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

Debate About Grain Belt Express Is Alive and Well

3/21/2019

2 Comments

 
The Missouri PSC issued an order granting a CCN to Grain Belt Express yesterday.  What does that mean for the viability of the project?  In the grand scheme of things... not much.  Grain Belt Express, as presented to the MO PSC as a 780-mile transmission line from southwestern Kansas to Indiana, is still never going to happen, IMO.  The reasons are myriad, and hopefully I'll get to most of them over time.  More garbage has been generated than fits in one trash truck, ya know.

Let's start here.  Permitting whack-a-mole.  This is an old one, but still very much appropriate.  Grain Belt Express just can't whack all the moles and win this game.  The biggest, baddest mole standing in its currently proposed way is Illinois.  Based on prior court decisions in that state, GBE just can't be permitted.  Pretending it can is unrealistic.  Is GBE lying to us, or is it lying to itself?

And then there's the ridiculous garbage the PSC generated yesterday.  We'll get to the actual Order later.  First, let's look at the press release the PSC issued.

The PSC is a regulator, not a politician, not a public relations agency.  It's supposed to deal in facts.  Its decisions are legal opinions.  It should not have to "sell" them to the public.
Mission Statement
We will:
  • ensure that Missourians receive safe and reliable utility services at just, reasonable and affordable rates;
  • support economic development through either traditional rate of return regulation or competition, as required by law;
  • establish standards so that competition will maintain or improve the quality of services provided to Missourians;
  • provide the public the information they need to make educated utility choices;
  • provide an efficient regulatory process that is responsive to all parties, and perform our duties ethically and professionally.
You failed, MO PSC.  Any respect I used to have for the MO PSC is now gone.  No, it's not that they issued a decision I don't agree with.  That happens a lot from all kinds of regulators.  It's the way they went about it.  Even a regulatory decision you don't agree with contains facts and logic, sometimes a bit of opinion, but there's usually a sufficient amount of legal reasoning that forms a platform upon which the decision was made.  You may not agree with the decision, but you can clearly see how it was created.  The MO PSC's decision happened inside a black box.  And it reeks of politics.

First thing to come out of the box is the press release.
The Commission granted a CCN to Grain Belt determining: 1) there is a need for the service; 2) Grain Belt is qualified to provide the proposed service; 3) Grain Belt has the financial ability to provide the proposed service; 4) Grain Belt’s proposal is economically feasible; and 5) the service promotes the public interest.
The Commission says it issued a CCN to Grain Belt, but it really issued one to Invenergy.  Invenergy has the financial ability and is qualified to provide the service -- Grain Belt has no employees and no money.  Neither Grain Belt nor Invenergy has a proposal that is economically feasible.  There's only 2 customers, one of which was documented to be paying below cost rates.  These customers cannot financially support the proposal.  There are no other customers.  Potential customers don't pay the bills.  Supplying below cost service to one customer is Missouri does not promote the interests of the entire public.
The Commission stated the evidence in the case demonstrated that the Grain Belt project will create both short-term and long-term benefits to ratepayers and citizens of the state. In addition, the project would have a substantial and favorable effect on the reliability of electric service in Missouri.
Benefits to citizens?  Where?  What citizens?  What benefits?  This statement is created out of thin air.  As far as "reliability" goes... a transmission line contracted to serve only select customers with unreliable wind power is not "reliable."  Wind cannot be called to produce when needed.  It's not an open access transmission line that will serve all customers equally, and Missouri may only receive 500 MW, although contracted amounts are much, much less.  This is not a "reliability" transmission asset.  It's a private driveway for select customers to receive special, supplemental wind power so they can pretend to be clean and green and all sorts of peripheral things.  As if electrons can be segregated by color.
There can be no debate that our energy future will require more diversity in energy resources, particularly renewable resources,” said the Commission. “We are witnessing a worldwide, long-term and comprehensive movement towards renewable energy in general and wind energy specifically. Wind energy provides great promise as a source for affordable, reliable, safe and environmentally-friendly energy. The Grain Belt Project will facilitate this movement in Missouri, will thereby benefit Missouri citizens, and is, therefore, in the public interest.”
Whaddya mean there can be no debate?  Of course there's debate.  There's a HUGE debate going on in this country and around the globe.  Wind energy is not the solution to our energy woes.  It's just a gluttonous industry that has been greenwashing America for years, and stuffing its pockets with our tax dollars.  It's not affordable, it's not sustainable.  It's not safe for the people who have to live around its generation plants.  And it's certainly not reliable.  Wind is not a baseload source of power.  It cannot be controlled to ramp up and down to meet need.  Wind does what it wants, and those who depend upon it for a source of electricity are the ones whose electric use ramps up and down to follow the wind.  Who wrote this garbage?  Was it the wind industry?
The Commission noted that any negative impacts of the project on the land and landowners will be mitigated by: 1) a landowner protocol to protect landowners; 2) superior compensation payments; 3) a binding arbitration option for easement negotiations; 4) a decommissioning fund-a fund for this type of project would be the first of its kind in the country; and 5) an agricultural impact mitigation protocol to avoid or minimize negative agricultural impacts. Agricultural impacts will also be reduced because no more than nine acres of land in Missouri will be taken out of agricultural production as a result of project structures, and the proposed route does not directly impact the operation of any existing center pivot irrigation systems.

“Many of the landowners’ concerns will be addressed through carefully considered conditions placed on the CCN,” said the Commission.
Landowner concerns have NOT been addressed.  Landowners are still extremely concerned.  The PSC's conditions did nothing to ameliorate them.  The "landowner protocol" and "agricultural impact mitigation protocol" were created by Grain Belt, not the landowners, therefore landowners concerns are not addressed.  These documents address only the company's concerns.  Landowners were not consulted in the creation of these documents.  It's nothing more than the fox designing a security system for the hen house.  It's worthless and does nothing to satisfy landowners.  The decommissioning fund is also so much nonsense.  It has no substance, no rules, and is completely unworkable.  It's just more glittering make believe.

Superior compensation payments?  Superior to what?  Receiving nothing?  Since the PSC's land is not subject to eminent domain, and the PSC has never been subject to condemnation and eminent domain taking, it's opinion that the compensation payments are "superior" is just so much hubris.  In fact, it's completely insulting to landowners.  It's disrespectful.

And speaking of disrespectful, here's the pinnacle of propaganda:  only 9 acres of land will be taken out of agricultural production.  Just 9 acres!  Across 206 miles of 200-foot wide linear right of way.  The PSC has deemed every square inch of the proposed right of way to be agriculturally workable right up to the base of the tower.  I guess none of these folks have ever tried to drive a huge piece of farm equipment right up to a transmission line pole.  And they've never had to fly around a transmission pole to apply pesticide or fertilizer.  And they've never had to try to grow something along a strip of land that no longer has top soil.  And they're certainly not going to accept liability for any farmer who tries to farm right up to the base of the transmission tower and has an accident.  This is absolutely absurd.  And, ya know, it's something Hans Detweiler used to tell farmers in Illinois... that only 12 acres of land would be taken out of use for the entire Rock Island Clean Line project.

Gotta wonder, who wrote that stunningly bad press release?  I hope that person's food and farm goods will be supplied solely by that compromised 9 acres in the future.

We're only getting warmed up here... more to come...
2 Comments

Follow The Money:  $258M Smells Like A Backroom Deal

2/28/2019

0 Comments

 
Okay, now I've officially seen everything.  A foreign, investor owned utility is complaining about "a pretty nasty ad" that exposes its backroom deal with Maine's Governor to sell the state's pristine wilderness for $258M in payola.
CMP has drawn attention to the ad this week, calling it part of a well-funded, dark-money campaign against the project.
Dark money?  An investor owned utility is pointing at a low budget internet ad campaign and calling it dark money?  Investor owned utilities are the kings of dark money!  They dole out millions in political contributions each year with the hope of influencing laws and policy in states where they do business.  They spend buckets of money hiring the top public relations spinners to lie to their customers with smiles on their faces.  They create front groups and fake "coalitions" to advocate for their money-making transmission project ideas.  And, as CMP has so aptly demonstrated in the past week, they create monetary compensation packages to be traded for political support.  Fact:  Maine Governor Janet Mills has publicly supported the New England Clean Energy Connect project because the state and some private interests have been promised $258M in payouts over the next 40 years.

So, "wahhhhh, wahhhhh" CMP, let me call you a wahhhmbulance.  You're such a lily white, downtrodden, paragon of virtue being attacked for your extra large heart and spirit of charity by some big, powerful, "dark" interests who spent a whopping sum on attack ads, reported to be somewhere between $500-$999.  That's dollars.  Five-hundred dollars.

$500 vs. $258,000,000.  Yup, CMP, you poor, poor victim.

And, oh my gosh!  The ad has had 100,000 to 200,000 impressions, the number of times a post is displayed.  Why, I'm offended.  Soooo offended that this ad
has been viewed over 116,000 times on YouTube!  If I was a total geek who had no real evidence of anything but wanted to spin an opinion piece to make it look like CMP is a poor, poor victim of "dark money" interests, I'd dig up stuff like...  As of Wednesday, the highest number of impressions, 12 percent, has come from men, ages 25-34. The next-highest, 11 percent, from women ages 55-64.  Because this would matter greatly in making my point.  Or covering up the fact that I really had no point.

I mean, don't watch this ad

because it increases the impressions and amount of "dark" money spent by Satan and his anonymous henchmen attacking the purity of Janet Mills.  Just look at her, even her jacket is white as snow!

We definitely have to stop the internet spread of this ad
because CMP says it's "dark money" and anonymous.

Even though it is clearly marked as paid for by Stop the Corridor, CMP and Janet Mills need to know where this coalition got its $500 to run the ad.
Maybe we can arrange a double reveal?  Stop the Corridor can show how it raised $500 and CMP can reveal how it raised $258M?  Maybe throw in a little spreadsheet of all CMP's political contributions, lobbying, and memberships for the past year or so?  Probably the public (and CMP's customers) would rather see that than some bake sale records and copies of personal checks for small amounts.  CMP may be surprised how easily citizen opposition groups can raise $500 - $999 to run ads like this:
Please don't do anything that increases the online impressions of this ad.
Central Maine Power doesn't want you to.
Stop it!
Stop it right now!
0 Comments

Buzzwords, Bluster, and Baloney:  Stirring Up Grain Belt Express

2/18/2019

1 Comment

 
Picture
Languished, obstacle, move forward, favorable, finish line, ambitious, momentum, demand, key, tax credit, renewable, next steps... what do these words have in common?  They're tired buzzwords used to describe tired transmission ideas to a tired public who has stopped caring.  Ya know, if it wasn't for the St. Louis Dispatch energy reporter's own personal greenwashed beliefs, there wouldn't be a "story" here.

What's wrong with this article?  It's misinformed, propaganda-driven malarkey that relies on glittering generalities  and opinion.  It's not "news."  It belongs on the Editorial page, not in "business news."
The proposed multistate transmission line, Grain Belt Express, has languished before Missouri regulators for years — with their at times controversial rejections representing the last major obstacle to sending Kansas wind energy east along an intended 780-mile path.
A bigger obstacle to sending Kansas wind energy east is Illinois.  It seems like the reporter is completely oblivious to the court decision in Illinois that vacated the Grain Belt Express permit in that state.  GBE is back to start in Illinois and it is highly unlikely that it will ever be permitted.  The Illinois Supreme Court has serious concerns that Clean Line's merchant, negotiated rates business model does not meet the definition of a public utility.  If it's not a public utility, it doesn't need a permit from the Illinois Commerce Commission.  Clean Line is free to build any transmission it wants in the state, but it may not use a public utility's eminent domain authority to do so.  The same concern has been briefed in Missouri.  Grain Belt Express will not serve all customers equally, which is a hallmark of public utility status.  Without all of the requisite qualifications, Grain Belt Express cannot be a public utility.
While the overall decision on the project’s approval remains the bigger matter before the PSC, the regulatory body announced this month that it was also warming up to begin the separate process of approving its sale.
Warming up?  What the heck does that mean in a regulatory context?  GBE and Invenergy have applied for Commission approval of the sale.  The PSC has set a hearing to determine a procedural schedule.  It does not imply approval.  It merely illustrates the timing differences here where the companies want the PSC to issue a permit to a project based on new ownership BEFORE it has approved said ownership.  It bolsters the argument of Missouri Landowner Alliance that the PSC cannot approve the project based on the qualifications of Invenergy because Invenergy does not yet own the project.
Some outside experts in Missouri speculate that Invenergy’s bid to take over the project can only help its odds of getting across the finish line.
Outside experts?  Renew Missouri is a party to the PSC case.  Invenergy is the applicant.  These are INSIDERS.  And there is no "expertise" here.  It's talking heads spewing glittering generalities and misinformed, self-serving opinion.

James Owen:  this guy has shot himself in the foot so many times by spewing falsehoods in the media that nobody even listens anymore.  If Invenergy wants to buy the project that's proof there's value to the project?  The only proof there is that Invenergy has some sort of scheme in the works to leverage some parts of the project to serve its quest for profit.  The Invenergy/GBE deal is contingent upon successful permitting in Kansas and Missouri.  It is not contingent upon successful permitting in Illinois and Indiana, nor successful transfer of GBE's FERC negotiated rate authority to proposed new parent Invenergy.  If Invenergy intended to build GBE as currently proposed, all those conditions would be present in the contract.  They're not, therefore Invenergy does  not need Illinois or Indiana permits, nor negotiated rate authority, for whatever scheme it may cook up with the carcass of GBE.
She declined, however, to give updates or estimates about Invenergy’s anticipated, or hopeful, timeline for the project.
“I think it’s premature for us to be talking about timelines right now,” said Conley. “When we have a decision in that case (from the PSC), then we can really consider timelines and development and what the next steps for the project are.”

Is that right, Beth?  You can't reveal Invenergy's actual plan for GBE until after the PSC approves the wolf in sheep's clothing?  Then why was it that two Invenergy witnesses told the PSC at hearing last December that the company would have to begin eminent domain proceedings against 700 landowners immediately after approval, and well before it had all state permits in place to build the original concept?  Invenergy admitted that there have been discussions about ending the project in Missouri, or taking a different route around Illinois.  Invenergy doesn't intend to build Grain Belt Express all the way to Indiana and then sell capacity through negotiated rates, does it?  The only thing "premature" here would be letting Invenergy's cat out of its bag and demonstrating its true intentions to the MO PSC before it makes a decision on the project. It's a lot easier to beg forgiveness than seek permission, isn't it, Invenergy?
The project would be accompanied by the large-scale construction of new wind energy generation in western Kansas. Although about 85 percent of electricity distributed by the project would be destined for other states, it would power approximately 200,000 Missouri households. The PSC, even in denying the project through certain legal interpretations, has agreed that it is in the public interest, and would save Missouri customers millions of dollars by promoting access to cheap wind energy.
This is the reporter's opinion.  There are no facts here.  Building a transmission line does not ensure construction of any generation in any specific location.  Eight-five percent will not be destined for other states.  If GBE would have a capacity of 4,000 MW, then 15% would be 600 MW.  GBE proposes 500 MW for Missouri, if it can find customers for that much.  Instead, it only has purported customers for up to 200 MW, which is 5%.  And of that 200 MW, only a bit over 100 MW has actually been "sold" to municipalities in Missouri.  And where does the 200,000 households come from?  Did the reporter add up all the participating municipalities to get that figure, or did he just harvest it from some GBE propaganda?  So, more than 95% is destined for other states currently.  And of that 95%, only 50 MW, or just over 1%, has been tentatively sold.  And since a merchant project cannot be built without customers (customers who would pay much higher rates than those loss leader rates offered to Missouri municipalities), any prognostication about who would buy the capacity and where they would be located is pure speculation and fairy tale.  Also, it matters not what the MO PSC did on an entirely different matter.  GBE has changed significantly since its prior application, and the PSC's opinion may have changed significantly as well.
Picture
The transmission project would be the biggest, by far, that the Chicago-based company has ever undertaken. The company has developed more than 400 miles of combined transmission lines in its history, Conley said — just over half of the distance that Grain Belt would cover.
But what kind of transmission lines has Invenergy developed, Beth?  They've all been short generation tie line segments built without eminent domain authority.  This is a comparison between apples and oranges.  Invenergy has no experience with open access transmission lines with negotiated rates using eminent domain authority.  All Invenergy's transmission lines are private use for the company to sell its product.  Are we supposed to infer that GBE would just be another one of those, albeit more than 700 miles long?  Great!  But no eminent domain authority would be appropriate for that kind of project.  And besides, Invenergy has not applied to build any transmission project.  The PSC cannot approve this project as something Invenergy is building because Invenergy does not own it.
But for any prospective wind energy developer, the end of 2020 has long been a key point on the calendar.
After that point, production tax credits for completed wind projects begin to phase out. Even without receiving the full tax in their entirety, Clean Line officials previously said they felt the project would be cost-effective, thanks to technology and declining costs. Invenergy shares that belief, Conley said — full tax credits or not.
Does this reporter not know that Clean Line isn't eligible for, and will not receive, any tax credits?  There are no tax credits for transmission lines, and GBE cannot be built in time for any new wind to be built that qualifies for the credit.  It sounds good, but it's pure fiction, certainly not "news."

Perhaps this reporter should have attempted a balanced piece by talking with opponents to the project?  It's almost as if there is no opposition at all.  Failure to recognize the opposition does not make it disappear.  It only makes this article look biased.  And what's up with that graphic?  It shows three Clean Line projects, two of which have been officially cancelled, without any recognition whatsoever by the reporter.

This article is opinionated garbage.  The St. Louis Post-Dispatch needs to do better.
1 Comment

FirstEnergy Open House Fail

1/28/2019

0 Comments

 
The people of Aurora, Ohio, were ready for FirstEnergy last week, and it looks like its "Open House" effort to charm and pull the wool over everyone's eyes was a complete failure.  FirstEnergy may have counted on light attendance to overwhelm and baffle its critics.  Instead, it got this:
Hundreds packed a public open house convened by FirstEnergy Monday night to reveal plans for the Northern Portage Reliability Project.

The big room at Christ Community Chapel was built to hold 350 and it was so packed that people were turned away within the first half-hour of what was to be a two-hour event.
As the open house began at 6 p.m., traffic was backed up for almost half a mile between the chapel just off Ohio 306 and Ohio 82 to the south.

FirstEnergy employees, contractors and consultants staffed themed tables around the periphery of the room. They included stations entitled Engineering & Construction, Vegetation Management, Environmental, Real Estate and Route Selection. The company created a large centerpiece with big photos on easels showing various points where the company wants to put in power lines. The event was designed for people to circulate, but the crowd made navigation around the room difficult. Some attendees complained that there was no public give-and-take between the company and residents as one might have at a town-hall style event.
Oh no!  People turned away, you say?  Guess you'll have to be punished with more dog & pony shows, FirstEnergy.  Punishment?  But of course!  The pictures tell the tale, and they look just like every other set of news photos of a transmission line "Open House."  Shocked and angry landowners glaring aggressively, transmission company employees making animated faces and hand gestures as they try mightily to make their lies believable.  Aurora clearly wasn't buying FirstEnergy's story.

And why should they, when FirstEnergy is clearly making crap up as they go along.  Why else would there be two different takes on burial costs?
According to FirstEnergy, the cost to run the lines underground along the rail corridor would be three to seven times more expensive than using utility poles.
Or
First Energy has said the underground scenario could create a 10-fold increase in the cost of the project and the above-ground rerouting would be longer that the former rail line, and would send the lines over roadways and home owners’ yards.
Pop quiz!  How  much does it really cost to bury transmission lines?

    Underground Transmission Line Cost Pop Quiz

Take a Guess!
Who could believe anything FirstEnergy says?  It's obvious that depending on who you ask, you're likely to get a different answer.  And some of the answers are conflicting, such as this one:
Jennifer Young, a spokeswoman for the company, said the lines will be carried by 60-foot wood poles and those might be reduced to 45 footers, making them lower than nearby trees.
You mean the height of transmission lines is a purely elective thing?  I thought safety standards dictated clearances to the ground.  If the lines are as safe at 45 feet as they are at 60, why in the world would you have ever planned to build them at 60 feet?  60 foot towers are probably more expensive  and maybe more obtrusive, and definitely more objectionable.  Why would you do that unless it was a safety requirement?  I simply don't believe you that the height of the line "might be" reduced to 45 feet.  The only thing that could reduce the height of your project would be if you eliminated a proposed double circuit that would have required additional height clearances, and where would FirstEnergy be with its redundancy and reliability claims if it built a double circuited line?  This is obviously an empty promise.

I wonder who the genius was who came up with this idea: 
Beach said FirstEnergy measures the viability of various routes by their potential impact on property owners. The western route could affect 111 homeowners (although the company would need right-of-way access from about half that number), and the eastern route could affect up to 177 homeowners with right-of-way access from half that number. He also said many of those properties would have utility poles going up in the front of their properties.

“We have the opportunity to build this and maintain it in the right-of-way with one parcel that’s 100 feet wide for the most part,” said Beach.
And said "opportunity" runs along the back side of residential property.  So, where would you rather have a transmission line on your property, Aurora?  Your backyard or your front yard?  Nothing like stuffing a few strawmen for public execution, is there, FirstEnergy?  How about neither yard?  How about FirstEnergy buries it, or better yet doesn't build it at all?  I did not notice those options on the table.  Of course not, FirstEnergy's game is rigged to allow the company to win (build a transmission line) every time!

Aurora Mayor Ann Womer Benjamin takes on FirstEnergy's lies in this video.  This lovely lady seems knowledgeable, calm, and entrenched to resist.  And there's no more formidable opponent than a determined lady of a certain age, is there, FirstEnergy?  You might as well just give up now and cut your losses.
Unfortunately, you've got to sit through a FirstEnergy crapfest where Bill Beach shoots the strawmen before Womer Benjamin appears, but it's worth waiting for.
0 Comments

Social Media Proves Too "Real" For Corporate Astroturf

1/25/2019

1 Comment

 
Wow... big wind sycophants are wasting time and money trying to come up with complicated explanations and expensive solutions for a "problem" that can be explained in one simple sentence and solved by failure to participate.  How easy and cheap is that?

Social media, like Facebook and Twitter, are too transparent to sustain corporate astroturf because real people keep getting in and sharing their honest opinions.

How can anyone take this person seriously when they write stuff like this, which is nothing but one big ad hominem attack on the communities who object to having their landscapes littered with big wind infrastructure?  It's not really constructive or informative in the least.  It's just one more false accusation and personal attack. 

Let's count the ad hominem attacks here:
  1. NIMBYs.  It's right in the headline.  NIMBY stands for "Not In My Back Yard."  The implication is that people only object to energy infrastructure because it's in their own backyard.  Not true.  Objections come from far and wide.  But let's turn this around to where it's more apt, shall we?  The ones who love new energy infrastructure do so only because it is NOT in their own backyard.  Or they love it because they stand to personally profit from it.  Most of the folks who say they love "clean energy" only love it until it encroaches upon their castle.  Then they hate it, or argue that it should be in someone else's back yard, someone else who is less politically connected and smaller in number.
  2. "The people who virulently hate wind energy. The irrational ones who ignore the clear science that shows that it’s perfectly healthy, that windows and cats kill orders of magnitude more birds, and who refuse to accept the evidence from around the world that it’s cheap and easy to integrate into grids. Often they are global warming deniers as well."  Hate.  Irrational.  Ignore science.  Refuse to accept evidence.  Deniers.  This is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, as if making these people socially unacceptable is sufficient argument to support wind power.
  3. "It’s all too easy to recirculate fake news about wind energy on Facebook. There’s a small group of people who do it from the time they get up in the morning to the time they go to bed."  Fake news from people who spend all their time on the internet and do nothing else?  Calling something you disagree with "fake news" is just another ad hominem.  And I assure you, these people you believe do nothing but sit on the internet have plenty of other things to do.  There's just a lot of them, and growing daily.  They have professional jobs, own companies, and most importantly they are engaged in the backbreaking daily task of producing food to stuff in your ungrateful piehole.
  4. "It is understandable as social and digital media for anything controversial demands constant attention. First, you have to build a following of supporters and then you must police the comments until the supporters stand up for wind and chase the anti-trolls away. It can get ugly and it’s no fun but is necessary. Our public opinion research around the nation finds nearly 7 of 10 citizens throughout the United States in favor or wind, yet the anti groups are bolder and have been able to dominate the discussion making approvals harder and harder."  Trolls?  Ad hominem name calling doesn't make you right.  And it's just unfortunate that people are speaking up to disagree with the plentiful piles of bullshit the wind industry serves up daily.  Deal with it.  It's inherent to social media.  You cannot present a cherry-picked, one-sided version of "facts" when you open the door for public comment.  If you ask for public comment, you will get it, both favorable and unfavorable.  And here's the thing... I think your own pro-trolls are actually having fun with their arrogant, clueless arguments and gang attacks on any naysayers who do manage to get into the room.  This very article is case in point.  It looks like someone showed up to disagree with the subject article and was gleefully insulted and told his arguments were wrong.  However, this person's comments seem to be hidden (not approved by the moderator).  Therefore, if you don't click on each instance of a comment not approved, it looks like these jerks are arguing with the Invisible Man, or simply themselves.  And they do it en masse with such arrogance and glee!   They're having fun! This isn't helpful discussion or reasoned persuasion.  It's bullying, plain and simple.  Approvals of wind projects are harder and harder because the communities affected are getting more numerous.  Sly tricks and local government payoffs and bullying aren't working any longer to secure approvals.  It's like a snowball rolling down hill.  The more invasive big wind projects you build, the more evidence builds against them.  Creating more pro-trolls isn't going to help that because nobody really pays these angry bullies any attention.  They're irrelevant.
After a few paragraphs of look at me and all my accomplishments, the author suggests wind companies spend money creating an army of bots and professional trolls to scour social media sites in order to respond to "disinformation."
New technology and new businesses hold out hope. Twitter bots exist for good and evil. Just as there are Russian bots spreading fake news, there are bots which respond with carefully selected and edited reality. It’s possible to build social media responses with mixtures of professionals and automation now, and to respond without rancor to disinformation campaigns. There are social-media savvy firms which know how to mobilize effective pro-development efforts on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.
But how would a fake astroturf campaign win the social media war?  Astroturf depends on silencing other points of view.  No matter how companies try, they simply cannot have a public social media presence that is free from dissenting opinions.  This is why corporate energy initiatives have given up on social media, as well they should.  They have figured out that it's just too time consuming and expensive to engage in this battle.

Score one for the people.
1 Comment

Californians Still Making Excuses To Avoid Burial of Transmission Lines

1/15/2019

0 Comments

 
California investor-owned utility Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is still making excuses for its liability for the mass destruction left after its transmission lines sparked another deadly wild fire.  With only $1.4B worth of wild fire liability insurance, and facing upwards of $30B in liability claims, PG&E will file for bankruptcy protection.

But somehow the "bankrupt" company will continue to exist and provide "safe" and economical electricity service to its customers.  Oh, get real!!!

So, let's see... transmission line failures, combined with insufficient ROW clearing, have sparked more than a dozen fires in the past couple years.  What if... what if you remove the transmission lines from the tinder?  Of course it's going to be expensive, but $30B and climbing?  Aging lines in fire-prone areas should be replaced, and new lines should be constructed underground.
“Underground is about 10 times more expensive than overhead,” said Malashenko, who is the PUC safety and enforcement division director. “If we were to underground (throughout) California, all our rates would go up ten times.”
Oh, baloney!  Ten times, you say?  I simply don't believe you!  How about twice... as in two times more expensive, roughly?  Why do you exaggerate like this?  The "ten times" lie is one routinely spewed by transmission companies who don't want to underground their lines.

Underground lines also face risk from earthquakes and floods!  Uhh... because overhead lines face no risk from those hazards?  Of course not!  The risk is the same.  She also claims underground wires are harder to maintain.  Perhaps, but they need less maintenance overall because they're not exposed to the elements.  And it's harder to find the fault when they do break?  What is this?  1850?  I'm pretty sure a fault could be pinpointed to a certain section between vaults.

Excuses, excuses, excuses.  The answer here is quite simple... transmission lines should be buried to protect them from the wear and tear of the elements, and to protect the environment from the risk faulty transmission lines pose.

How about now, PG&E?  Is burial of new lines cheaper than bankruptcy?

And then there's the crazy claims that PG&E is the victim of climate change.  As if climate change caused the fires?  Some would like you to think so.  But the reality is that exposed overhead transmission lines and lack of vegetation maintenance were perhaps the biggest reason for the fires.  And let's take this climate change reasoning a little further, shall we?  Climate change science says we must reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuel electricity generation.  We are supposed to shut down old generation and replace it (although not equally) with fossil-free generation such as wind and solar.  Is wind and solar available to all locations equally?  No.  The climate change folks want to create huge wind and solar farms at strategic locations and run overhead transmission lines thousands of miles to places like California.  The last thing California needs right now is more overhead transmission lines.  Climate change is everyone's favorite villain, but blaming corporate neglect on climate change is a bait and switch of epic proportions.

Less transmission.
Bury it.
Stop robbing utility O&M accounts to increase share dividends.
Bankruptcy is not a way to escape liability.
Think about the consequences of your actions (or lack thereof).
Quit blaming convenient scapegoats.
And maybe, just maybe, investor-owned utilities are a dumb idea.
0 Comments

Propaganda and Puffery:  Need for Cardinal Hickory Creek Evaporates

12/13/2018

1 Comment

 
Really great article in the Wisconsin State Journal this week profiling the devastating effects the Cardinal Hickory Creek project will have on small businesses in its path.  A farm operation that supplies beef to some of  Wisconsin's best restaurants, an award-winning cheesemaker, and an event center are just some of the small businesses in the bullseye of a new transmission line whose need seems to have evaporated since it was cooked up in 2011.  That's nearly 8 years ago!  In the fast-paced world of electric transmission, that's a whole different era.

Interspersed with the interviews of business owners and community group representatives is the opinion of Cardinal Hickory Creek project owner ATC's spokeswoman.
The utility companies say the project, which they want operational by 2023, could provide Wisconsin customers with “net economic benefits” of between $23.5 million and $350 million over its expected 40-year life. The Midcontinent Independent System Operator, the regional electric grid operator, has endorsed the project as one of 17 across the region that will improve the reliability of the electric system, provide economic benefits to utilities and consumers, and support the use of renewable energy by delivering low-cost wind energy from Iowa to population centers where the power is needed.

“Those drivers have not changed for the project. Those have been consistent since the project was announced,” Freiman said.

But have they?  Have they really?  Here's something Freiman probably hopes you don't find out.

Transmission planning was a recent topic of discussion at a meeting of the  Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), the electric grid planner for the region, and creator of the 8-year old "need" for the project.  RTO Insider's coverage of that meeting revealed that MISO members are questioning the "business case" for further transmission expansion in light of current system needs and increased transmission costs.
Multiple stakeholders said another possible crop of MVPs, if any, will need a new business case process, especially considering the fleet change that has occurred in the intervening years and the transmission cost allocation plan MISO will file at the end of the year.
By the time MISO has gotten to the end of its 2011 MVP portfolio of new transmission, the "need" for such projects has evaporated.  It's time to jettison old ideas and concentrate on today's needs.  Cardinal Hickory Creek isn't one of them.  Utility regulators need to quit rubber stamping old ideas.

Opposition to MISO's MVP transmission project portfolio has also entered a new era.  The people simply aren't going to stand for more unneeded transmission that destroys local communities.
“What if customers have had enough of transmission expansion? What if they’re tired of having transmission lines going across their farms, yards. … They have more options to bypass us completely. You can talk about MISO’s value until you’re blue in the face. What customers see is rising bills,” Madison Gas and Electric’s Megan Wisersky said.

She said customers might be better served by a reinforced distribution system than more transmission projects.

“We have to remember that these transmission lines do impose on communities,” said Coalition of Midwest Transmission Customers attorney Jim Dauphinais, who agreed that overbuilding transmission will result in more expensive bills.
That's right, customers have had enough!  The revolt isn't just on the horizon, it's here now.

So, what do the people want?
Opponents say the line is not needed and would damage important conservation areas, disrupt the scenic beauty and harm agricultural businesses dotted along the routes. They argue Wisconsin consumers would be better served by energy efficiency and local renewable-energy projects. And they have no desire to advocate for one route at the expense of those along the other.
This message was also aired at the MISO meeting.
Alliant Energy’s Mitchell Myhre said he didn’t think MISO would need an entirely new transmission planning playbook but that it should analyze transmission project alternatives and engage in conversations about them. He said more analysis on transmission project alternatives may have lessened the late-stage disagreements over at least two projects in this year’s Transmission Expansion Plan. (See related story, MISO Board OKs Full MTEP 18 Over Stakeholder Complaints.)

“We ask that those conversations [about alternatives] happen at the front end of the process so they don’t come up in the back end of the process,” Myhre said.
Engage in conversations?  What does that mean?  Is it so MISO can say it considered alternatives and rejected them?  Is this all about scheming up ways to plug the holes that developed in MISO's last MVP debacle?
“We think there needs to be a study; we think there needs to be a process” to see if a long-term regional transmission plan makes sense, Missouri Public Service Commissioner Daniel Hall agreed.
Sigh.  This guy.  The one who wants to toss Missouri taxpayers under the bus by giving the power of eminent domain to a wind generation company.  He wants to concoct some malarkey "study" to back up MISO's transmission expansion aspirations.  Many of the comments in the article supporting another MISO MVP portfolio are all about finding ways to make new projects seem needed.  These interests include an effort to build infrastructure for Big Wind at the expense of MISO ratepayers.  That's what this is all about, at its most basic level.  It's about Big Wind proposing generation projects and stacking them in MISO's interconnection queue.  When faced with new generators wanting to connect to its system, MISO wants to provide service.  But how many of these new wind projects are intended for export outside MISO?  And should MISO ratepayers fund the transmission infrastructure that enables big wind generation companies to get their product across the MISO region so that it may be used by others outside the region?  If these were merchant projects, they'd have to demonstrate a commercial need before being financed and constructed, and only the committed customers would pay for them.  Instead, MISO has expanded its transmission system based on where it believes Big Wind wants to build, without any consideration for who will ultimately purchase the electricity.  And it has done it on the backs of ratepayers who will see little, if any, benefit and perhaps not even use the electricity transmitted.  These are captive ratepayers, not free market customers.

MISO's planning director doesn't seem to want to pursue another MVP portfolio.  He says the costs to connect every Big Wind project in the queue will be uneconomic. 
MISO’s transmission queue contains 483 projects totaling about 80 GW. Executive Director of Resource Planning Patrick Brown said MISO may be reaching an economic “break point” where the costs of network upgrades render projects uneconomic, especially in the wind-heavy western portion of its footprint. “The general cost of network upgrades is going to drive them out,” Brown said.
I guess it's time to jettison this idea, not prolong the agony with bogus studies, business cases, and "need" scenarios.  It's simply not cost effective, something the opposition has been saying for years.
However, Kevin Murray, representing the Coalition of Midwest Transmission Customers, said a strong business case can’t be built on a speculative information about where resources might be constructed.

“We need to avoid the ‘build it and they will come’ sentiment. And we’ve seen hints of that in the past,” Murray said. He said some transmission projects might be more appropriately funded by interconnection customers for planned generation.
It's way past time for MISO to put down the cape of climate hero Big Wind that it has been carrying for the past 8 years.  The bleeding of MISO ratepayers for benefit of Big Wind profits has to end.

And it ends at Cardinal Hickory Creek's doorstep.

And what did Big Wind have to say for itself?
Clean Grid Alliance’s Beth Soholt said her company will continue to support the Cardinal Hickory Creek line project in Wisconsin, which she said had a “solid as ever” business case.

Soholt suggested that MTEP 15-year future scenarios should account for sustainability goals beyond renewable portfolio standards.

Hmm... that sounds eerily similar to what Kaya Frieman said in the State Journal article.  You don't suppose Big Wind and ATC are in cahoots, do you?

Keep up the good work, CHC opposition!  Big Wind's ball of string seems to have started to unravel...
1 Comment

Utility Tries Insulting its Opposition

12/12/2018

0 Comments

 
This can't end well.

A report in the Maine Times Record says that Central Maine Power (CMP) spokesman John Carroll called the opposition to the New England Clean Energy Connect project "bizarre" and "shameful."
CMP representative John Carroll called the opposition “bizarre” and “shameful,” lamenting  that instead of seeing Hydro-Quebec as a leader in the clean energy movement, “we are immediately suspicious.”
The project would be “a great battery for the Northeast,” he said, adding that this line would help prevent the continued mass spillover of energy that Hydro-Quebec is currently unable to sell. The project is a simple step toward making the region and the nation less dependent on fossil fuels, Carroll argued.
Sigh.

Insulting your entrenched opposition is not, and has never been, a winning tactic.  In fact, name-calling and ad hominem arguments only expand opposition and drive it deeper.  It's even a no-no in most transmission developer "Code of Conduct" documents.  The "Code of Conduct" is a fig leaf used by many developers to assure regulators and elected officials that landowners facing eminent domain for transmission rights-of-way will be treated fairly.

In this iteration, the Code of Conduct states:
Do not suggest that any person should be ashamed of or embarrassed by his or her opposition to the PATH Project or that such opposition is inappropriate.
Name calling is one of the seven common propaganda devices.   It is used to create unacceptable groups who should be dismissed without an examination of the facts.
Apparently there is no code, moral or otherwise, for CMP... nor any tactic too low.  It is truly bizarre that this company appears to simply not care how much of a bully it looks like.  And they seem to believe Maine is a cheap date and its people mere sheep that can be cowed by suggestions that they should be ashamed of themselves.  It is Central Maine Power who should be ashamed.
0 Comments

How Much Does Opposition Cost?

12/6/2018

1 Comment

 
Opposition to new aerial transmission lines is nothing new.  It's been around almost as long as the transmission lines themselves.  Nobody wants to live with these things, but in the past they may have been a necessary evil, and in the past it may have been easier to overwhelm small communities to force an involuntary sacrifice.  The people were sacrificing their home, business, health, sense of place and peace of mind for benefit of other people who needed electricity.  We electrified the country in the last century.  Mission accomplished.

But today's transmission lines aren't needed for the same reasons.  The vast majority of today's transmission proposals are for other reasons, such as cheaper prices for customers in other regions, or "cleaner" energy for other regions.  It's no longer about bringing electricity to people without it, and it's not all about keeping the grid we have functioning and reliable.  For today's transmission companies, it's also about profit.  There's a fortune to be made constructing transmission and controlling new pathways to transport electricity further and further from its point of generation.

Today's transmission opposition has also undergone a vast sea change from the small, disconnected community groups of yore.  Now it's easy for small groups to connect with others and tap the experience of successful opposition groups, thanks to the internet.  We communicate differently in this century, and communication is oftentimes the secret sauce of success.  While transmission companies haven't changed their "best practice" tactics in decades, opposition is fleet and malleable.  The secret hierarchy of opposition groups makes them quick to adapt, and even quicker to deploy new, winning tactics.  The opponents are fighting with their hearts, the industry is fighting from a stale, dog-eared "playbook."  It's just a job for the industry warriors.  Personally, the only thing they get out of victory is a pat on the head, or maybe a bonus or promotion.  Opponents receive the opportunity to maintain the status quo, at least until the next transmission proposal invades.  They don't get a bonus.  In fact, the only return on their investment may be gazing out the window and not seeing an ugly transmission tower.  The transmission employee merely moves on to the next job... he can't see those towers from his house!  It's all about motivation, and transmission opposition groups are racking up an amazing list of victories.  It's simply no longer true that the transmission company wins every time.  In fact, they're probably closer to losing most of the time when faced with organized opposition.  Opposition is costing transmission companies a lot of money and often outright cancellation or failure of transmission proposals.

This recent opinion piece from Transmission Developers Inc. (TDI) defends its project from the inaccurate characterization of its project from competing transmission company Central Maine Power (CMP).  The two projects, both purposed to transmit hydropower from Quebec to Massachusetts, couldn't be more different.   CMP proposes aerial lines and many miles of new right of way through the Maine wilderness.  TDI, on the other hand, proposes new transmission that is underground and underwater, with no new overhead transmission lines.  CMP is also a second attempt to build new aerial lines to satisfy Massachusetts' huge appetite for "clean" power generated elsewhere (Not In My Backyard, eh, Massachusetts?).  Massachusetts' first choice was the ill-fated Northern Pass project through New Hampshire.  When that project was rejected by New Hampshire, CMP was selected as the second choice.  TDI gets no love from Massachusetts, who is only looking at the proposed cost, not the actual cost.  TDI points out something very important in its letter:
TDI, from the very beginning, took important community, environmental and aesthetic considerations into account when designing and siting the NECPL. TDI carefully chose underground technology specifically to minimize impacts on the people, viewshed and environment of Vermont. We recognized that the additional expense related to underground construction for NECPL was worth the alleviation of a multitude of genuine community and environmental concerns, and that the cost of any project can’t only be measured in dollars.
But can it be measured in dollars?  I think we can get pretty close!  Opposition causes real expense.

1.  Purchased advocacy.  Transmission companies first knee-jerk reaction to organized opposition is to compete with it by purchasing advocacy.  Front groups, advertising, and "donations" to advocate groups to win their favor cost money.  How much?  It sort of depends on how big a campaign the transmission company thinks it needs.  It also depends on the size of the opposition.  A bigger opposition requires larger expenditures to secure advocates.  People who are willing to sell their community down river for benefit of an out-of-state intruder can be pretty pricey if they're likely to receive a lifetime of ostracized backlash from their neighbors.  A transmission company can easily spend $10M or more on purchased advocacy.  Cha-ching!

2.  "Mitigation" payments to communities and community groups.  This can be a huge expense!  Transmission companies make agreements to "mitigate" their effect on local communities with monies paid to local governments, organizations, and business groups who are happy to push their community under the bus in exchange for cash.  Local governments figure payments from transmission companies benefit the community as a whole, and some of them are amazingly cheap dates.  Others not so much.  Organizations and business groups are all about personal profit or concessions that benefit the group or organization, at the expense of the community.  This is pure greed!  A transmission company can shell out at least $100M in "mitigation" payments to governments and groups that drive a hard bargain.  Cha-ching!

3.  Increased regulatory costs.  Opposition in the regulatory process costs money.  A transmission company must spend more money on legal fees, experts, and bogus "studies" to be submitted as evidence in the regulatory process.  A transmission company may also shell out a whole bunch of money to purchase the best political influence on the regulatory decision.  We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars in this category alone.  Cha-ching!

4.  Permitting delays.  Time is money, and good opposition can cause increased permitting delays.  An uncontested application can sail through the regulatory process in record time.  A contested application drags on and on and on.  How much does delay cost?  Over a month?  Over a number of months?  Over a year?  Over a number of years?  Opposition permitting delays are usually of the "years" category of delay.  The cost of delay to the transmission company can vary.  With a merchant project, the entire cost of the delay and value of the sunk investment is on the company.  This is hugely expensive.  With a ratepayer guaranteed, cost-allocated project it still costs just as much, however ratepayers are picking up the additional costs of delay, and paying the transmission company for the cost of its investment during the process.  While the costs are the same, it's all about who pays.  In the case of the merchant New England projects, the cost is on the company.  Cha-ching!

5.  Permitting failure.  It's reasonable to plan that a merchant transmission project may fail entirely after shelling out the money noted in the four previous categories.  In this case, the transmission company is left with nothing but a huge debt and some pretty angry investors.  Example:  The Clean Line merchant projects that spent over $200M in "development" costs and then failed to receive enough permits to build (and couldn't find any customers to pay for the projects, which was another huge factor in the failure).  Cha-ching!

A transmission project buried on existing public or private rights of way (such as roads or railroads, or under large bodies of water) that doesn't cross privately owned land, and doesn't use eminent domain, doesn't create the same kind of expensive opposition.  A project without opposition can avoid the expense of opposition, and as we've discussed, opposition costs money.  Lots of money.

A buried project may cost more to build, but it provides the kind of regulatory and price certainty that transmission companies need.  The odds are good that a buried project will be approved and built, whereas an aerial project with entrenched opposition will probably not be approved and will never be built.  Any customer who looks solely at price when considering competing transmission proposals fails to realize that after the cost and risk of opposition is added, they're going to end up paying the same, or more.  They may also experience the cost of failure.

Opposition is too expensive.  Choose the buried option.
1 Comment

Great Moments in Wasteful Government Workshops

11/28/2018

1 Comment

 
Picture
Hey kids, what time is it?

It's U.S. Department of Energy Triennial Electric Transmission Congestion Study time!

The DOE continues to waste taxpayer funding on mandated (but sadly useless) studies of transmission congestion, and it's time for the 2019 episode!  So, grab your gear and pull up a chair, it's another exciting energy party where transmission developers and renewable energy companies beg DOE to jump into their Section 1221 bulldozer and clear their path to incredible riches!

Right before Thanksgiving, DOE held a poorly noticed "workshop" to inform their study.  I see the workshop was publicly noticed on DOE's website just 6 days before.  It wasn't listed or linked on DOE's Congestion Study page.  It's almost like you needed to be an insider to find out about it.  Yay, you, DOE!  I mean, it's not like DOE hasn't been spanked by the courts in the past for not allowing adequate public participation or anything.  I see the new study is off to an auspicious start!

Anyone who didn't have the inside scoop is left with a list of links to workshop presentations without any explanation or context.  It's almost like watching a silent movie.  I love silent movies!  I can make up my own dialogue to go along with the pictures.  And since DOE's oh-so-generous opportunity to comment on the workshop was again only 6-days long and coincided with the Thanksgiving holidays, (and was only noticed on its website 1-day before comments were due), I'm just going to have to amuse myself here.  Never fear, though, DOE promises to create a detailed meeting summary from its recording of the festivities.  Oh, please, let there be a comment period for that!  Of course, finding it will be the biggest hurdle.  I'm still looking for the comments about the workshop DOE promised to post on its "congestion study website."  The information on this "website" is thin and poorly coordinated.  Heaven forbid DOE maintain an up-to-date, comprehensive, on-line record of its public participation process!

Let's first take a look at the agenda for this wondrous workshop.

Look, it's a panel on "Challenges to building transmission facilities where and when needed: Permitting/siting issues."
That's you, transmission opponents!  Although, during DOE's "workshop" you were represented like this:
Picture
NIMBYs?  Really?  Aren't we, as a society, beyond the derogatory name calling?  You'd think the government would have covered this in their sensitivity training.  I'm hurt!  Truly wounded to the core!  But I guess this is why no transmission opponents were invited to the workshop to make presentations about the real problems with permitting and siting.  If they were, the DOE and its industry and environmental group flunkies (oops, my bad, was that a bit derogatory?  I'm about as sorry as Reese's.) couldn't continue to kid themselves about real solutions.

I'm only going to call out a few of these dreadful presentations, but be sure to read them all to get a large helping of information deficit, local government and special interest group schmoozing, along with ways to speed up permitting by neutralizing state authority.  Same old, same old.  These tactics haven't worked yet, but the industry does love them so, we might as well let them continue to bang their heads against a brick wall.

Since we've already peeked at National Grid's uninspired presentation, let's start there.  Here's what National Grid thinks are siting and permitting challenges:
  1. Increase in municipalities seeking "impact fees."
  2. Competitive transmission projects offering more than previous regional projects.
  3. "Pass-through" communities feeling overburdened by regional project.
  4. Concern of added costs to municipalities from project.
  5. Increase in community activism.
  6. Lack of understanding of local benefit for regional project.
  7. Trees, viewsheds.
  8. Property values.
  9. Increase in EMF concerns.
  10. Business loss.
  11. Increase in involvement by state legislators.
Yes, all of the above.  It's what we do.  So how are you going to "solve" it, National Grid?
  1. Offer to fund (regulatory) employees to work on infrastructure projects.
  2. Slide that appears to compare an overhead project to a buried project.
  3. Dozens of meetings with public officials and creation of "agreements."
  4. Offers to fund new, unrelated infrastructure.
  5. Informational meetings with NIMBYs.
  6. Fund "independent" EMF expert.

Any funding of "independent" employees to grease the project or lie to the public is an attempt to cheapen the regulatory process.  It doesn't actually make transmission more acceptable.  Buying off local government officials with cheap trinkets and back room deals likewise doesn't actually mitigate the project's impact on any affected landowner.  Landowner still takes it in the shorts, and he will extract his revenge at the next election.  By that time, National Grid will be long gone.  All this adds up to a combination of information deficit and governmental schmoozing.  What's information deficit?  It's the presumption that opposition stems from lack of information, and that the dissemination of more information will ameliorate opposition.  Oh no... it doesn't work.  It hasn't worked for years!  We're all tired of your one-way information fountain.  It's self-interested and your information is lies and crap.  Save your energy and money.  Find a better solution.

But wait, that slide with the two different projects... what was that supposed to mean?  We'll get to that later.

Next, let's take a look at Ecology & Environment's presentation.  It compares the successful Great Northern Transmission Line process with the unsuccessful Northern Pass Transmission project.  It seems to rely on information deficit.  Lots of slides with little comment symbols.  Whut?  Yappita, yappita, yappita.  I'm pretty sure this had nothing to do with GNTL's success.  Next...

Richard Sedano of the Regulatory Assistance Project presented a bunch of slides from EWITS (no, I didn't actually say TWITS, but I can see the similarity).  EWITS envisions a huge network of new HVDC projects stretching across the continental United States.  This junk has been around for years, so there's no danger of it actually happening.  Then there's a NREL study, MISO, Western Governors, and a slide from our friends at the Edison Electric Institute (utility lobbying group extraordinaire).  Then there's this slide.
Picture
Ahh, I think I get it now.  My silent movie dialogue goes like this... What do all these things have in common?  FAILURE!  And in the case of Plains & Eastern, it was a colossal failure in which DOE participated!  All these slides are bad ideas for a bunch of long-distance transmission.  Sedano finishes up by remarking that states are best positioned to site and permit, but sadly claims there isn't enough information "to overcome fundamental mistrust of institutions and motives."  And there never will be enough.

Hold your nose and take a look at big wind cheerleader Rob Gramlich's presentation.  He claims "it can be done."  Unfortunately, he came after Sedano.  Gramlich wants to socialize the cost of all this new transmission  to serve wind as widely as possible, in ex ante fashion (based on concocted forecasts instead of actual results).  He also wants to make permitting and siting a federal responsibility, and he wants DOE to help bulldoze the fly over states.  Chance of this happening?  Not.a.one.

Just to get that bad taste out of your mouth, finish up with a look at the presentation of Steven Naumann from ComEd.  Naumann says:
Impact on Need for New Long-Distance High Voltage Transmission Reduced load growth estimates means transmission expansion needs to be focused locally based on specific load growth; need to consider off- peak energy usage (electric vehicle charging) in ratings for equipment

In areas like PJM, where a states are pursuing off-shore wind, need transmission to (1) interconnect off-shore wind; and (2) develop network to provide optionality to deliver future off-shore wind efficiently

Off-shore wind is alternative to very long distance transmission to deliver western wind, which are not part of public policy initiatives of states to which the western wind would be delivered


For example, if states in the east coast have public policies support off- shore wind, what is the need for long-distance transmission to deliver wind from the Great Plains?


Looking at the system as a whole, need to consider difficulties in transmission siting, i.e., nearby is better, takes less time, less siting issues 
Exactly!  But then again, ComEd isn't in the business of building inter-regional transmission lines for profit.  I've read Naumann's testimony in one of the Clean Line cases and was duly impressed by his knowledge and opinion.  This guy has been around for a long time and is extremely bright.  He gets it.

What is there to get?  Let's go back to that slide that compared two different projects.  The NECEC project is an overhead transmission line.  The Vermont Green Line is an underground, underwater project.  The Vermont Green Line may be built.  The NECEC will never be built.

Permitting and siting issues can be avoided entirely by building underground transmission on public rights of way.  In other words, it's not us, it YOU!  Building a better project that doesn't foment any opposition is the only guaranteed way to avoid permitting and siting issues.  Any transmission opponent could have told you that.

If only you'd let us in the room...
1 Comment
<<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.