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

A Reporter's Guide To Writing Better Stories About Clean Line

5/14/2017

0 Comments

 
Have you ever noticed that the majority of Clean Line's media is full of glittering generalities, false bravado, and made-up facts?  Does it look like the reporters responsible for those stories failed to balance their coverage with an opposing view, or to ask any relevant questions of Clean Line?  Is it almost as if they simply re-wrote a Clean Line press release without vetting any of the information in it, doing any independent research, or simply engaging their brains?

Now we've created a handy-dandy tool for reporters on assignment to write about Clean Line, in the form of a fun and stimulating word game.

Pertinent Issues That Deserve Attention is chock full of helpful ideas.  Think of it as your own personal Clean Line press kit.
Picture
Get yours here!
mediaworksheet.pdf
File Size: 128 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

0 Comments

Bending Physics to Make Money

5/14/2017

1 Comment

 
Is there no limit to the propaganda businessmen will spew in order to profit?

Now we've got Anbaric's Ed Krapels bending physics in order to pimp merchant transmission to... who exactly?  Who is supposed to read this krap and give Ed a bunch of money?

I recently stumbled across this:

Make America (Electrically) Great Again: An Electric Infrastructure Plan For The Trump Team

Because Trump is so inclined to take his "plans" from The Huffington Post.  Right.

This krappy opinion piece is so full of rhetorical buzzwords that a friend suggested we make a drinking game out of it, and other media in the same vein.  Balkanized?  Take a shot!  Green?  Take a shot!  Resilient?  Take a shot!  Modernize?  Take a shot!  Infrastructure?  Take a shot!

Drunk on the floor.  All.The.Time.

As if glittering generalities are the basis for planning and building the greatest machine of modern times -- the electric transmission grid. 

First of all, we need to recognize where krap like this comes from... it comes from the corporations and people who stand to make a profit from grid construction.  It comes from environmental group lawyers who have no electrical engineering experience.  And the worst part?  These people know better!  They know that the grid is planned and operated by federally monitored regional transmission and reliability organizations.  Our grid is constantly expanded and modernized by experienced engineers with an eye toward reliability and price.  It's not about favoring one resource over the other, or putting money in investor pockets.  So when you read krappy articles claiming our grid is costly, rickety, and unreliable, they're just not true.  We don't look to profit-seeking, or politically-motivated entities to plan a grid that puts the most money in someone's pockets, and we shouldn't start now.  Creating a grid based on the need to meet political goals, or put money in corporate pockets, is creating a grid that's not efficient, affordable, or reliable.

Another krappy opinion piece claims that big companies are simply greenwashing when they purchase renewable energy credits and then claim to be environmentally responsible.  I agree.  But I do not agree with the suggested krappy solution of building new transmission lines so that the company can actually use the electricity associated with the RECs it purchases, as if electricity is nothing more than water in a pipe that can be directed to flow to a certain customer.  The problem is the idea of RECs in the first place, not a lack of transmission.  A REC represents the social and environmental attributes of electricity generated.  A company can buy a REC, but that REC can be physically separated from the actual electricity produced.  A generator may sell the actual electricity to another user, and then market the REC to someone else.  That creates two revenue streams for the same electron.   Essentially, it is selling something twice to two different buyers.  It's a swindle of the highest order.

Options to solve that?
1.  Stop unbundling RECs from energy.
2.  Require companies to purchase transmission on the existing system to use the actual energy they purchase.  There ain't no such thing as "cheap" environmental footprint, unless the public believes the greenwashing.

And then there's the unnecessary -- building new private transmission lines just for companies who want to purchase unbundled RECs from far away places.  If we start down that path, with each company supporting its own private transmission line, we're soon going to find wires everywhere.  The more wires and connections added, the more complicated and unreliable the grid becomes.  There's also the problem of clearing a path for private transmission lines on private property owned by others.  That's not a public use.  That's not a public utility.  Eminent domain cannot be used for such an endeavor.

No matter how many buzzwords these grid profiteers use, their ultimate goal is clear:  to enable private companies to take from the public in order to increase their profits.
Congress should create legislative authority for siting major electricity transmission lines that follows the authority it has already granted to siting major gas lines.
In other words, let's let the federal government site and permit electric transmission to create a politically favored electric grid that everyone pays for.  Fly over states and politically disconnected areas will be forced to sacrifice for the needs of the economically advantaged and politically connected.  It's just not true that everyone benefits from every transmission line dreamed up to line corporate profits.  New transmission levelizes prices between generation regions and consumption regions.  While it may lower prices in consumption regions, it raises prices in formerly constrained generation regions, and the folks in the middle get nothing.  Zilch.  Zero.  That problem cannot be solved by federal authority, the only thing federal authority may do is exacerbate it.  Our current system that leaves siting and permitting authority to states is not broken. States do a much better job recognizing local priorities and concerns, and determining benefit to the state.  Any delays come from badly conceived transmission ideas that do not provide benefits to localities, or seek to use the eminent domain power of the state for private transmission projects that do not provide public benefit. 

Here's how to fix a long state permitting process:  Stop trying to use eminent domain to force private infrastructure!  I'm pretty sure Mr. Krapels is well aware that transmission that's sited underwater and underground on land of willing hosts can sail through the transmission permitting process in record time.  Mr. Krapels also probably has customers lined up for the projects he undertakes, and doesn't rely on "build it and they will come" as a business plan.

Stop trying to "fix" what's not broken just to make private utility projects cheaper or faster.  Instead, design better transmission projects with an eye toward making them acceptable to the communities they propose to impact.  The grid operators and regulators we already have do a fine job of vetting transmission proposals and only ordering the building of what's actually needed.  We don't need a bunch of profiteers creating their own private grid through our backyards.

The problem isn't us, it's you.  All the glittering generalities in the world just can't fix that.
1 Comment

Clean Line's Problem is Lack of Customers

4/27/2017

9 Comments

 
I was really trying to ignore it, because it's just so ridiculous.  But, apparently many of you have seen the news video of Clean Line's Michael Skelly looking utterly desperate to spin his lack of success as an "infrastructure problem."

At one point in the video, the host says, "We're talking all around this... what is the problem?"

This is where Skelly should have spoken up and told the truth... the only "problem" with Clean Line's projects is that they have no customers.  There is no market need for a "clean" line.  There's not a thing in the world that Congress or President Trump can do about a product that nobody wants to buy.  We already have a perfectly adequate, government-supervised electric transmission grid that has some of the best reliability in the world.  That's what keeps your lights on, yesterday, today and tomorrow.  Nobody wants to pay extra to use a "clean" line, and that's why Skelly has no customers.  Clean Line has failed.  Nobody can save it.
Picture
Forget about the rest of the blarney.  But it is okay to wonder... has Skelly started dyeing his hair?
9 Comments

Finally, Someone Issues a Report Card to The American Society of Civil Engineers

4/19/2017

0 Comments

 
New from the guy who brought us "The Rise and Fall of Big Transmission" (see also R.I.P Big Transmission here), is an opinion on the annual "Chicken Little" report on infrastructure from the American Society of Civil Engineers -- Electric Infrastructure: Sky Keeps not Falling.

The ASCE report has been pure crap every single year, and I'm not sure why anyone even pays attention to it anymore.  It is concocted by a trade group of engineers whose paychecks depend on the need to build more infrastructure every year.  If anyone got an "A," there would be a lot of engineers in the unemployment line because there would be little need to build more infrastructure.  This report is sort of like if Hershey's issued an annual report on the need for chocolate, and the report was authored by women.  We know that a day without chocolate is like a day without hope, so therefore we need chocolate every.single.day.  And talk about your coincidences, Hershey's sells chocolate (not the best chocolate, but when a chocolate emergency strikes, it's better than a bag of Skittles).  The ASCE report is self-serving dreck designed for doomsayers and vapid public officials without an expert staff to tell them the truth about infrastructure.

Speaking of telling the truth, it probably isn't real good for business if an energy lawyer actually tells the truth.  But yet, Huntoon persists.  His clients must be brave souls.  Gotta admire that!

Huntoon says everything in the ASCE report is wrong.  That's a pretty wide characterization, but sadly it's true.  It starts with this:
For starters, there is this claim: “With more than 640,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines across the three interconnected electric transmission grids … the lower 48 states’ power grid is at full capacity, with many lines operating well beyond their design.”

The fact is that 0 (zero) transmission lines are being operated beyond their design capacity. The grid has been and continues to be designed and constructed to cover projected peak demand years in advance. And every line is operated within its design limits. The ASCE claim is alarmist and wrong.
(And so is Clean Line's claim that our grid is so congested that no new renewable energy generation can be built without it's "clean" lines -- and for the same reason!)  And don't miss ASCE's claim that we "need" new processes to get "needed" transmission  lines built for renewable energy.

And then Huntoon tears up the ASCE claim that lack of new infrastructure causes blackouts.

The ASCE habitually conflates the transmission system with the distribution system.  Most outages are due to faults on the distribution system, not the transmission system.  When the rare transmission failure happens, though, more customers may be affected.  But transmission is designed to provide contingencies in the event of transmission failure -- loads are switched to other transmission lines and we don't even notice a problem has occurred.  The distribution system lacks this kind of contingency, so if a tree falls on the line serving your neighborhood, you're in the dark.

What we may need to do is make upgrades to the distribution system, which is sorely neglected by investor-owned utilities who would rather put their cash in the transmission system because it pays higher returns on invested capital.  So we've got utilities pursuing expensive transmission lines to nowhere, while distribution lines are rotting on the pole.

The ASCE report card is an industry-influenced, uninformative, biased joke.  Huntoon suggests that we give the ASCE report a D+.  I think that's much too generous.  I give them a U for useless.
0 Comments

Smells Like Broken Dreams and Bitter Lobbyist Tears

3/30/2017

6 Comments

 
I'm sure you know one... a member of the "Good Old Boys' Club."  I'm talking about a well-fed, middle-aged white guy who may actually use the phrase, "Do you know who I am?" on a regular basis.  He doesn't appear to be particularly bright or industrious, and has absolutely no self-awareness or empathy, but he's managed to claw his way into a position where he makes his living by being connected to other old white men and selling his influence to outsiders who want to make a buck.  What happens when that special, privileged world spits out its own?  Who doesn't love a little schadenfreude?

Remember the "Infrastructure List" that has been gushed over by members of the Good Old Boys' Club and their media lackeys for the past three months?  Turns out it's been kicked to the curb, along with the guys who prepared it, and a new crew of infrastructure critters has been let loose in the Washington Swamp.

No wonder Norman Anderson was having a public meltdown last month.  I think maybe he didn't appreciate being ignored by an administration he thought he had eating out of his hand.  Awww... life isn't fair, is it, Norman?  Let's sing together...
*sniff, sniff*  Could someone hand me a tissue?

The Charlotte Observer published an in-depth report covering the "Infrastructure List" and the shady way it was compiled and pushed by a group of guys who are now out of favor with the Trump administration.
When Donald Trump and Mike Pence met this month to discuss a promised $1 trillion infrastructure plan, the Cabinet Room was filled with half a dozen billionaire executives, from Tesla’s Elon Musk to Steve Roth, a New York developer and longtime friend to the president.

One person who wasn’t there? The man who worked for months to line up priority infrastructure projects for the Trump transition team.

Just a few weeks earlier, Dan Slane had been jetting around the country — on his own dime — to meet with governors, contractors, investors, labor union officials and others eager to influence Trump’s infrastructure plan. He developed a 50-project proposal filled with exactly the kind of “shovel-ready” investments the White House wanted – the kind that needed regulatory relief, not federal dollars.

But as Trump’s attention turns to infrastructure after suffering defeat on his first policy priority, the White House will not even acknowledge Slane, except to say he has “no official or unofficial role” in the administration. He says his infrastructure plan, and indeed his very connection to the president, has become the victim of a power struggle for control of this big-ticket infrastructure agenda between Peter Navarro, a Trump loyalist and economic populist who advised his campaign, and Gary Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs president who now runs the National Economic Council.
Who is Dan Slane?  A quick google search shows he's been working with Peter Navarro on a film called "Death by China."  Apparently these guys believe that trade with China is killing our economy.  Slane ought to know... apparently he moved his wood business to China to collect a 17% profit.  I guess that must have scarred his psyche (while fattening his bank account) so now Slane is anti-China.  Apparently the whole infrastructure thing stems from the fact that China has been investing in its infrastructure lately, and we gotta, you know, keep up with China.  But how does Dan Slane connect with Norman Anderson?  The Charlotte Observer reveals:
Anderson’s company had compiled a list of 100 top infrastructure projects with input from senior-level investors, engineers and developers. The list would have been offered to whichever presidential candidate had won in November, Anderson said.

A week after Trump’s unexpected win, Anderson found a white paper online that Navarro and now-Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had written for the Trump campaign. It proposed tax credits to fund infrastructure. He emailed Navarro, and offered some suggestions.

“Navarro asked Dan to talk to me the next day,” Anderson said.

Slane, who was working without a staff, asked Anderson to help him screen a list of projects Navarro wanted for the administration. Anderson in turn hired Boston Consulting Group to analyze how many direct and indirect jobs each project would create.
So, how did this list get presented to the media as a Trump administration list, and how did a project get on Slane/Anderson's list in the first place?  The Charlotte Observer explains how the Good Old Boys' Club gladhanding worked...
Playing the liaison

Leaders at the state and local level, and executives at the National Governors Association, thought they had been working with the White House, through Slane.

Paul Aucoin, executive director of the Southern Louisiana Port, said he assumed Slane was a shoo-in for a White House infrastructure job when he met him at Anderson’s offices in Washington in December.

Aucoin made the trip to DC to promote his port and try to secure federal assistance to dredge the mouth of the Mississippi River.

The meeting with Slane had been arranged for Aucoin by the public relations firm of Gary Meltz, a former aide to Democratic Rep. Eliot L. Engel of New York.

Slane introduced himself as a member of the Trump transition, and Aucoin made his pitch.

Slane promised to get the dredging project on the list he and Anderson were compiling for the transition.

“They were very receptive, they got it, they understood what I was saying, they asked all the right questions,” Aucoin said. “It wasn’t like I was talking to a wall. I was finally talking to some one who understood what I was trying to say.”

Later Slane would visit the port and meet with Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards. He reassured Edwards and Aucoin that congressional Republicans would pledge money to the project from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. That promise that has yet to be fulfilled.

Aucoin said he’s since hired a lobbying firm in Washington that was working on getting him a meeting with Gribbin.

“It was a blow for us to lose Dan,” Aucoin said.
Let me get this straight... a PR firm with connections made introductions between an entity with a need for a project and some guys who presented themselves as part of Trump's team?

So when Clean Line's Mario Hurtado said:
"When the Trump campaign was looking at infrastructure, we thought it was a good thing to mention. We're just happy to be part of the conversation."
What he really meant was that Clean Line paid a PR firm to make the introductions between Clean Line, Slane, and Anderson, in order to "mention" putting the company's Plains & Eastern Clean Line project on the infrastructure list?  Mario actually did not bump into these guys in the grocery store.  :-(  It actually cost Clean Line money to buy their way onto the Slane/Anderson list.  Guess what, Clean Line?  Looks like you've maybe been taken, and you're really not on Trump's favored list after all.  Even the union's infrastructure wish list (where all three of CLEP's eastward bound projects showed up) was a Slane/Anderson product that Trump now seemingly wants nothing to do with.
Sean McGarvey, president of North America’s Building Trades Unions, said his organization consulted with Slane on his plan. His union delivered to the White House its own list of priority infrastructure projects in February, after meeting with Trump.

“The way Dan framed it was really good because Dan took projects that had all funding but lacked permitting or some who had permitting,” McGarvey said.

“He did a lot of thoughtful work on the initial ready-to-go, out-of-the gate stuff,” he said. “The projects that Dan was talking about really don’t require a new infrastructure bill. Those are ones that exist, that are both private and public, and have the three elements you need: the financing, the engineering, and permitting. And some of them will happen this year.”
Hey, Good Old Boys' Club, are you paying attention?  Pull up a desk and put on your listening ears.  You could learn something...

Clean Line projects don't have financing!
What they have is a plan to raise financing.  Clean Line's plan requires them to contract with future customers to create a revenue stream that Clean Line can use as evidence to secure financing.  Clean Line doesn't have customers.  Clean Line doesn't have a revenue stream that can support financing.  There is nothing a Trump administration (or the Good Old Boys' Club) can do to create captive customers for Clean Line's projects.

Clean Line doesn't have complete engineering!  What they have is a plan to complete engineering once permitting is complete.  Clean Line has no revenue.  None.  It's living high on investor development cash right now.  Engineering is a construction cost that happens after a project is fully permitted and financed.  There is nothing a Trump administration (or the Good Old Boys' Club) can do to finance final engineering for the Clean Line projects.  Federal money would invalidate the project's merchant transmission status with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that allows them to negotiate rates with willing customers (see financing, above).

Clean Line doesn't have permitting completed for any of its projects!  The Plains & Eastern project is the subject of a lawsuit in federal court where the U.S. DOE's preemption of state siting authority in Arkansas has been questioned.  The statute DOE used to run over Arkansas  plainly says it does not affect any requirement of state siting laws.  Although this case has yet to be decided by the court, it's not looking good for Clean Line.  Expect that Clean Line shall have to comply with Arkansas state siting laws for its project.  The Rock Island Clean Line project application for a permit has been withdrawn in Iowa.  Its permit in Illinois has been vacated by the Appellate Court.  It has no permits whatsoever right now.  The Grain Belt Express project's permit in Illinois is on appeal, and the project still needs a permit from the Missouri Public Service Commission.  A recent Missouri Court of Appeals decision prohibits the MO PSC from issuing a permit until Clean Line has the assent of each Missouri county it traverses.  GBE does not have all the county assents it needs and is unlikely to obtain them.  All of these permitting issues are STATE permitting issues.  There is nothing a Trump administration (or the Good Old Boys' Club) can do about state laws which govern state permitting, and if the administration tries to preempt state authority to site and permit electric transmission, it's going to have a hell of a fight on its hands, from the states and from the people.

None of the Clean Line projects are getting done this year.  They're not getting done.  Not now, not ever.  Take them off your list, assuming your list is supposed to be a real list, and not just some "pay to play" Good Old Boys' Club list of bridges to nowhere.

Cry me a river of bitter tears, fellas.  Karma's a real bitch.
6 Comments

PJM Doles Out the Punishment

3/17/2017

2 Comments

 
Well, isn't that fun?  PJM is punishing everyone because it's not getting its way.  Well, really Dominion's way, but PJM and its utility members are just different parts of the same animal.

Dominion finds itself mired in controversy over its Surry-Skiffes Creek 500kV transmission project in Virginia's tidewater region.  The project as proposed would make an aerial crossing of the James River quite near the historic Jamestown settlement.  The people say no.  The National Parks Conservation Association says no.  The National Trust for Historic Preservation says no.  The Army Corps of Engineers, who has to approve the project, isn't saying anything at all.  And we have stasis.

So, Dominion called in its trained gorilla, PJM, to terrorize the townsfolk and make them drop their opposition.  As if that kind of behavior ever works in a situation like this.  The people simply said "meh" to PJM's threats of rolling blackouts.

Now PJM has devised a way to punish them with higher electric rates.  And it has upped the ante by punishing everyone else in the PJM region with higher rates as well.  PJM has assigned cost responsibility for keeping generation units on the Virginia Peninsula running after they would have shut down not only to the folks on the Peninsula, but to every other zone in the PJM region.  That's right, electric customers in Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky and other PJM states will pay a percentage of the cost of running the units that wanted to retire.  PJM says:
Based on PJM’s assessment of the contribution to the need for, and benefits expected to be derived from, the facilities, the zonal percentage cost allocation for 2017 (January 1, 2017 through April 15, 2017) is...
...followed by a table of allocation percentages.  I'm going to be paying 3.5%.   Meh.

Trade press RTO Insider says
Opposition to Va. Tx Line May Trigger Unintended Consequences

Sometimes the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.

Protesters of a 500-kV transmission line across the James River might soon learn that the hard way. PJM is responding to the delay in the project’s approval by instituting a multilayered strategy likely to hurt ratepayers in Virginia’s middle peninsula disproportionate to any perceived benefits that could come from blocking construction of the line.

At a series of committee meetings last week, PJM staff detailed several other changes for the area that will have consequences protesters likely haven’t imagined.
Like outrageous electric price spikes.
Really, PJM?  Whose interests do you serve again?  You think hitting senior citizens, and other folks who may just barely be scraping by, with surprise outrageous electric bills, and then blaming the opponents of a transmission line, is really going to work for you?

I thought PJM's purpose was:
Acting as a neutral, independent party, PJM operates a competitive wholesale electricity market and manages the high-voltage electricity grid to ensure reliability for more than 65 million people.
But it sure seems like PJM's purpose lately is to ram through the projects cooked up by its members without any room for compromise with the people who have to live with them.

Who would be hurt by a change to an underground/underwater project?  Oh, too expensive for the ratepayers, you say?  Well, what about your scheme to gouge ratepayers as punishment for opposing the project?  Won't that be too expensive?  Seems like the ratepayers are going to pay more either way, so why don't you just fall on your sword and cap the damages with a buried option?  At least that would come with a finite number, over the life of the project, instead of giving Grandma a nasty surprise she can't pay for.

And speaking of outrageous costs, PJM, who did you fool with your recent re-start of your Artificial Island project, after removing certain components to lower the overall cost?  I don't think it was ever about the amount... but the fact that the cost was allocated to people who would not benefit.  That hasn't changed.  Good luck with that!

Stop being stubborn, PJM.  You exist to serve the people, not the energy corporations.  It's getting harder and harder to build transmission, and do you know why?  Because the people aren't as easily fooled in this day and age of readily available, unfiltered information.  Badly conceived projects will no longer be tolerated.  So, get with the times, PJM, and recognize that compromise gets the job done.  Quicker.  Faster.  Cheaper.  Easier.  Now is not the time to act like a stubborn mule.

You know, this statement is completely ludicrous.
PJM works closely with stakeholders throughout the development of the RTEP. Stakeholder input is a key part of the PJM planning process. The Skiffes Creek project was reviewed in numerous open meetings of the PJM Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee where public comment was sought prior to approval of the project by the PJM Board. As part of that process, Dominion transmission staff provided PJM its own thorough and comprehensive analysis of system needs as well as potential solutions for PJM consideration. Most importantly however, the Dominion analysis, which itself was based on PJM’s initial determination of reliability criteria violations that needed to be addressed, was then independently validated by PJM and publicly vetted through the PJM stakeholder process prior to PJM recommending Board approval of the Skiffes Creek project.
Public comment was sought?  How did that happen, PJM?  Did you contact community leaders and ask for their comment?  Did you perhaps take out an ad in the local paper soliciting public comment about the project?  Did you go door-to-door and take a public poll?  Of course you didn't.  PJM doesn't interact with the public in any way while considering a transmission project.  It doesn't seek public comments... it simply accepts (and ignores) the comments of any "public" that may somehow happen to accidentally find their way into a PJM TEAC meeting.  The idea that PJM is a publicly accessible stakeholder-driven process is as bogus as it's ever been.  It's time to come out of the shadows, PJM, and interact with the scary public, instead of simply devising ways to punish them for defying you. 
2 Comments

Randy Dowdy Teach Big Lesson

3/16/2017

5 Comments

 
Randy Dowdy used to grow big corn.  But in the aftermath of a natural gas pipeline's crossing of his farm, he seems to nowadays be growing the public's attention to how landowners are routinely disrespected by the builders of new energy projects.

Dowdy's story is shocking.  It's awful.  It's infuriating.  His once extremely productive farm has been destroyed.  The company refuses to pay him for repairs.  Promises made were not promises kept.

Sadly, Randy Dowdy's story isn't unique.  Its a common story told over and over by landowners who are unfortunate enough to find themselves in the middle of a linear energy infrastructure project, whether pipeline or electric transmission line.

Lesson #1

Don't believe verbal promises from the company.
When Sabal Trail approached him, Dowdy agreed to a negotiated fee for the right-of-way and estimated crop loss because he knew if he balked, the government would help the company take it anyway. He agreed in good faith, as well. Sabal Trail promised that Dowdy’s land would be returned to its original state by early January, in time for the new planting season.

And this is where the dispute begins.

“I was assured that Sabal would adhere to Georgia Soil and Water provisions,” says Dowdy, “that they would adhere to guidelines for segregated top soil and sub soil…rebuild my terracing to insure erosion wouldn’t occur…and put everything back in pre-construction condition. They said they would do…in their words…everything it takes.”
Lesson #2

Companies will hide behind construction management plans approved by regulators.
Andrea Grover, Director of Stakeholder Communications for Sabal Trail, says the company “followed specific protocols in place for construction which include storm water, erosion and sediment control plans which all require best management practices or “BMPs.”

“Our representatives have worked with individual landowners over the course of the past 3 ½ years to address concerns as related to the project and its impact to agriculture,” Grover explains. “The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) is the lead agency which approves pipeline projects, and Sabal Trail’s work is limited to only the FERC approved areas and conditions for construction. Project inspection personnel and our contractors all have the appropriate level of certifications for storm water controls inspection in Georgia.”
Lesson #3

Landowner complaints are ignored.
While Sabal Trail management promised that Dowdy’s farm would be back in business by the first week in January, and ensured that the project right-of-way would be “restored to its previous condition and contours,” that wasn’t the case. Repairs continued into February—and, worse, were still in progress when a major late January storm hit the state.

“I had already reached out to Sabal Trail management at least five times in December to say I was seeing erosion issues,” recalls Dowdy. “They promised to fix it immediately, but they never did, so when the storm came, we were completely unprotected.”
Lesson #4

Your only remedy for a dispute over damage is through civil court, at your own expense.
Dowdy thought he had made some headway with Sabal Trail when the company, in an attempt to make peace with an unhappy landowner, offered to pay Dowdy to make additional repairs to his land.

“They asked me to put together an estimate for attempting to repair the land, including an acceptable value I placed on my wetlands, and additional future yield loss,” says Dowdy. “We made a verbal agreement and I began repairs as instructed. Sabal knew the costs and agreed to pay for the estimated costs of repair.”

“When it came time for them to pay though, they introduced a condition—in order to get my reimbursement, I would have to sign a document releasing Sabal from future long-term yield loss, wetland violations and compensation. Here I was repairing what they messed up at my own expense and then they want more.”

Dowdy says his lawyer advised him not to sign and, thus far, he has not signed nor has he received a penny of the promised reimbursement from Sabal Trail.

Next Step…Litigation?
Lesson #5

Despite having access to approved construction management plans, personnel actually completing the work have little knowledge of the plans and are apt to take shortcuts or plain ol' ignore the plans in order to get the job done easier and faster.  The people doing the actual construction work don't care about your property the way you do.
Dowdy’s laundry list of what wasn’t completed correctly by Sabal Trail is long.

“Sediment barriers were placed wrong, no hay was spread, there were no temporary terraces or berms…water was moving off my land at a 10% grade and sediment was going right into the surrounding wetlands and waterways. If Sabal had been in compliance with BMPs, I wouldn’t have been replacing 15,000 cubic yards of topsoil as I am having to do after the storm.”

Grover says Sabal Trail did return to Dowdy’s farm, and others impacted by pipeline construction, after the late January storm event, to “inspect the construction areas to ensure soil erosion devices installed according to the BMPs are working properly or repaired if necessary.”

But by then, says Dewey Lee, UGA Professor and Extension Agronomist, even though Sabal Trail installed additional BMPs after the storm damage was discovered, it was too late.

Lee who has worked with Dowdy on conditioning his farmland for a decade, says, “In the restoration that Sabal did, it appears they did not follow regulatory protocols perfectly. It appears that the crew handling the reconstruction did not have a full understanding of what their responsibilities were. This ultimately caused erosion down Randy’s waterways and across his field.”

Like Lee, irrigation specialist, Rance Harrod, knows well Dowdy’s attention to detail when it comes to his land. Dowdy and Lee’s suspicions that co-mingling of the top and sub soils in the fields was confirmed just last week after an irrigation supply line to the pivot began leaking. It was Harrod, along with Dowdy and a Sabal Trail employee, who worked on the fix.

Dowdy says as soon as Harrod began digging, it was apparent that the Sabal Trail repair crew had paid little attention to BMPs when it came to replacing the soil.

“Sabal has created tremendous soil loss and erosion resulting in offsite movement into the wetlands, no question about that. Randy’s damages are almost incalculable,” Lee adds.
Lesson #6

The regulators who approve construction management plans don't enforce them.  They expect that the company will police itself.  Company inspectors work for the company, not the landowners.  The fox cannot guard the hen house.
“I shared pictures of the problems I was seeing with the Georgia Environmental Protection Department to show them things weren’t being done to regulations, hoping that they would take it up with Sabal,” says Dowdy. “But they said they needed to see it at the time it happened…that a later complaint wasn’t enough.”

Dowdy recalls he asked the agent “well where were you when it needed to be inspected?” He says the agent told him they didn’t have enough manpower to be everywhere along a 500-mile pipeline at all times.

“The only people inspecting what Sabal was doing to my land was Sabal,” says Dowdy. “The way I see it, it was like the proverbial fox guarding the hen house.”
Energy companies and regulators talk big about construction plans that protect landowners.  Reality is often far different.

Construction management, environmental protection, and agricultural impact mitigation plans are just that... plans.  They offer no real protection for landowners.  They're just pieces of paper.  Don't be fooled.
5 Comments

Where's The Customers, Clean Line?

3/8/2017

5 Comments

 
The entire Arkansas Congressional delegation launched a new, two-pronged defense against  greedy Houston entrepreneur Clean Line Energy's federal plans for Arkansas this week.  The delegation announced that it was re-introducing its APPROVAL legislation, and sent a letter to new Energy Secretary Rick Perry asking that he take another look at the agency's participation in the Plains & Eastern Clean Line project under Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act.
Like many policies that were proposed by the Obama Administration, the DOE/Clean Line agreement is currently tied up in the courts.  DOE is involved in a lawsuit, forcing the agency to address the lingering doubts regarding the legal justification for the department’s decision.

If these concerns are ignored and the project is allowed to move forward, not only are Arkansans facing the prospect of losing their property due to a decision by the federal government, but your department risks codifying into law the practice of federal eminent domain seizures.  This dangerous precedent is antithetical to your distinguished record as a champion for states’ rights in the face of federal overreach.

Throughout your career you have been a champion of states’ rights.  This Administration has promised to give a voice back to its citizens.  This is a good way to show that commitment.

We will continue working to halt the project, not only because it violates property rights of Arkansans, but also because it violates the rights of all Americans to have their voices heard at the state and local level.  We hope you can appreciate our concerns and work with us to fight against this lingering overreach of the Obama Administration.
So much for Clean Line's desperate pretension that the new administration won't change its prospects in Washington.  Clean Line has only been kidding itself.  Looks like the real poo has hit the fan.

And what did Clean Line have to say for itself?  Prepare to be amused...
In a statement provided Monday to the media, Clean Line officials said the APPROVAL Act “creates more red tape and kills jobs by attempting to pull back approvals the project has already received.” The Clean Line statement also included a note of support from a large national union.

Clean Line Founder and President Michael Skelly said much consideration was given to the project before it was approved.

“We are very confident in the nearly decade long process undertaken by the U.S. Department of Energy in order to decide to participate in the project under Section 1222 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. This law was passed with bipartisan support, including then-Congressman John Boozman’s, and signed by President George W. Bush,” Skelly said in the statement. “The Plains & Eastern Clean Line is a pro-jobs, pro-consumer, pro-environment public energy infrastructure project that will help to create a secure energy future for the country, and we are ready to get to work.”

Red tape?  As if this project's efforts to bypass the Arkansas regulatory process and misuse an untested federal statute to force its way through the state wasn't already red tape enough.  But the real problem here seems to be the possibility that the DOE could "pull back approvals the project has already received."  That could happen.  In fact, the chances of it happening are escalating quite alarmingly.  But that's what Clean Line signed up for when it decided to attempt a merchant transmission line across multiple states.  Clean Line assumed all risk for the project.
Plains and Eastern state that they will assume all market risk associated with the development and construction of the Project and that there will be no captive customers.
Risk includes the possibility that laws and politics can and will change and "approvals" may be "pulled back."  That's the kind of risk that Clean Line signed up for.  But when real risk actually develops, Clean Line whines that it shouldn't have to face any risk.  Sorry, Clean Line, risk is your middle name.  Pull up your big boy pants and deal with it.  Risk just got real.

You've been trying to convince everyone that your project is "pro-jobs, pro-consumer, pro-environment" for months now, but it's just not working. 

How does one kill a job that doesn't exist?
“At the same time that our country is focused on creating opportunities for American workers, Arkansas Congressmen introduced a bill that will kill thousands of American jobs and, specifically, hundreds of Arkansas jobs,” said Lonnie Stephenson, International President of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). “Whether the infrastructure project be a pipeline or an electric transmission line, the IBEW strongly disapproves of politics getting in the way of American job creation.”
Hahahaha.  The unions thrive on politics!  Politics is the only reason Clean Line is using the union as its spokesmodel.  Building things we don't need in order to create make-work jobs for very specialized labor isn't a solution to America's economic woes.  The right to a temporary job for a union worker shouldn't have to be weighed against the right of an individual to own and enjoy real property.  You'd think unions would have other, more important, things to worry about these days instead of getting involved in political posturing in support of building a bridge to nowhere.  Clean Line has never even gotten close to building anything, anywhere.  The jobs don't exist.

The claim that Clean Line is "pro-consumer" is empty.  No consumers have supported the Clean Line projects.  Clean Line claims that its projects will result in lower electric rates are pure fantasy.  Clean Line doesn't exist, and neither do the "cheap, clean wind energy" generators it proposes will develop.

The pro-environment claim is also empty.  How does one preserve the environment by unsustainably plowing through three states with a gigantic, scorched earth obstruction?  And let's be real here... Clean Line has been marketing its project as an "arbitrage opportunity" to ship fossil fuel electricity between regions to take advantage of market price differentials.  There's no such thing as a "clean" line.  All electrons are the same color and transmission cannot discriminate between generation sources.  The only ones fooled by Clean Line's environmental claims are the sadly blind environmental groups, who refuse to peel back the propaganda and actually examine the project.

And there's nothing "secure" about an unneeded electric transmission line hundreds of miles long.  Clean Line does nothing to ensure grid reliability... if it did it would have been ordered by a regional transmission authority and the risk of building it would have passed to electric consumers.  But it didn't.  It's simply an extraneous bridge to nowhere designed for profit.

Now let's examine the REAL issue hiding behind Clean Line's carefully crafted smoke and mirrors...

The Plains and Eastern Clean Line has no customers!  That's right, nobody has signed a contract to use (and pay for) the transmission line.  Customers must voluntarily commit to purchase transmission capacity from Clean Line in order to create a future revenue stream.  Without a revenue stream, Clean Line cannot finance its project.  Without billions of dollars of financing, Clean Line cannot build its ginormous project.
Picture
It's all about the customers.

When is the media going to start asking the important questions, instead of simply fawning over the propaganda Clean Line feeds them?  Take Arkansas Business reporter Kyle Massey, for instance.  (Please?  Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck.)  Massey "reported" that President Trump loves infrastructure and eminent domain and therefore the Arkansas delegation "have opened an ideological battle that puts the all-Republican Arkansas congressional delegation in Washington at odds with the new infrastructure-friendly mindset of President Donald J. Trump."  Really, Kyle?  Is that what good Republican Michael Skelly told you?  That whole infrastructure thing is concocted wishful thinking designed to misdirect "reporters" like Kyle from the real issue... Where's the customers, Clean Line?  Because politics and "approvals" aside Clean Line cannot be built without customers.  Kyle also gushes that Clean Line's "construction effort" is scheduled to begin in the second half of this year.  That's 3 months away... and Clean Line has no customers... and no financing, and cannot meet the conditions DOE placed on their "approval" last year.  Without satisfying the DOE's conditions, DOE will not "participate" in the project in order to unlawfully condemn property for the part of the project it proposes to "own."  I doubt Clean Line will be building anything this year... or ever!

So what really happened this week?  Clean Line's risk just got real.  In addition to having no customers, Clean Line now risks that its "approval" by former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz will "be pulled" by new Energy Secretary Rick Perry.  It also is at risk that the law will change to require Section 1222 projects to receive the approval of a state's governor and PSC chairman, and for a federal project to be sited on federal property as much as possible.  How is Clean Line supposed to find willing customers with this much additional risk on its plate?  Doubtful.

Where's the customers, Clean Line?
5 Comments

Clean Line + Lobbyists + Lies

3/4/2017

8 Comments

 
My week just wouldn't be complete without a dose of Clean Line + Lobbyists + Lies.  How about yours?

Fox News has published a lobbyist's opinion filled with the most outrageous lies.  And then tried to make "news" out of it.  So, what else is new?

Back in January, "infrastructure company" CG/LA Infrastructure pushed a list of 50 infrastructure projects that was spun to pretend it came from the White House.  Of course, that wasn't exactly true.  The list of projects came from CG/LA Infrastructure, who said they prepared it for Trump.  Now CG/LA's "President and CEO", Norman Anderson, says he's lobbying the administration to push his list of projects forward through Executive Order, instead of going through Congress.  He says he's "definitely lobbying."  Okay, so he's a lobbyist for the projects on his list.  Lobbyist.

What projects are on his list?  One of them is the Plains & Eastern Clean Line.  Clean Line.

What does Anderson say about the Plains & Eastern Clean Line?
The Plains & Eastern Clean Line – the first new transmission line sited in this country in 45 years – would generate more than $9 billion in new investment.
P&E is NOT "the first new transmission line sited in the country in 45 years."  In fact, hundreds of transmission projects planned and ordered by federally regulated regional transmission organizations and independent system operators (PJM, ISO-NE, NY-ISO, SPP, MISO, CAISO, ERCOT) are underway all across the country.  Anderson's bold-faced lie isn't even that hard to disprove.  Here's a graphic by the US Energy Information Administration showing over a hundred billion dollars of investment in transmission projects built since 1997 (only 20 years ago)!  Go ahead, google search for "transmission investment" to find hundreds of examples that disprove this lie.  LIE.

And then there's the $9B figure attached to Clean Line's $2.5B project.  Where did that come from?

I think Clean Line is pretty disgusting lately trying to remake itself to appeal to a new administration.  Is there no boot too dirty to lick when there's money to be made?

Especially because all this posturing and lying doesn't actually accomplish anything for Clean Line.  Anderson thinks if Trump signs an Executive Order advancing the infrastructure projects on the list that they "will be approved in 4 months."  "Approval" isn't Clean Line's problem.  Clean Line already thinks its project is "approved" by the U.S. Department of Energy.  What's holding up Clean Line's project right now is LACK OF CUSTOMERS.  That's right, Plains and Eastern has NO CUSTOMERS.  An Executive Order can't force utilities to pay for Clean Line's project.  Anderson is barking up the wrong tree, and all the lies in the world cannot create a revenue stream for a project that's not needed.

Fake news.
8 Comments

Show Me Why Grain Belt Express Should Be Denied, Missouri!

2/7/2017

1 Comment

 
And, they did!  Rebuttal testimony in GBE's latest attempt to get its project approved by the Missouri Public Service Commission has been filed.  This article attempts to "analyze" and summarize, but it doesn't acknowledge the weight of the individual testimonies, and that was probably hard to do within the confines of a word count.  So, I had to read it for myself... and I can use as many words as I need to do it justice.

Landowner parties Missouri Landowners Alliance and Show Me Concerned Landowners presented a fact-based, detailed, well-rounded defense against Grain Belt express.  They were bolstered by excellent rebuttal from Blake Hurst of the Missouri Farm Bureau and landowner Christina Reichert.  On the other hand, intervenors supporting Grain Belt Express filed a whole bunch of "me, too" fluff that was short on fact and detail and is likely to blow away in any strong wind of scrutiny.

Here are some of my favorites:

Ralls County Commissioner Wiley Hibbard -- gosh, I love this guy!  His testimony can only be described as forthright.  He doesn't mince words, but gets directly to the point on all issues.  For example:
In my opinion, this whole project is an attempt by a small group of investors to make a large amount of profit from the wind energy generation from Kansas. They have offered the proverbial 30 pieces of silver to local governments. Some have apparently taken it. I for one will not choose to do so. They promise Ralls County a whole million dollars (they must think this is 1960) to sell out our future. It is asking a lot of us to have our land taken by force to enable a few to get rich. I believe that other elected office holders should think beyond just today.
One million dollars?
Point made, Wiley, point made!

Don Lowenstein of the Missouri Landowners Alliance did a fantastic job with a really difficult subject -- taxes.  Nobody wants to even think about taxes,  instead they hire guys like Don to think about taxes for them.  He carefully and factually explains why GBE's claims of tax riches for affected counties are an overly-hyped generalization that has no basis in reality.
I think Mr. Tregengo’s assessment of the benefit to school districts and other county taxing jurisdictions is misleading because the facts are materially understated. 

I believe his overall discussion is short sighted because it does not address the tax revenues generated by the Project after it goes into service. Nor does it address the long term net tax benefits or losses. Therefore I regard most of his testimony as having little significance to an overall assessment of the longer term tax benefits to Missourians.

Basically, I believe that he spoke in generalizations which might leave the reader to see a much brighter prospect than actually exists for tax revenue benefits to Randolph and the other seven counties on the line. He omitted a discussion of which taxing jurisdictions receive little or no tax benefit.

Property devaluation expert Kurt Kielisch submitted fascinating testimony regarding the way electric transmission lines affect values of agricultural and rural property, and why industry-biased studies fail to capture the true cost to landowners.  The value of a piece of property in an open market is primarily perceptual, an idea routinely dismissed by industry-biased studies.
Essentially, the value of a property is based on the perception of the buyer. Understanding that perception drives value is the foundation in analyzing the effect that electric transmission lines have on property value.

This perception does not have to be based on a scientific or engineering fact, it is based on what a buyer believes. An example of perception driving value based solely on belief is the haunted house. A home cannot be proven scientifically to be haunted. Yet, there are several homes throughout the nation thought to be “haunted” which stigmatizes the property resulting in a diminished selling price.
Why would anyone want to purchase a piece of property with a high-voltage transmission line when they can find a comparable property without one?  I'm pretty sure nobody ever considered a high-voltage transmission line a wonderful and useful addition to a piece of property they were considering buying.  This goes double for agricultural property, where transmission lines pose an additional safety concern that the farmer has to work around.

Electric power expert Joseph Jakulski completely shreds GBE's greatest hope for approval, the transmission contract between GBE and the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission (MJMEUC).
Just as in the last case, Grain Belt still has no memorandums of understanding with wind generators, and no firm commitments from any load serving utilities to buy capacity on the proposed transmission line.

Grain Belt fails to mention that MJMEUC may without penalty or cost elect to take no capacity over the new line, and that decision will be made sixty to ninety days before the line is then expected to enter service.

The TSA is nothing more than an option agreement.


In short, there currently is no commitment from MJMEUC to buy any capacity on the proposed transmission line.

And about that purported $10M annual savings?
The only support provided for the $10 million estimate from the MJMEUC was an eight-row spreadsheet in response to MLA’s Data Request MJM.13.

It is a flawed calculation of the cost of transmitting 100 MW and 200 MW of wind power from SPP to MISO. There is no calculation of, or comparison to, buying wind power over Grain Belt. The spreadsheet also contains an error in calculating the loss component of the costs. The total costs end up including addition of megawatt-hours and dollars which is flawed mathematics.

The testimony of Christina Reichert is a well-written and compelling account GBE's burden on landowners, as well as a jaw-dropping account of GBE's repulsive interactions with landowners.  Christina tells how she was approached by GBE personnel after the PSC's original denial of the project because the PSC specifically mentioned her situation in their Order.  GBE told her they had "good news" and that the line was being rerouted off her property.  What happened next should give everyone pause:
  1. Mr. Lawlor asked how we felt about this move. We told him we would be thrilled not to have the line crossing our property, but that we did not want it moved to our neighbor’s property either. We couldn’t bring ourselves to benefit at the expense of our neighbors.

  2. He said that the proposal to move the line seemed like a viable option, but that they expected something in return from us. My husband asked what he meant. Mr. Lawlor never did tell us exactly what they were expecting in return for moving the line off our property, but said it would be nice to have something from us.
  3. We eventually told Mr. Lawlor that we could not agree to a move that would be detrimental to our neighbors, and that we would continue to oppose the Grain Belt Project. They thanked us for our time and left. That was the last we heard from Grain Belt about rerouting the line.
These are not the fair and aboveboard interactions with landowners that GBE pretends to carry out.  These are actions designed to reward landowners who toss their neighbors under the bus and support the project for the express purpose of saving themselves.  Sort of reminds me of GBE's pet landowner, Wayne Wilcox, who has testified that GBE crossing a tiny corner of his property isn't a problem and that he thinks the project is wonderful.

The testimony of agricultural expert Charles Kruse is a compelling account of the effects of GBE on agricultural operations.
I will rebut Grain Belt witnesses James Arndt’s and Lanz testimonies regarding how the Grain Belt Express project could impact farming operations as well as discuss other issues regarding the negative impacts to farming and land as a result of large transmission projects like the Grain Belt project. Specifically, I will address the following negative impacts: Compaction of Soil; Erosion; Irrigation Equipment Interference; Difficulty in Aerial Applications to Crops and Pastures; Possible GPS Interference; Problems Maneuvering Large Farm Equipment around Towers; Precision Farming Problems; Concerns about Storm Recovery; and Eminent Domain.
And he does, in factual detail.  He demonstrates that GBE's "agricultural expert" really misses the mark, as well as GBE's land lady, who really doesn't know much about agriculture at all.

Missouri Farm Bureau president Blake Hurst explains his organization's opposition to eminent domain, and he gets right to the truth:
Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC’s supposed promises to sell power to Missouri municipalities should be recognized for what they are: a political stunt to create pressure for approval of this project by giving small benefits to local governments at the massive expense of landowners’ rights. Those municipalities in support will bear none of the burden from Grain Belt’s proposed project. It is instead Missouri’s rural landowners that will experience significant disruptions in their operations if Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC is given the power to force land sales through eminent domain takings. This development does not change the underlying nature of the Grain Belt Express proposal. The project remains an attempt to engage in the abuse of eminent domain for private gain.
But the Missouri PSC Staff's report may perhaps be weightiest of all.  The Staff is acting as an impartial party to investigate GBE's claims and make recommendations to the Commissioners.  The PSC Staff found that the project is not needed and that GBE's analysis of "need" is severely flawed.  Staff also determined that the project is not necessarily economically beneficial.  It also opined that the Commission cannot grant a permit until GBE has the consent of the counties crossed.   The Staff has concerns about how GBE affects the safety of pipelines adjacent to its proposed route, as well as GBE's current ability to repair the project in event of failure.
In summary, based on Staff’s review: 1) Grain Belt does not have the consent of the Caldwell county commission for its proposed transmission line to cross the public roads and highways in that county, the validity of its consent from the Monroe County Commission is being challenged in court, and, presently, the prefiled evidence does not include any such consents by the county commissions of Buchanan, Clinton, Caldwell, Carroll, Chariton, Randolph, Monroe and Ralls Counties; 2) There is not a clear need for the Project; 3) Grain Belt is qualified to construct, own, operate, control and manage the Project, but additional expertise will be needed once engineering and safety issues have been resolved; 4) Grain Belt has the financial ability to undertake the Project; 5) It is not clear whether the Project is economically feasible due to the lack of various RTO studies and the uncertainties surrounding the ATXI Mark Twain transmission line and its effects on the Missouri converter station and corresponding congestion; 6) A determination cannot be made at this time as to whether the Project is in the public interest since there is still uncertainty related to the economic feasibility and the safety of the Project.
I'm not going to address the majority of the GBE supporters who filed "rebuttal testimony" in this case.  It's a fluffy bunch of opinion and hot air, short on facts and long on stuff that doesn't matter.  Instead I'm going to focus on only the testimony of MJMEUC witness John Grotzinger, who claims:
It is expected that the MoPEP cities will save approximately $10 million annually by utilizing the Grain Belt Express and Infinity wind contract in their power supply after the IPM contact ends in 2021.
And then he attaches the same spreadsheets that the MLA's witness has already shredded.  But you know what I found really amazing?  The continued use of that $10M savings number.  It was first seen in GBE's proposal to the cities last year as a preliminary calculation using existing production tax credits for wind.  And wouldn't you know it... that number has never varied, despite the reduction in production tax credits, and the sudden addition of a wind PPA just as the testimony was filed.  Wow, serendipity, right?  Or maybe just a little too much coincidence for believability.  It reminds me of the misery of high school algebra... here's the answer to a problem, now create an equation that could result in that answer.  Magic math!

Which brings us to the thing I found most ridiculous.  GBE's legal shenanigans and dirty tricks designed to keep MJMEUC's magic math from being fairly analyzed.  GBE wants MJMEUC to be able to barf all this who shot John into the evidentiary record at the latest possible date, and then prevent the other parties from getting background information to assist their analysis and rebuttal.  GBE has presented a "Joint Defense Agreement" that basically states that GBE and MJMEUC have a common interest and a joint defense that allows them to share information between the parties and keep the information they share confidential.  GBE supposes this keeps all its interactions with MJMEUC under wraps, a big mystery that can never be questioned.  Just look at that $10M savings number and don't ask how we got there.

But yet, GBE and MJMEUC chose to not file MJMEUC's testimony as part of GBE's direct testimony last summer.  Instead, they chose to keep it under wraps until January, when opposing parties would have only 30 days to analyze and respond to it.  GBE and MJMEUC pretend this is perfectly innocent, and that MJMEUC filed its testimony at its first opportunity -- the deadline for rebuttal testimony.  It simply wasn't legally allowed to file earlier.  Umm... deadline?  A deadline to file testimony means the last possible opportunity.  A deadline does not prevent an earlier filing.  In fact, MJMEUC could have filed its "rebuttal" testimony at any time prior to the deadline.  But filing it on the deadline narrowed the window of time available to the other parties to respond to it.  Your unsportsmanlike actions are plain for all to see, GBE.  So, if GBE believes MJMEUC is its saving grace for this application, and MJMEUC's contract is such a wonderful, transparent attempt to save ratepayers money, why is it trying to shield it from scrutiny?  And what does this say about whose interests MJMEUC is really representing at this point?  A really good deal for the electric consumers MJMEUC is supposed to serve should be able to shine in the sun, not be hidden under layers of confidentiality and legal dirty tricks.  If I was an electric customer in any of those cities, I'd be distinctly suspicious.  It's clear that GBE will do anything and toss anyone under the bus in order to get its project approved.  Must be a lot of money in it for someone.
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.