM's "Market Efficiency" project "need" is based on identified "top 25 congestion events."  What is economic congestion?  It's when not enough transmission capacity exists to wheel the cheapest power available to all users.  It doesn't mean that someone's lights will go out if this power can't be transmitted from point A to point B.  It simply means that the user may have to pay slightly more for power produced locally, instead of relying on "cheaper" generators hundreds or thousands of miles away.  Economic congestion is a constantly shifting premise that can never be entirely eliminated.  At some point, the cost of building new transmission to ship power from point A is going to obviate any cost savings at point B.  Trying to build new transmission to solve an ever-changing economic and demand situation is like trying to herd cats.  And it's going to cost you... a lot!

So, where are these "top 25 congestion locations?"  RTO Insider has a handy-dandy chart here.  And it's a good thing they do, because if you want any more details than that, you have to know PJM's secret handshake to be allowed to delve into "Critical Energy Infrastructure Information" (CEII).  Transparent, right.

RTO Insider tells us that 8 of the 25 are flowgates between PJM and MISO, where power is traded between regions.  Within PJM, the most congested point is the AP-South inter­face with Bedington-Black Oak.  According to PJM, the Bedington – Black Oak Transfer Interface (Bed-Bla) includes the Bedington Black Oak 544 line, and the AP South Transfer Interface includes the Doubs - Mt. Storm 512 line and the Mt Storm – Meadow Brook 572 line.  Sound familiar, former PATH opponents?  Bedington is located in Berkeley County, WV, and was part of PATH's original configuration.  Black Oak is located near Rawlings, MD, in Allegheny County, just to the west of PATH's proposed Kemptown substation.

But, wait a tick... just last year, FirstEnergy told the WV PSC that everything was hunky-dory with its West Virginia transmission system.  Guess not, but then admitting your problems and fixing them before they get out of hand and cause the construction of new transmission projects doesn't bring home the bacon for Big Daddy Tony, now does it?

Earlier this summer, PJM's Steve Herling had much to say about PJM's new transmission proposal competition.

Steve Herling doesn't think much of you little people.  In fact, it appears that you are just so much doggie doo on his shiny, expensive shoes.  Herling sees you as someone who must be kept in the dark so that you don't interfere with PJM's "open and transparent" project selection process.

Such infor­ma­tion would include “a line from A to B, imped­ance mod­el­ing, so peo­ple can ana­lyze [the pro­pos­als],” Her­ling said. “We won’t put out right of way infor­ma­tion. You’d get the pub­lic all stirred up that ‘we’re look­ing at your property.’”

Right, Steve, but why shouldn't "the public" get stirred up about having their property taken by eminent domain to construct new transmission lines of dubious necessity?  We've already been stirred and shaken by PJM's last little foray into big, new transmission projects that brought us the wasteful, and since abandoned, PATH and MAPP projects.  We pretty much stay stirred here at StopPATH blog.  All.the.time.

And Herling also gives us a look at how PJM will evaluate project proposals in its secret underground lair:

“If you have half the right of way in hand, that cer­tainly will have an impact on cost and reg­u­la­tory risk and would prob­a­bly affect con­struc­tion time,” Her­ling said. “To give you credit, we would have to dis­close some infor­ma­tion. We don’t have to talk about indi­vid­ual pieces of prop­erty you have."

So, a transmission developer who has land held for future use in its collection of assets would have a leg up on building new projects?  That hardly seems fair, when that property was paid for by ratepayers, and the competition does not have the same ability to have the public pay to buy it valuable assets that can be used to win future transmission projects.  In fact, it's sort of like a new and even more lopsided ROFR, isn't it?  FERC said ROFRs are no longer legal in Order No. 1000.

In another thoughtless move, "the RTO plans to hire inde­pen­dent con­sul­tants to val­i­date devel­op­ers’ cost esti­mates and iden­tify poten­tial reg­u­la­tory risks, such as the like­li­hood of obtain­ing sit­ing for rights of way."

Gosh, I wonder where PJM is going to find an "independent" consultant who hasn't worked for any of the pre-qualified entities in the past and is not expecting to do so in the future?  Yeah, good luck with that, PJM.

Herling believes all this nonsense is transparent:

“If it becomes obvi­ous that we’re rely­ing heav­ily on one piece of infor­ma­tion we’re going to have to make it pub­lic — and you might still not get cho­sen,” he con­tin­ued. “… We’ll have to make sure it’s trans­par­ent and above board to defend our­selves against challenges.”

And now, thanks to the invaluable RTO Insider and this blog... it is a little more transparent than PJM envisioned it would be.  Now YOU know about it.  Stay tuned...


13 Comments

Tell the WV PSC What You Think About FirstEnergy's Harrison Settlement

9/5/2013

0 Comments

 
The Power Line tells us that the WV PSC has scheduled a hearing on FirstEnergy's proposed Harrison settlement for 9:30 a.m. on Friday, September 13.  Ooooh!  Scarily auspicious for FirstEnergy, don't you think?

After months of back and forth legal wrangling and a full-blown, three-day hearing at the PSC, FirstEnergy and all other parties to the case, EXCEPT West Virginia Citizens Action Group (WVCAG), agreed to a settlement.  However, a settlement is still subject to the approval of the WV PSC, and our Commissioners have said... not so fast, FirstEnergy.  Therefore,

"The Commission stated that it would require all parties to this case appear at a hearing with a witness to state whether, and why, the Joint Stipulation is, or is not, in the public interest."

Do you think the settlement is in the public interest?  Do you think it's in YOUR best interests?  If not, you need to let the Commissioners know.  Intense public scrutiny is what has caused this additional hearing, instead of the routine rubber-stamping of a contested settlement.  Only continued scrutiny will ensure justice!

So, how can you participate?  Our friends at the Coalition for Reliable Power have made it so easy that it will only take you 2 minutes!  Check out their "Take Action" section for suggested text and a link for submitting your comments online.  Do it now!

If you're too busy to spend two minutes now, you'll only have the next 27 years to regret it!
0 Comments

A Modern Day "Trail of Tears" - How Grain Belt Express and the Kansas Corporation Commission Schemed to Disenfranchise Landowners

9/1/2013

2 Comments

 
Quote from a Kansas citizen, voter and landowner whose farm and business will be destroyed by Clean Line Energy's Grain Belt Express:  "I know this is not the first trail of tears.  And because we have not learned from the taking of the native Americans' land, we see again history repeating itself.  BUT this time, maybe, just maybe, we are not as naive as the Native Americans and this time we can rally the troops and rise up together and fight the taking of land."

Words of warning to out-of-state billionaires looking to strike it rich on Kansas soil, and also to the Kansas Corporation Commission, who has so far bent over backwards to allow it to happen.

In 2011, a Texas-based (but Delaware-registered) corporation applied to the Kansas Corporation Commission for a "Limited Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Site, Construct, Own, Operate and Maintain Bulk Electric Transmission Facilities located in the State of Kansas."  At a lawful hearing, the company presented a contested settlement (S&A) to the Commission, and the Commission eventually approved it, after determining that it was in the public interest.  In order to make such a determination, the KCC evaluated the following factors:

1. Has each party had an opportunity to be heard on its reasons for opposing the settlement?
2. Whether the S&A is supported by substantial competent evidence?
3. Whether the S&A conforms with applicable law?
4. Whether the S&A results in just and reasonable rates?
5. Whether the results of the S&A are in the public interest, including the interest of those parties not consenting to the agreement?
6.  Whether the S&A will result in unnecessary duplication of utility service?
7.  The impact on wholesale competition?
8.  The effect of the S&A on the Commission's jurisdiction to effectively regulate and audit public utility operations and transmission operations, including the effect of the S&A on ongoing authority to regulate, review, and oversee the Applicants' transmission operations in Kansas?
9.  Whether the proposed transaction will be beneficial on an overall basis to state and local economies and to communities in the area affected by the resulting public utility operations in the state?
10.  The effect of the transaction on reliability of service?
11.  Whether the S&A will promote adequate and efficient service?
12.  Whether the S&A reduces the possibility of
economic waste?
13.  What impact, if any, the S&A has on the public safety?
14.  The effect of the transaction on customers?
15.  The effect of the transaction on the environment?  16.  The effect of the transaction on public utility  shareholders?
17.  Whether the transaction maximizes the use of Kansas energy resources?

Parties to the settlement included:

1.  Citizens' Utility Ratepayer Board (CURB) - representing the financial interests of ratepayers
2.  Westar Energy, Inc. and Kansas Gas and Electric
Company (Westar)
3.  lTC Great Plains, LLC (lTC Great Plains)
4.  Mid-Kansas Electric Company, LLC (MKEC)
5.  Sunflower Electric Power Corporation (Sunflower)
6.  Energy for Generations, LLC (E4G) - representing the interests of wind developers

Who was representing the interests of the landowners who would be asked to sacrifice their land and their livelihood to provide a new 200 foot wide right-of-way for this monstrous, new transmission line across their homes and businesses?  Nobody.

This is because the "community outreach" business model of Grain Belt Express relies on secret, closed door meetings with elected officials, economic interests, and others in non-public venues far in advance of notification of affected landowners.  In this way, Grain Belt Express hopes to buy the loyalty of local officials and business interests with pie-in-the-sky promises of economic riches that will never materialize.  Grain Belt Express hopes that their private schmoozing will be enough to cause these officials to run roughshod over the citizens who elected them.  As well, when Grain Belt Express is allowed to frame the argument, opposition must work twice as hard to dispel misinformation and bring truth to the forefront.

Even though it did not consider the impact of the transmission line on landowners in its own state, the KCC so kindly considered the needs of other states and allowed their rights to trump those of its own citizens:

"The Commission has also stated that it should consider the impact of a transmission line on neighboring states, due to the regional nature of the transmission system."

In finding that Grain Belt Express should be granted a certificate, the KCC found the following "benefits" flowing from the project, but failed to consider any costs to its citizens:

"...there are significant and substantial economic benefits that the project will provide to Kansas. As  noted, the benefits include royalties to landowners who contract with generators, new jobs associated with construction and operation of both the lines and wind generating facilities, and additional tax revenue.  As laid out fully in Clean Line's Application and supporting testimony, these economic benefits will provide a tremendous stimulus to the United States economy by facilitating a great deal of new investment in renewable energy projects that would not be possible if the Project did not occur."


The KCC simply rubber-stamped the claims Grain Belt Express made in its application, without examining them too closely.  After all, no one was objecting or providing the KCC with any contradictory information, and that's simply because no one who might object knew about the project!

The only "public" comments provided to the KCC were those harvested by Grain Belt Express during its closed door meetings with elected officials and business interests, therefore:

"The Commission finds that the need for long-distance, multi-state transmission projects such as the Grain Belt Express proposed by Clean Line in this proceeding will promote the development of wind generation facilities in Kansas, which will provide benefits to Kansas and other areas of the country. These benefits are certainly in the public's interest and Kansas' interest, especially since Clean Line's merchant model for cost recovery does not charge Kansas ratepayers to execute the proposed Project. Public comments indicate significant support for the approval of Clean Line's Application, to help connect Kansas' wind energy to larger markets farther east, to generate more jobs and greater revenues to local jurisdictions, and to strengthen Kansas' reputation as an attractive place to do business."

However, those "other areas of the country" don't want what Kansas is selling.  East coast load centers are developing their own renewables, and keeping the economic benefits of doing so within their borders.  Offshore wind is proceeding rapidly to reality.  In addition, the bottom has dropped out of PJM's electricity market, making expensive, imported wind from Kansas uncompetitive.  Kansas may very well be supporting the "line to nowhere" by the time this winds its way through approvals, and those responsible for supporting GBE and
denying the property rights of Kansans are long since voted out of office.

After receiving their Certificate, GBE spent the next year continuing to build its political and business contacts in Kansas.  Finally, in early 2013, the company held a few public meetings to gather public feedback.  This was the first glimpse any affected landowner had of the project. In July, GBE filed an application to site its project with the KCC.  Only at this time was legal notice to landowners effected.

And what did the GBE-written and KCC approved notice to landowners say about an affected landowner's right to participate? 

"State law requires the Commission to conduct a public hearing on siting applications and that landowners of record be notified by certified mail of the filing of such applications and the related public hearing."


GBE also told landowners:

"The Commission will conduct a technical hearing concerning the proposed transmission project.  The technical hearing is open to the public and scheduled to begin October 8, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. in the first floor hearing room at the Commission, 1500 SW Arrowhead Road, Topeka, KS. At this hearing the Commission Staff, Grain Belt Express representatives, and other official intervenors will present their respective positions to the Commission."

Landowners were led to believe that their only avenue to protect their property interests was through a public hearing and that the technical hearing was for Grain Belt Express representatives and "other official intervenors."  Nowhere were landowners informed that they had a right to intervene and become an "official intervenor" themselves, with the right to legally protect their property interests.  The KCC also set a deadline for petitions to intervene of August 30.  While KCC is legally permitted to do this, it is not a usual occurrence and interested parties may normally intervene up to 3 days before a hearing begins.

When a landowner questioned KCC staff about pro se (without an attorney, "on that party's own behalf") intervention, she was told "An attorney must represent an intervener and file the petition to intervene on their behalf."

When the landowner further questioned KCC staff about filing pro se, and asked to see relevant sections of Kansas code prohibiting pro se participation in a siting case, the landowner was informed that she had been previously misinformed, given relevant code sections, and dismissed to figure it out on her own.

With a looming deadline and spreading misinformation from the KCC, many landowners were simply shut out of the case.  Now their right to own property is in the hands of KCC.  Will the Commissioners do the right thing?

Already, Grain Belt Express is unhappy with KCC staff's proposed restrictions on the granting of the proposed route. 

In the rebuttal testimony of Mark Lawlor, Grain Belt Express asks to have three conditions modified.  First, they ask that they be permitted 5 years to begin their project, instead of the 4 recommended by staff.  Apparently it's going to take longer to get this thing approved in the other three states (Missouri, Illinois & Indiana) than originally planned. 

And speaking of those other approvals, KCC staff recommends that its own permit be contingent upon GBE receiving approvals from the public utility commissions in the other states.  GBE says it has other plans for preempting the permitting process in other states:

"First, there is a possibility that approvals from all three states will not be necessary. Although receiving siting approvals from those states is the most likely scenario for the Project to move forward to construction and operation, transmission line siting regulations or policy could evolve at the state or federal level, or through multi-state siting collaboration, or Grain Belt Express could use other transmission siting authority currently in place for other states through which the transmission line crosses. We do not want to rule out the possibility that the construction of the line in some areas might be allowed based on a law, regulation or approval that is
distinct from what is currently proposed by Grain Belt Express or available today."


And last, but by all means not least, GBE wants the KCC staff to change the wording of the cost allocation stipulation so that it may seek cost allocation for its project from ratepayers in other states.  The staff recommended that the permit issued to Grain Belt Express be conditioned on the Project being "a merchant transmission line only and not subject to funding under the SPP Open Access Transmission Tariff."  Apparently Grain Belt Express no longer plans to do business as a merchant transmission line (100% privately funded), and requests that the staff's condition be modified to read:  "the cost of the Project and any AC Collector System owned by Clean Line will not be recovered through the SPP cost allocation process or from Kansas ratepayers."

Obviously, Clean Line intends to abandon its merchant transmission model and seek cost recovery for Grain Belt Express from ratepayers in other states in other regions.  Chances of this being approved are slim to none, therefore, where is the money to complete this project going to come from?  Will Kansas ratepayers be asked to pony up on a half-completed project, or will the project simply be abandoned when the money runs out?

The KCC should be stepping up to protect Kansans right now, not bowing to the political machinations of the Governor or the Texas wildcatters wooing his favor.  The duty of the KCC is to protect the public interest.  Let's hope they begin now.
2 Comments

Matthew's Story - Why He Opposes Grain Belt Express

8/30/2013

2 Comments

 
Meet Matthew.  He filed to intervene in the Grain Belt Express Siting case at the Kansas Corporation Commission this week.  This is why he fights:
Dear Chairman Sievers, Commissioner Wright and Commissioner Feist Albrecht,

I am writing in regard to docket 13-GBEE-803-MIS concerning the Grain Belt Express Clean Line proposal that affects my family's property, located Township 03, Range 12, Section 6. I oppose the proposed route that is under consideration.

I am a lifelong Kansan, as are my parents, as were my grandparents, as were their parents. My great-great grandfather, Johann Martin Stallbaumer settled in Nemaha County in 1854. Most of my family still lives there. I
currently live in Topeka and work as Art  Director for Mother Earth News magazine. In this position over the past decade, I've heard stories, read letters and empathasized with readers who have lost use of their land to projects like the Grain Belt Express. Now, my family and the property that has been in our family through five generations is being threatened.

I ask that you will listen to your conscience as you read this letter, it is your best tool to decide between right and wrong.

I first learned of the proposed project following the public meeting held in Seneca on the late date of August 12th, 2013. Because the easement would not actually touch my parents' property, they did not receive any literature regarding this line until two weeks before the meeting, and it was vague. They were shocked to learn at the meeting
that the 200-foot-tall towers and 600 kV line would be only 986 feet (according to Clean Line representative Ally Smith) from their property and within 1/4 mile of where my grandparents' home stood.

When I think of the sacrifices my ancestors and parents have made to obtain and keep this property through hard work, honesty and fairness, it discourages me that a commission of three people would grant eminent domain to a group of private investors in return for no benefit to us whatsoever. It leads me to  believe that the ethical, moral things Kansas once stood for are being threatened by private interest, influence and simply, money.

This land is home to us in the strongest sense of the word. In fact, I have often told people this: of all the things that could be possibly owned in this world, our land is the only thing I want to make sure stays in our family until
I die. It has been my personal dream and that of my brother to someday build at the location of the original home because of it's beautiful overlook of bottom grounds.

The proposed Clean Line transmission line would cut right through those bottom grounds, threatening our dreams. The opportunity to build there is priceless, but would become worthless if you allow this line as it is proposed. Yet, Clean Line Energy Partners refuses to acknowledge any loss whatsoever for us, property value included. Who among you would build a home in the shadows of such a structure, or even recreate near it? The poor aesthetics of the line, alone, would discourage and ultimately prohibit it. Furthermore, it's my understanding that
no line of this size has ever been constructed in Kansas or tested anywhere. Although Clean Line Energy Partners contends there are no safety hazards, I submit there is no evidence that there aren't. Who among you would risk your health, the health of your children and the existence of future generations of your family? Reports link these lines to childhood leukemia. Farmers and ranchers have  observed a negative effect on livestock: infertility, inability to gain weight and death. Electric utilities have paid out millions in damages due to electric lines of lesser voltage. History and independent studies shows there are health issues caused by these overhead lines, whether Clean Line Energy
Partners admits them or not.

Would you touch one of these lines with your bare hands? Because they will be hung 200 feet high, they may be relatively safe, but they ultimately are not safe, and they are vulnerable. Consider the weather we have in Kansas, what happens the first time a tower falls? Pretending this won't happen is showing a lack of common sense and carelessness. The natural disasters that have occurred in this state and nation in the past decade alone exhibit that.

I understand the value of wind energy to Kansas, but I submit that the value of this wind energy should go to Kansans and not be at my family's expense, the expense of our neighbors, our community, our county, or Northeast Kansas. Northeast Kansas is one of the most productive agricultural areas in the state. Nemaha County, as evidenced by one of the lowest unemployment rates in the state, is an active, productive, growing and responsible community. This doesn't make us any more important than anyone else, but it speaks to our heritage and pride. You have put all
of this in jeopardy.

Although I disagree that this project happen anywhere is a necessity- you have made your own rationalizations to support that- if it must be somewhere and somehow, I plead with you to do it somewhere else and/or somehow
else. The manner in which this is being handled is disturbing. The short notice that was given to those of us along the proposed route is a perfect example. The need to use eminent domain is as welL It is being propagandized as solely clean wind energy, but sources say that other "dirty" energy will be transmitted too. Despite the fact that Ally
Smith denied hiding comments from those who oppose the project, Clean Line Energy censors those comments in their literature and on their social media, as later admitted by Mark Lawlor, Director of Development for Clean Line, during a phone conversation. In addition, Ally Smith promised that, after contacting the KCC, I would receive a
personal response to my concerns, only to find out from a representative in the KCC office that is not the case. These things alone exhibit the company's dishonesty that one can only assume spans across many other subjects.

My suggestions follow, if you consider them and act accordingly you would be showing good faith and a deserved level of concern to people like me who value a quality of life, heritage and opportunity over money:

1) Keep the energy created by Kansas in Kansas for Kansans. Local and regional projects are touted by our governor, approving the current method of export via exposed line and its route exposes hypocrisy. The transmission lines would not need be of the scale within this proposal and so would be easier buried and less destructive. It would also spur local economies: cheap energy would attract businesses, people and generate tax revenue.
2) If you must export wind-generated power, place these transmission lines in already existing, State of Kansas owned, rights-of-way. This would eliminate the need to disrupt private, clean land. Eminent domain may be legal, but it definitely doesn't make it moral, ethical, or right. As is fact, they don't make any more land. Land is not a renewable
resource, wind energy is, and you would be sacrificing something that can't be replaced for something that can.
3) Take advantage of already existing easements in other parts of the state, or find landowners who support your agenda and want it on their land. Clean Line reports how many landowners are for the project, so let those landowners have it.
4) Choose a route through more sparsely inhabited areas of Kansas. In Nemaha County, the average farm is still small. Landowners still live on their property. The politicians of Kansas tout small farms as our backbone, this is your chance to prove it. Other areas of Kansas are more sparsely populated, landowners there have thousands of
acres of land, many of whom live nowhere near it.
5) Bury the cable. It would be safer because it isn't exposed. The aesthetic value, and land values of much of our great state, will be spared. Because it may be more difficult up-front, it would generate more jobs for a longer period of time, and be better for Kansas long-term. This is your goal, correct?

If Clean Line Energy Partners contend that they are unable to bury this line, find another contractor who can. It is done in other parts of the world, it would be shortsighted to allow it to be done any other way in Kansas.

May I remind you that it is your duty as public officials to keep the best interest of Kansans your priority, you represent us, not the interests of private investors who may have never set foot in Kansas. The proposed ten year tax abatement offered to Clean Line Energy Panners is mind-boggling, most of the jobs created by this, many of them not even held by Kansans, will be long gone in a fraction of that time frame. Judging by the docket information I find on your Web site as of Aug. 20, the public comments and petitions record overwhelming opposition to this
project, especially in Nemaha and Marshall counties. I hope that you have listened to your conscience while reading this letter and the letters from others who have everything to lose and nothing to gain. We are aware that once a single line like this is approved, a corridor of similar lines could follow,  swallowing up our land, homes, heritage,
dreams and our future altogether.

I will be putting a copy of this letter in a lock box for future generations of my family to read. They will know where I stood on this matter and will see your names as the addressee. I pray that you have the strength to put yourself in our position, follow your conscience, and do the right thing for us, the present and future citizens of Northeast Kansas: Rule against the proposed route and manner of transmission.

Respectfully, sincerely and pleadingly,

Matthew
2 Comments

Clean Line Victim #95735:  Amy's Story, Part II, Why She Fights 

8/30/2013

0 Comments

 
Clean Line Energy Partners has been trying to quietly get its four HVDC transmission line projects criss-crossing the midwest approved without the notice of the landowners who will be asked to make the ultimate sacrifice in the name of "clean" energy.

Trying to get approvals before the landowners noticed or organized to fight back was a very short-sighted and mistaken practice.  When the landowners eventually find out (and they will), they're twice as angry and determined to fight.

Clean Line's arrogant team of urban simpletons simply cannot grasp a living connection to the land and a farmer's sense of place identity.

This is the continuation of Amy's story.  We previously featured Amy's story documenting how she was dragged out of one of Clean Line's Grain Belt Express meetings for daring to pass out information about the health effects of living in close proximity to high-voltage electric transmission lines.  This time, we're going to hear why Amy was willing to stand up to Clean Line's propaganda, no matter the personal costs to herself.

Amy is just getting started on her opposition, and here's why:
My husband, Robin, and I bought land (8 acres) with a barn in Polo, MO a few years ago with the idea we would build a small home that would be energy efficient, and retire there one day. We did all the studies about solar power, small personal windmills, earth contact homes, wood stoves for heating, etc... When my husband lost his job in 2010, due to outsourcing to Singapore, we sold our suburban home in the Kansas City metropolitan area. Our house sold in a miraculous 33 days. We didn't have anywhere to live, so we took Robin's severance money and the equity from our home sale and in late April of 2011 we moved into our barn with our youngest son who was 12 at the time. Our future dream of an energy efficient home became a necessity.

The barn had limited everything. NO indoor plumbing, we had a water spicket about 30 feet from our barn with which we filled 3 five-gallon jugs each morning for cooking and personal use. And we had a camping port-a-potty. Bath time was interesting and we would set a water filled tub in the sun each morning so that we could have warm water for a bath that evening.We had one electrical plug on the safety light pole outside of our barn. This had been used by the previous owners for their RV hook-up. We used extension cords for our minimal electrical use. We have many funny memories, like trying to boil water on a hot-plate, and my husband trying to use a power tool at the same time during our building construction. If too much power was being used then the power would go off.  

We lived in this barn from late April until the end of November. When it got really cold, we had enough of our cabin built in order to move in. I learned many lessons in that barn on how to live very well WITHOUT a lot of electrical power. People can live off-grid, or at least, they can certainly minimize their energy needs by doing really simple things. This is one of the reasons that Grain Belt Express and Clean Line Energy Partners are so despicable to me. They assume that the only way people can have a quality standard of living is if they, and leaches like them, provide the energy for them.

Since the Open House, I have been researching Grain Belt Express, and Clean Line Energy Partners and have become more and more disgusted by what I have learned. I went on-line and found the BlockRICL folks. They have been a wonderful resource for how to fight this monster. Farmers and landowners from my area have been stunned by the response we have received from our county commissioners who seem to think that Grain Belt Express is a lovely idea, and whose lips have been already whetted by the promises of money and perks from those cheaters who waltz in, make promises that are not even investigated; who plan to take control of land, devalue property and land useability through eminent domain if they don't get what they want, and reduce the quality of life for everyone in the community who are subjected to these lines.

0 Comments

Meanwhile, Back At FirstEnergy Farms...

8/28/2013

0 Comments

 
...Karma came a'knocking yesterday.

The Plain Dealer reports that FirstEnergy failed a Nuclear Regulatory Commission "force on force" exercise at its Beaver Valley nuke.
Security forces at FirstEnergy's Beaver Valley power plant apparently failed part of a routine "force-on-force" exercise in April. Beaver Valley contains two reactors.

The details of the force-on-force exercise are classified and may never be made public, but the NRC earlier this month warned the company in a public letter that it was considering a citation against the company because the security failure looked significant.

The company has already said it does not believe the force-on-force exercise results revealed any weaknesses in Beaver Valley's security strategies but more reflected how the exercise was controlled.

During federal force-on-force drills, paramilitary squads, typically consisting of former military people, try to breach plant security and sabotage the reactor.

Armed with laser-type weapons, they attack at night, try to defeat plant security teams, breach walls and other barriers to invade the most protected areas of the plant, which contain the reactor, spent fuel storage and other critical equipment.
FirstEnergy says that its failure was a result of the way the NRC inspectors conducted the exercise.
In other news,  a group of local residents filed a lawsuit alleging that FirstEnergy's Hatfield's Ferry coal-fired generator was damaging their health and their property.  Hatfield's Ferry is one of two plants that FirstEnergy has slated for closure in October.  Political hijinks have ensued, attempting to keep the plants open.  PJM has determined that the plants are necessary for reliability, but FirstEnergy is pretending to proceed with closure, hoping it might get a better deal if it continues this silly game of chicken.

And, closer to home, a Potomac Edison publicity stunt went wrong yesterday when spokesflack Crapaud Meyers got cornered about how the WV PSC General Investigation was going.

Unfortunately, the wanna be journalists at WHAG's summer training camp turned it into a one-sided infomercial, but that didn't dampen Crapaud's enthusiasm for twitching his way through making crap up.  Crapaud now says Potomac Edison is working on solving the problem, when just a few months ago, the company told the PSC that there was no problem to be solved.

Watch the video to enjoy Crapaud's newly-evident twitch.  What it is that FirstEnergy does to its employees that makes them twitch like that when they lie?
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

    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.