Category:

Is Atlantic Wind Connection's Shift in Focus a Sign of Frustration?

10/27/2013

Remember the Atlantic Wind Connection, the auspicious offshore wind backbone transmission project first unveiled in 2010? At the time, AWC intended to build a $5B, 350-mile network of underwater cables to bring 6,000MW of offshore wind power to 1.9 million homes along the Atlantic seaboard. This could be accomplished with very little new onshore transmission (and without time-consuming and costly opposition to same), therefore this project should be a quick and easy build, a win-win, an environmentalist's and landowner's dream, right?

Wrong. AWC has faced hurdle after hurdle tossed in its path by regulators and competing transmission interests. They're all crying boo hoo about how this is going to cost too much. Instead, these same regulators have plunked down over 2 billion dollars on the unneeded Susquehanna Roseland transmission project in New Jersey, designed to increase the transfer of both nuclear and coal-fired electricity from the Ohio Valley to New Jersey's east coast. We've also financed the more than a billion dollar TrAILCo transmission project, designed to do the same thing by importing western resources into the Washington, D.C. suburbs. Most heinously, these same regulators and regional planners have also wasted approximately half a billion dollars of consumer cash on the failed PATH and MAPP transmission projects that were never built (also designed to move power from west to east). If we add all this up, we're probably in the ball park of what it would have cost to build AWC three years ago, instead of the failed Project Mountaineer.

And east coast regulators and the PJM cartel still struggle to waste consumer cash on generation subsidies, public policy requirements, market efficiency project windows, inter-regional import/export battles and other dumb ideas designed to maintain historical west to east power flows, all while shoving AWC under the bus again and again. Why? Is it because AWC would take market share from all these competing interests? Or maybe AWC just isn't a member of the PJM good ol' boys club? Or maybe it's both.

I came across a story the other day announcing that AWC is "shifting its goal to moving electricity across New Jersey instead of connecting offshore wind farms."

The new plan is called the New Jersey Power (or Energy?) Link and is a $1.8B project "[b]uried under the ocean floor and running the length of the coastline, the New Jersey Energy Link will bring power to shore at three locations serving southern, central and northern New Jersey. When complete, it will be capable of carrying 3,000 megawatts of offshore wind and conventional electricity generated in New Jersey – enough to power more than 1 million homes."

This new "focus" will reduce high energy prices in northern New Jersey by "...mov[ing] power from southern New Jersey to the northern part of the state where energy prices are higher." It's no longer about offshore wind or renewables. Seems like AWC has thrown in the towel on "saving the environment" for the time being, and who could blame them? The big green groups who are busy sucking on the teats of midwest wind and transmission interests have made it clear that they're not interested in offshore wind.

Of course, this now means that AWC is going to be looking for regionally allocated, PJM-ordered, consumer financing for its project, instead of the merchant (self-funded) project it was originally intended to be.

And what do the regulators say about that?

“For us, it’s generally about cost effectiveness,” said New Jersey Rate Counsel Director Stefanie Brand. “It’s hard for us to support a project like this” because there are less expensive options."

I'm starting to see why AWC might be just a little frustrated by now.

So now AWC will be built in phases over a ten year period. Whatever works to get the job done, because the alternative is a whole bunch of new overland transmission. On paper, some think overland transmission might be "cheaper." I'm thinking not. Building new land based transmission is becoming more expensive and time consuming every day, and time is money in the transmission development game. The price of building transmission is skyrocketing due to increased information dissemination and networked organization of opposition groups. Transmission opposition has gotten much more sophisticated and is coming together nationwide. Uninformed country bumpkin landowners who sell fast and cheap are a thing of the past.

AWC has changed its website and tactics. It sort of looks like they copied our "friends" at Clean Line. Check out the "Supply Chain" graphics here. The handshake and pencil graphics look a lot like these, don't they? There's also a whole bunch of jobs, jobs, jobs stuff and other claims of dubious merit that look pretty familiar. However, AWC doesn't have "a bunch of ticked off farmers" barking at its heels and tossing banana peels in its path. How much do you think opposition costs? It's getting more and more expensive every day.

Every landowner between here and the midwest ought to be lining up to support AWC, instead of the snarl of expensive, uncoordinated "renewable" transmission lines from land based wind farms that's currently being proposed. And every state government on the east coast needs to make a decision -- offshore wind and economic development at home, or sending your energy dollars out of state for imported and unreliable "renewable" energy? Short term cost decisions may not be wise or sustainable over the long term.

What we don't need, however, is AWC and a whole bunch of western "renewables," which is what we may get if AWC is used only as a new north-south transmission "superhighway" as currently proposed. AWC claims it's not a "build it and they will come" project. Right, fellas ;-)

0 Comments

More Clean Line Shenanigans in Mendota?

10/27/2013

6 Comments

Do you think Clean Line Energy Partners learned anything the last time they came to Mendota? I hope so, because those Texans were like fish out of water. Their over-the-top attempts to take over and control a public event that was intended for landowners affected by the company's project were not well-received. In fact, they were downright destructive to Clean Line's public image. It's impossible to get away with that kind of nonsense in "Mayberry," where everybody knows everybody else and many unnoticed eyes and ears are always collecting information.

Why is Clean Line so afraid to let affected landowners have their say? It seems only fair that those asked to sacrifice for this company's project at least be allowed to speak publicly about their sacrifice, without restraint or interference from the company.

So, is Clean Line planning another round of underhanded shenanigans? I hope not. Any attempts to unfairly control the hearing will be exposed. Clean Line should get over their idea that they're dealing with "a bunch of dumb farmers."

Here's a trio of tricks Clean Line should drop from its repertoire:

1. Line jumping by signing up speakers who are not present. Clean Line got publicly called out on this one last time, when its white-shirted schemers deployed individuals to sign the names of people who were not present to the speakers list, just to make sure they were "saved" a good spot in the line-up. But that practice backfired... because of the aforementioned unseen eyes and ears.

See the woman in beige? I have no idea what her name is, but I know it's not Theresa Hoover, Sales Manager of The Southwire Company. But, there she is, in line right behind me to sign up to speak at the first Mendota hearing. When this same woman was called to the microphone much earlier than me, I wondered if the hearing officer had somehow mixed up his list. It all became clear when "Theresa Hoover" was called to speak after me, and no one responded. Here's what happened next, according to the transcript:

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Excuse me.You called Theresa Hoover who is a colleague of mine right before this gentleman spoke. Is there an opportunity for me to speak?

HEARING OFFICER: Say that
again.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: You called
Theresa Hoover.

HEARING OFFICER: Yes.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name was
supposed to be on the card instead of
Theresa's, so when you called her I
didn't step up because I didn't know it
was --

HEARING OFFICER: I have got to
go by what I started with.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: So would it
be okay if Theresa came up and spoke?

HEARING OFFICER: Pardon me?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Are you
saying Theresa would need to come up?

HEARING OFFICER: Correct.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay.

Fast Forward through one speaker...

HEARING OFFICER: Where did
that gentleman go that asked me the
question?
Is Theresa here?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: She is.

HEARING OFFICER: Where is she?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Here.

HEARING OFFICER: Theresa,
stand up, please.
Was it supposed to be his name on
there instead of yours?

THERESA HOOVER: Yes, sir, it
was.

HEARING OFFICER: Okay.

KERYN NEWMAN: Some other lady
signed that name because they were right
in front of us. Some lady that already
spoke signed Theresa's name up. I
watched her do it.
Theresa and him, neither one of them
signed their name

HEARING OFFICER: Is that true?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I did not sign my name. Theresa was supposed to sign my name.

HEARING OFFICER: Theresa, did
you sign your name?

THERESA HOOVER: No, sir,
actually someone who got here before us.
We made a long trip from Atlanta and
there was a gentleman that signed us up.

HEARING OFFICER: No, no.

Word is, there won't be a sign up at Monday's hearing. I wonder if that is the ICC's way of preventing a repeat of this kind of bad behavior?

2. The game of musical chairs intended to replace landowners in the auditorium with late-arrival, Clean Line-clad speakers in the lobby.

Those who were standing along the wall of the auditorium weren’t able to hear the testimony for long. Shortly after Nelson finished, a Mendota Police Department officer appeared at the stage and conversed with the moderator for several minutes.

“The fire marshal says we have exceeded the number of people in this room. All the people who are standing up against the wall, you are either going to have to leave the room or look for a seat. If you’re not in a seat, you have to be out of this room,” said the moderator, who then proceeded to call out the locations of empty chairs in the auditorium.

When those chairs were filled, a large number of Mendota police officers cleared those who still were standing out into the entryway of the high school. However, a few minutes later, some half a dozen people wearing Clean Line Energy shirts were standing back in one of the doorways, and police did not move to order them away.

Most of those who had been standing in the auditorium and who could not find a seat left the hearing as there was no provision for audio or video feed of the remarks outside the auditorium.

The ICC seems to have solved this by moving to a bigger room with adjustable seating.

3. The "Supporter's Dinner" (because RICL only has ONE supporter, or because they don't know how to use apostrophes?) Offers of free food and t-shirts, reimbursement for transportation costs, or just plain old offers to pay someone to speak on your behalf will be interpreted as paid-for, biased testimony and ARE NOT FAIR OR ACCEPTABLE.

I wonder how embarrassing it would be if a spy attended the "supporter's dinner" and then turned right around and testified all about Clean Line's "secret" shenanigans to drum up paid speakers on its behalf afterwards? Just don't do it, Clean Line, and save yourself a whole lot of embarrassment, okay?

I do wonder why Clean Line cannot fairly rest upon the merits of its project, and finds it necessary to resort to tricks and deceitfulness in an attempt to hoodwink the ICC to approve of its project? Maybe RICL isn't such a good project after all. Think about it.

6 Comments

FirstEnergy and WV PSC Use Media to Quell the Public at "Public Comment Hearings" in West Virginia

10/25/2013

2 Comments

I said it out loud the other night in Shepherdstown, but it bears repeating: FirstEnergy and the West Virginia Public Service Commission ought to be ashamed of themselves!

Regulated and regulator have joined together to expend quite a bit of time and money on a farcical series of "public comment hearings" that turned out to be nothing but publicity stunts attempting to mollify unhappy customers, convince them that the company did nothing wrong, and that all the problems have been solved. I'd expect nothing less from FirstEnergy, but I really expected more from the West Virginia Public Service Commission.

Fortunately, our legislature has our back this time and has opened their own investigation of the PSC's investigation. Be sure to let your legislator know how unhappy you are with the PSC's behavior and media spin at the hearings.

The problems began with the PSC's announcement that FirstEnergy would be making a presentation at the beginning of what was inaccurately described as a PUBLIC comment hearing. FirstEnergy isn't "the public," and we're sick and tired of hearing their spin. We all know the story by heart now... Storms, 30% Colder, and Renumbering, Oh My!

In addition, the PSC "ordered" FirstEnergy to issue a press release about the meetings to the media. FirstEnergy did it in such a way that nobody paid any attention and made sure there would be no advance notice of the hearings in the media. None of the media I contacted knew anything about the hearings. That's funny, when everybody in the area can recite FirstEnergy's billing excuses from memory. The company didn't seem to have any trouble making sure that message got out to the media.

To top it all off, many who attended in Shepherdstown complained that, in addition to plain old lack of timely notice, the hearings were scheduled at hours inconvenient to the Eastern Panhandle's commuting population. An evening hearing beginning at 5:30 was much too early, when at least 50% of the residents face at least an hour (or more, sometimes lots more!) commute back home after getting off at 5:00. Since it was unknown how long the hearing would last, many simply didn't make the effort to come all the way to Shepherdstown to find out if it was still going on when they finally got back to West Virginia.

And then let's think about the PSC's order that FirstEnergy bring along a crew of customer service reps. Why do you suppose that was? It was so the PSC would have a fictional happy place to pass off the sadder stories they would undoubtedly have to endure at these hearings. It makes them look like they care and that they have "helped" people. Maybe it even makes them feel that way too, even if it isn't true. The craziest moment of Shepherdstown's two hearings may have been when Chairman Albert went right on advising a disabled vet to visit the nice company reps in the other room to make things all better, while someone who went to Happy Town before her could be heard yelling "I don't want any more of your excuses!" while police ran through the auditorium to break it up. Chairman Albert didn't miss a beat. Was everyone holding hands and singing Kumbaya backstage in the customer service area? Nope, but that's another post.

Can we also ponder the timing of these "public comment hearings" in the grand scheme of the investigation? Why did the Commission feel it was necessary to put the public input part of this investigation off for 4 months after opening the investigation? It was because it was hoping that the public would lose interest while lower summer and fall usage made it appear that the company had "solved" the problem.

Of course, the media can't be entirely blameless here either. The sad state of our media is readily apparent when reviewing "news" from the hearings. Young reporters who are pushed to produce quantity over quality choose to take the pre-packaged story presented to them by spinners like Toad Meyers and Susan Small, even when it doesn't correlate to what the reporter can see and hear for herself. Much of the news to come out of the supposed "public comment" hearings was focused on the actions of the company or the PSC, instead of the actual public they were intended to hear from. Reporters weren't interested in hearing from the public, they were satisfied with the PSC and FirstEnergy's interpretation of why the public was unhappy.

Only the experienced WV Public Broadcasting reporter produced an accurate, unbiased story. The rest of the reporters were just wasting our time.

The sole bright spot in this debacle was watching FirstEnergy spinner Toad Meyers become increasingly unglued as the questions got harder. The quotes attributed to him went from bad to worse.

“There may be a little bit less meter readers .."

For a little bit less accuracy? Ya know how I know you're making crap up, Toad? Because it's a grammatical disaster!

“We’re trying to improve the estimation, the logarithm, the routine so we can get a more accurate estimate.”

If FirstEnergy doesn't understand the difference between a logarithm and an algorithm, its no wonder they're having so many problems estimating peoples' bills!

“One thing that I’ve got to stress that is very important, everyone’s situation with electricity is unique, with their properties, with their usage. So if people have a question they need to call us directly and work with us.”

What does uniqueness have to do with it being important to contact the company (instead of The Coalition for Reliable Power perhaps?) Logic fail!

Mon Power Spokesman Todd Meyers said it all started with the derecho.

No, it all started with the costly Allegheny Energy/FirstEnergy merger in 2011. The company needed to find a way to pay for that, and cutting services for customers produced "merger synergies."

Meyers acknowledged that meter reading has declined, explaining that about seven percent of meters were being read every other month, a number that fell to two and a half percent.

Let's take a moment to examine Toad's Magic Math. Seven percent of meters are being read every other month. This means that 93% of meters are NOT being read every other month. This statistic lines up with the results of our own customer survey, where 89 of 92 customers said their meter had not been read every other month as required by the tariff. But why would Toad brag about this stunning lack of performance? Why, Toad, why?

Meyers said the next step after the hearings will involve the PSC looking at the transcripts from the hearings and sending reports to Mon Power and Potomac Edison..."

Who's in charge here? Mon Power and Potomac Edison or the PSC, compiler and sender of "reports" for the company's use?

"Between the storms, between the renumbering, something that we instituted to make the process better but in the short run it actually made some things worse. You had a string of estimates, and that could result at the end where we came out to read a meter in a larger than expected actual bill," said Todd Meyers.

Wow, Toad! That's a very impressive string of senseless babble. It's practically incoherent. You should get a nice bonus for that one!

"Our belief is that we're able to do it every other month, it's worked well doing that except for more recently but i think we're going back to the place where it worked pretty well," said Todd Meyers, Potomac Edison's spokesman.

Again, incoherent babble that would make an English teacher cringe, but let's try to translate. Toad believes that if they "do it" every other month it works well. Except that they didn't "do it" every other month. So, it didn't work well. Toad thinks that maybe they might be going back to "doing it" every other month, so maybe it's going to work "pretty well." Except, it's not.

"Believe me, we want to make this right, we want to fix this and we worked very diligently to do that and we continue to work, and anything that comes out of this investigation, anything that the PSC prescribes is something that would be good to do going forward, you know, we'll be doing that," said Meyers.

I'm sorry, I'm not buying this fake concern. Is there anybody who thinks Toad is sincere? "Believe me?" Hahaahahaaaaa! After all these years of pissing on the public's leg and telling them it's raining, now Toad wants us to "believe" him? FirstEnergy has steadfastly denied there is a problem to be fixed, and has only "worked very diligently" to cover up the company's culpability. I am thrilled to know that "we" will be following any orders of the PSC though. Nice touch! But, the company already admits it has not complied with its PSC-ordered tariff, so we'll assume it will afford equal deference to whatever the PSC "prescribes." (I would order a big ol' dose of sodium pentothal).

However, they don't think they'll be able to do a meter reading every month because of staffing.

I guess it's going to cost your company some money to hire enough staff then, Toad. Duh. That's part of the penalty to "make things right."

Moving forward, Potomac Energy officials say they'll do what's best for the customer.

Because the company has been doing what's best for the company up until this point?

Poor, idiotic Toad Meyers. But, at least he was only attempting to represent his company. The PSC's spinner, Susan Small, was attempting to tell the media what the public was thinking. Susan has no idea what the problem is here, much less what the Commission will do about it. Susan blew off the Citizens' Public Hearing in Charles Town in May, sending a letter of excuses for the company, instead of a staff member. Susan has a lot on her plate, and that's a shame, but if she can't do her job because of it, then she needs to step down. When asked why she couldn't be bothered to do any public relations to promote these public hearings in the media, Susan hid behind the requirement that they be advertised in the legal section of the local paper as "adequate notice" to the public. When asked about the purpose of the press release FirstEnergy was ordered to produce, I don't remember her having much of an answer. Let's take a look at Susan's attempts to frame a problem she knows nothing about (and probably cares about even less):

“My bill is inconsistent, I’m getting estimated bills instead of actual bills,” are the most common complaints the PSC has heard, Small said.

“Between weather situations and the way that they changed their billing processes, many customers have received two, three, four, five estimated bills in a row,” Small said. “And unfortunately, a lot of those estimates have been very low, so when the true-up bill comes, all of a sudden, it’s much higher than the customer’s expecting.”

“That’s what we’re working on now. One of the things they (the customer) can do is call the company and make sure that it’s an actual reading, that that’s actually what they owe, and if it’s more than they can handle right off, work out a deferred payment plan, sort of putting your arrearage on a budget plan so that you can pay it off over a number of months,” according to Small.

Small added FirstEnergy, the parent corporation of both companies, is being required to submit customer service metrics to the PSC on a monthly basis, but they also want to hear from the customers.

"They ordered the companies to file specific customer service metrics so we can keep track of things like calls into the call center, whether or not people are being satisfied with the first call, how long they're having to wait on the phone," said PSC spokesperson, Susan Small.

"It wouldn't be unreasonable in this kind of case for the commission to issue a final order that required first energy to keep up the flow of data coming into the commission so we can make sure that their customer service numbers are where they should be and the customer is getting the service they deserve," said Small.

I'm sure those customer service metrics are going to come in handy to keep people warm this winter when they can't pay their badly estimated bills. Maybe Susan intends for you to roll them up into paper logs and burn them to keep warm?

Thanks for the "help," Susan. I'll be handing out YOUR phone number to people who can't pay their bills this winter, instead of the phone number of my little friend at the customer call center. Too bad Susan isn't proactive enough to provide advice on how to prevent those large bills from ever happening in the first place, so that no one ever has to "pay their bill off over a number of months," because then we wouldn't need to hand out anyone's phone number.

This story is an absolute mess.

This story doesn't even mention the PSC's involvement.

Maybe Susan should have been doing her job all along, instead of trying to simply make it LOOK like she's been working by jumping in front of every TV camera that showed up at the hearings.

So, let's review. The PSC set this up to make itself simply appear to be taking action. The purpose and timing of the hearings was carefully planned to make sure most people could or would not attend. Despite a steady turn out of articulate, credible "public" with compelling and shocking stories that painted FirstEnergy's incompetence and greed as bordering on criminal, the story that was spun for the media is that the problems are fixed and everyone is happy.

The West Virginia Public Service Commission continues to fail the public it is tasked with protecting from utility monopolies. Tell your elected officials that we need to make changes at the PSC until the needs of the public are being served.

2 Comments

FirstEnergy and Its Captive Customers Give Each Other the Stink Eye in Shepherdstown

10/24/2013

8 Comments

Customer Sharon Wilson was one of many this morning who refused to be silenced by FirstEnergy corporate counsel's stink eye. I think he needs to practice that look in front of the mirror some more. It doesn't work.

FirstEnergy faced off with ratepayers in Shepherdstown at two public comment hearings in as many days. Despite the plaintive wail coming from a march of malcontents, the company, the PSC and some media outlets continue to cling to their fantasy that things are getting better. They're not, of course, but FirstEnergy persists in denying any wrongdoing, while continuing to make excuses for the reprehensible way it has treated its meal ticket, err.... "customers."

The PSC and the company, working in tandem, quelled their fright of the Eastern Panhandle by scheduling the hearings for hours inconvenient for the area's DC-communting population, and refusing to undertake any effort to give the public adequate notice of the hearings.

No matter -- the company was still resoundingly spanked by a determined group of unhappy customers who came to tell their stories. Those who made the effort to speak out in Shepherdstown included a single mom who had to choose between feeding her child or having heat due to outrageous Potomac Edison bills, and a retired couple who received a bill from Mon Power for their West Virginia second home that totaled more than $5,000. Many more came before the Commission and though their personal stories were varied, all those who spoke asked that the company be ordered to read every meter every month for a period of one year in order to develop accurate usage data on which to base future estimates.

The public also resoundingly agreed that FirstEnergy's presentation of continued excuses was... crap! The only ones who seemed to enjoy it were the media and FirstEnergy's lawyer, who listened raptly to the exact same presentation with a pseudo-fascinated concentration... twice.

In the face of all its misdeeds being publicly exposed by customer after customer, FirstEnergy continued to make excuses and deny that there is a problem. FirstEnergy steadfastly refuses to admit its failings, issue a credible apology, and make amends for the injury it has caused to its captive customers.

Disgusting.

8 Comments

An Open Letter to EUCI From "The Public"

10/18/2013

22 Comments

Dear EUCI,

I've come across another one of your conference agendas recently. After drying my tears of laughter, I shared it with my friends in "Mayberry." They are not impressed. In fact, you could call them downright miffed at your arrogant, condescending and inaccurate attempt to pretend you understand them, their communities, and their lifestyles. How dare you!?!

The cause of the current consternation is your 8th Annual Public Participation for Transmission Siting conference. While this conference has historically been an annual source of amusement to transmission opposition leadership, this time you've gone too far.

Perhaps all that crisp, green sponsorship gets in the way of your better judgement, but should you take a few moments to reflect on the veracity of your conference speakers, as well as the accuracy and effectiveness of their presented material, you might find something amiss.

Keynote speaker Jimmy Glotfelty's presentation is touted as:

Clean Line energy will discuss the public engagement challenges that are inherent when developing and building new large infrastructure projects. How do we overcome these challenges and work to ensure that our stakeholders feel they are informed and part of the process, each step of the way? He will discuss the lessons learned and some of the challenges faced in his career developing transmission projects across multiple states.

Jimmy Glotfelty? The same Jimmy Glotfelty with the orange shirts and bribe money? The same Jimmy Glotfelty who had to be told by the police to stop harassing high school students and offering them money to testify in favor of his project? That Jimmy Glotfelty?? We've heard of him.

First of all, we don't believe that Jimmy has successfully developed any transmission projects during his "career." We consider him a wanna be. Secondly, we wonder if Jimmy will be giving away orange t-shirts, hamburgers, gas money and rides to the conference to demonstrate how he "overcomes" challenges? Jimmy's deliberate, completely avoidable, behavior at a recent Illinois Commerce Commission Public Hearing was reprehensible and probably did more damage to Clean Line Energy's public and regulatory image than any number of truly unavoidable challenges ever could. We fear that if other transmission developers begin to adopt Jimmy's methods, transmission building is going to come to a screeching halt and the lights are going to go out. Jimmy should be considered transmission's public enemy #1.

Next, we'd like to discuss your burgeoning interest in social media. Just so you know, social media allows the public to express opinions that drive rejection or acceptance of an idea or proposal.

Case Studies: Understanding Ins-and-Outs of Utilizing Social Media for Public Engagement.
In a time where social media is one of the most common forms of communication, it is
important to understand when it is appropriate to utilize it to engage the public and stakeholders during the transmission siting process. It is crucial to understand when to use it as a main form of communication or as a supplementary form of communication - and who you can expect to reach, and how. This presentation will use and demonstrate
how social media is currently being used as an integral portion of a public outreach and
communications plan.
- Louisa Kinoshi, Associate, Clean Line Energy

Did you even bother to look at Clean Line Energy's Facebook real estate before agreeing to this presenter's version of social media mastery? Probably not, because Clean Line Energy no longer has any Facebook properties! Clean Line shut them down because real people kept getting in and posting their honest thoughts and opinions that Clean Line couldn't control. Clean Line also likely discovered that Facebook is just a little too transparent, exposing a lack of public support for its proposals. Keeping an army of sycophantic sock puppets active on numerous Facebook properties can be just so tedious. It seems to us that Clean Line itself has plenty to "understand" about social media, before it is qualified to teach others.

Let's address the elephant in the room now, shall we? It's the real reason for your educational conference and unhealthy fascination with us. It's what makes us rock stars. You are clueless about our formation, hierarchy, motivation and determination. Sun Tzu once said, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” He'd be a great speaker for your conference, if he wasn't dead and all. Maybe you can buy his book? I hear it's a real page-turner.

So, you want to develop our relationship with attempts to be clever using outdated, supercilious names constructed from your industry's weird obsession with acronyms? I'm truly hurt, EUCI. As if labeling us as members of unacceptable groups would somehow help you develop a better understanding of us, one that will allow you to "handle" us all the way to permit denial?

Going BANANAs with NIMBYs – Best Practices in Dealing with Community Based Opposition Groups.
Increasingly, organizing public participation opportunities means having to handle
disruptive influences from community-based opposition groups - BANANAs (Build
Absolutely Nothing Anywhere near Anything/Anyone) and NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard). This presentation will discuss experiences at Southern California Edison and
how the company has adapted to this new business environment. Southern California
Edison is currently experiencing one of the largest infrastructure capital investment
programs in company history. Driving this are multiple factors, including California’s
ambitious renewable energy goals and the need to replace aging infrastructure that
was constructed during the post-World War II boom. As a result, the opportunity for
community based opposition groups to develop has increased significantly. Recent
advances in technology have made it easier for community-based opposition groups to
organize and, more importantly, to strategize. With the opportunity cost of starting and
participating in such groups constantly decreasing, it is important for public participation practitioners to have a healthy understanding of how such groups are motivated and how to manage them effectively. The discussion will provide the audience with best practices on dealing with community based opposition groups as well as tips on how to prepare internal, technical subject matter experts to effectively handle emotionally charged situations. These best practices are based upon the experiences of Southern California Edison’s local public affairs department.

Do tell how assigning people to silly fruit acronym name groups, and then disparaging them, accomplishes effective public participation in transmission siting? Where we come from, that's just not polite, and won't win you any cooperation from the fruitbowl. It's actually sort of insulting. We don't really get it, but have been considering giving you all a fruity name of your own, and would like to know the rules of the game. We've already come up with MIMPSY (Money In My Pocket, Screw You) to describe you, but fear it might not be quite fruity enough?

As I'm sure you've heard, our favorite activity is holding bake sales. If you ever find yourself overrun with overripe bananas, I'd be happy to share my kick-ass recipe for banana bread with you. There's just so many things you can make from the clever and versatile banana! Maybe you could hold your own bake sale, instead of a training conference, to raise cash! Do let us know EUCI. We'd be happy to fly to Houston to buy your cupcakes!

I do wonder though, since this is an educational workshop, what experience your instructor has organizing or strategizing with community-based opposition groups? My guess would be none. Last time I looked, SCE got it's butt kicked in Chino Hills. The power companies are usually the ones on the outside of our groups, desperately trying to see inside. You all have NO IDEA how sophisticated our organization and strategy has become... and that's the way we like it. Expect the unexpected, transmission developers!

And if being called a fruit isn't insulting enough to "the public," you further besmirch us as "Mayberry" in your "Marketing to Mayberry" segment.

Marketing to Mayberry: Communicating with Rural America.
Communications and marketing outreach in small town America requires entirely
different tactics than those used with larger more metropolitan communities. Join this
conversation to learn some of the pitfalls to avoid and the strategies to deploy when
reaching out to small communities. Attendees will learn to prepare for the challenges of
engaging a rural setting, communicate in a conversational tone rather than corporate
tone, identify and engage credible spokespersons in rural communities and understand which communications and marketing tactics to utilize.

If this wasn't so blatantly insulting, it might be fun to sit through. What do you do, run the movie Promised Land and hand out Matt Damon masks? Or maybe you simply try to teach these jerks some honesty and humility? It's really not that difficult to communicate with "Mayberry." What is difficult is getting away with lies and bad behavior in small towns, right, Jimmy? Right, Clean Line?

You've simply outdone yourself this year, EUCI! Since your conferences are fully accredited for continuing education credits by the International Association for Continuing Education & Training, we'll assume there must be some educational standards your conference content is required to meet. We're concerned that you may be risking your certification and credibility by promoting professional failure as a "successful" best practice! It's because we worry about your reputation that we'd like to help you out, EUCI. We believe we could provide valuable assistance with this conference activity:

Mock Open House
Open houses are commonly used during the public outreach campaign through the
transmission siting process. They are used to communicate with the community, land
owners, stake holders and public officials and allow them to express their concerns
regarding the transmission lines. Effective, clear and concise communications are crucial
for the open house to run smoothly and successful. This mock open house will allow
key subject experts to run an open house and the attendees to participate in the “open
house,” showing effective forms of communication, how to answer questions and walk away with everyone being pleased with the outcome.

We graciously offer to provide a cast of crack "actors" to play the parts of the community, land owners, stake holders and public officials at your mock open house. We've been mocking these guys at their open houses for years, so we're quite experienced! We feel this will add just the right touch of hard-to-replicate realism to the exercise and will guarantee a tangible, useful, hands-on education for your conference participants. And, besides, nothing says fun like ignorant country bumpkins bearing torches and pitchforks! They're just so unpredictable!

In all seriousness, EUCI, we're not sure how you're going to educate transmission developers to succeed when your teachers have failed the subjects they are attempting to teach. You'd do much better with instructors from the community groups you are targeting for attendance. But then again, why would we give away our secrets? They're working so well to alter, delay, and cancel unneeded transmission projects. We have made you our bit*subservient groupie*ch. When we have our annual continuing education get-togethers, you're probably not going to be invited. Sorry.

Best Regards,

America's Transmission Opposition
Bigger, Badder, Scarier
and Smarter... oh, so much smarter than you give us credit for...

22 Comments

How Bad Transmission Projects Die

10/11/2013

2 Comments

This recent editorial in the Concord (NH) Monitor gives a look at the death throes of a rather tenacious merchant transmission project. Northern Pass has hung on long past the tipping point, where a prudent investor would have given up and written it off as a loss.

Just how much profit is expected from this project that its owners can continue to spend money hand over fist trying to influence necessary approvals?

As the editorial opines, "...it’s time to acknowledge the obvious: The wheels have fallen off the bus." Northern Pass is politically unpopular in New Hampshire, and there's nothing the company can do to change it, try though they may.

In recent weeks Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan and state Senate Republican Leader Jeb Bradley have weighed in and signaled that, contrary to PSNH’s unrelenting public relations campaign and full-page newspaper ads, the Northern Pass is not a done deal.

Still, Northern Pass persists, like Rumplestiltskin having a tantrum. "Support Clean Energy" is just greenwashing of the real truth, which goes more like this: "Support Transmission Owner Profits." Of course, the latter just doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?

There has also been some clear evidence in the past week that nearly all the Northern Pass supporters are those with a direct financial interest, including those at the Department of Energy hearing in Concord wearing “Support Clean Energy – Support Northern Pass” T-shirts. One estimate of the audience at the Sept. 24 hearing in Plymouth was 650 opposed to Northern Pass, eight in support.

When it couldn't convince the people of New Hampshire to willingly drink its koolaid, Northern Pass resorted to intimidation and bullying, and when that didn't work, it was time to simply create an appearance of public support, hoping it would be enough to convince regulators.

Northern Pass offered only bogus informational sessions, with a police presence at the door and no unscripted questions or comments allowed. Citizens were ushered out the door if there was even a hint of skepticism on their lips, and the follow-up was always the same boilerplate letter to the editor from Northern Pass, thanking the locality for the chance to “clear up any misconceptions you may have had about the project.

Ultimately, these tactics don't work. The public wants Northern Pass to bury the line, or not build it at all. Of course, burying the line will eat up all Northern Pass's profits.

This is the lesson to be learned about imported renewables. They're not cost effective and, ultimately, merchant business plans that rely on importing renewables long distance via overhead transmission lines must fail. Localized, small-scale, sustainable renewables are more cost effective and widely supported by the public.

It's time to kill this project for good.

2 Comments

AEP, Wild Animals, Eminent Domain and Cyber Stalking

10/9/2013

6 Comments

Looks like one of those "what doesn't belong" puzzles, doesn't it? Unfortunately, it's not.

This story comes from Gentry, Arkansas, home to the Wild Wilderness Drive Through Safari. AEP's engineer drew a transmission line through a portion of the safari on his power line routing etch-a-sketch. Perhaps the engineer didn't understand that a drive through safari means that there are wild animals roaming loose through the area? Or maybe he just doesn't care. After all, he's not the one who may be eaten by a lion while constructing this project.

The people of Gentry have taken up the fight to save or replace the portion of the safari that will be made useless by the new 345kV power line running through it. See their website here.

AEP says they can't move the power line out of the park because the route has already been approved by the PSC. Instead, they are dragging the safari owner (a former AEP employee who didn't initially object to the route for fear of retaliation) through expensive and contentious eminent domain proceedings that will exceed the cost to AEP of simply filing a revised route at the Arkansas Public Service Commission. It's pure and classic utility behemoth stupidity, where the tail regularly wags the dog.

Instead, AEP is trying to fix things through intimidation and censorship. Local media has been avoiding this story because they also fear retaliation from AEP. Hey... AEP... censor this... :-)

In addition to efforts to effect a media blackout, AEP has been cyber stalking the community members leading the movement to save Safari 4. One of them recently found this notification when logging into her Linked In account.

There's no reason a "Manager of Public Relations and Communications" at AEP would be looking at this woman's profile, except for the fact that she started a petition to save the Safari. Why, AEP, WHY? Why are you cyber-creeping on this woman? Planning to use her professional information for future intimidation? Or is AEP's manager just some kind of random cyber-creep doing his dirty deeds on company time and with company equipment?

Can't you just see the inter-office memo that may have gone out last week?

To:            All AEP Transmission Employees
From:        Nick Akins, CEO
Subject:    Cyber-stalking Opponents of Our Projects

It has come to my attention that some of you have been gathering information for our AEP transmission project opponent dossiers while signed in to your personal Linked In accounts that bear your job title and AEP's logo. Please be aware that your profile views show up on the opponents Linked In pages! In the future, please make up a fake Linked In profile to use for AEP-authorized cyber-stalking. I suggest using the name Neil Peart, drummer for the band Rush. He's way, way cool and I want to be just like him when I grow up!

Remember: Safety and Transparency First!

Embarrassed yet, AEP?

You should be. What do you think the jury hearing the safari eminent domain case next week is going to think of your heavy-handed tactics?

6 Comments

WV PSC's PYMWYMI Harrison Transfer Conditions

10/8/2013

1 Comment

FirstEnergy has been preternaturally verklempt about its "victory" in the Harrison Power Station transfer case at the West Virginia Public Service Commission.

Reporters have been hard pressed to get much more than the usual "we are reviewing the decision and will respond appropriately" line. However, congratulations are due to the rather clueless reporters at WDTV, who inspired Toad to say something different, but equally clueless.

"Once we review this agreement will are hoping that it will lead to a decrease in rates for customers right off the bat with a reduction of about a $1.50 to the average residential customer." said Todd Meyers, First Energy Spokesman.

Right, Toad, but that "decrease" is only a temporary result of taking the entire credit for the sale of Pleasants in the first year. Once that $25M credit has been used to reduce rates, it's gone for good, and so is the rate "decrease."

So, what is FirstEnergy so afraid of in the PSC's favorable Order? The PSC has allowed the sale and twisted itself in legal knots to do it. What's not to like?

It's the "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is" conditions the PSC added to the transaction. FirstEnergy's evil henchmen and their bean counting lap dogs are busy running the numbers and scheming up ways to manipulate the conditions so that they don't end up losing any money in the deal.

FirstEnergy told the PSC that the transaction would not damage the credit or financial position of Mon Power & Potomac Edison. FirstEnergy also told the PSC that recovery of the acquisition adjustment ($589M of funny money added to the value of Harrison at the Allegheny Energy/FirstEnergy merger) was proper under FERC regulations. They promised the PSC that Harrison would be able to sell excess generation not needed by Mon Power & Potomac Edison at a hefty profit, which would flow back to benefit the West Virginia ratepayers.

The PSC wants FirstEnergy to "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is," therefore, the PSC added the following conditions to its approval of the transaction:

1. First Energy and Mon Power must agree through written verified statements filed in the record in this case within ten days of the date of this Order that they understand and agree that if First Energy does not make additional equity investment in Mon Power to cover the decline in equity caused by the write-off of the $332 million (pre-tax) Acquisition Adjustment, Mon Power must agree not to pay, and First Energy must agree that it will not receive, any dividends from Mon Power until the equity to total capital ratio of Mon Power returns to forty-five percent.

FirstEnergy is going to have to cover that $332M write-off with an equity contribution to Mon Power, or else they're going to have to forgo any dividends from the company until the write-off amount is restored to Mon Power's capital ratio. Obviously, the PSC didn't agree with FirstEnergy's contention that the transaction wouldn't damage Mon Power's credit ratings. Poor ratings costs ratepayers money through increased credit costs. The PSC wants FirstEnergy to Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is. Ut-oh! How is FirstEnergy going to agree to this now, then plan to violate it later? What creative bookkeeping or legal nonsense are they going to commit?

2. First Energy, AE Supply, Mon Power and Potomac Edison must agree through written verified statements filed in the record in this case within ten days of the date of this Order that they understand and agree to allow the initial $257 million Acquisition Adjustment to be subject to adjustment through a refund from First Energy or AE Supply if the FERC determines that purchase price paid by Mon Power exceeds the fair market valuation of Harrison. If the FERC makes such a determination, the portion of the $257 million Acquisition Adjustment that exceeds fair market value will be returned to Mon Power by either First Energy or AE Supply, and the refund will be credited to the Acquisition Adjustment account.

I find this one most puzzling. Is FERC going to come motoring into West Virginia just to evaluate the purchase price? Is there a pending FERC case that's not mentioned in the Order? Is there a case that needs to be filed? By whom? FERC does not allow the recovery of acquisition adjustments. But, of course, that's not what the condition says. But, obviously, the PSC was not satisfied with FirstEnergy's insistence that recovery of acquisition adjustments is allowed by FERC as part of purchase price, so the PSC wants FirstEnergy to Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is.

3. First Energy, Mon Power and Potomac Edison must agree through verified written statements filed in the record in this case within ten days of the date of this Order that they understand and agree that the return on, and return of, the $257 million Acquisition Adjustment will be allowed in base rates only to the extent that fifty percent of the net margins from off-system transactions from the additional Harrison capacity acquired by Mon Power will support that return. The full return requirement will be allowed each year subject to prospective adjustment based on a review of the achieved net margins from off-system sales in relation to the amount of return requirement built into the initial surcharge, and thereafter base rates. During the initial Surcharge true-up period, and thereafter when the return component on the Acquisition Adjustment is built into base rates, we will consider fifty percent of net margins on off-system sales attributable to the additional Harrison capacity as available for return on, and of, the remaining balance of the $257 million Acquisition Adjustment authorized in this case. This will not affect the ENEC calculations. If the monthly accumulation of return requirements previously built into the initial surcharge and thereafter base rates of MPPE between base rate cases exceed the allowable amount based on the achieved net margins on off-system sales, a prospective adjustment credit will be embedded in prospective base rates, If the monthly accumulation of return requirements previously built into the initial surcharge or base rate of MP/PE between base rate cases is less than the allowable amount based on the achieved net margins of off-system sales, no prospective adjustment will be made to base rates. Each base rate case will reset the balance of the net return components to allowable amount on the achieved net margins of off-system sales to zero.

This one looks really confusing, but it's not. FirstEnergy is only allowed to recover the remaining $257M acquisition adjustment, along with interest on same, if the amount recovered is no greater than 50% of the profit margin from Harrison power sales to other utilities during the same period of time. This means that FirstEnergy must "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is" and make the sale of Harrison's excess generation as profitable as possible. This is going to be a real problem for FirstEnergy. After all, PJM's energy market prices are depressed... that's why FirstEnergy wanted to "sell" Harrison into West Virginia's regulated system in the first place! The evil empire is undoubtedly sitting around the poker table, wreathed in a cloud of cigar smoke, devising new and different ways to manipulate PJM's markets.

In addition, the PSC has taken exception to FirstEnergy's proposed Revised Affiliate Agreements.

The Commission will not authorize Mon Power and Potomac Edison to enter into the Revised Agreement at this time because of concerns regarding certain aspects of the Revised Agreement, including (i) operation of public utility generation and market-regulated plants of First Energy by FE GenCo, (ii) separation of responsibilities for economic dispatch, market offers, and planned outages between utility regulated plants with captive customers and market-regulated plants, (iii) whether provision of generation services by FE GenCo will be provided at cost or at higher market-based price if that exceeds the FE GenCo costs of operating the Mon Power generation plants, and (iv) liabilities that FE GenCo may have if there are claims or damages related to the Mon Power plants resulting from operating decisions made by FE GenCo,

The agreements allow FirstEnergy's unregulated generation affiliate to "manage" Harrison. In this way, FirstEnergy can continue to stick it to the union workers who keep the plant running, and there's not a thing the PSC can do because it does not regulate FE GenCo. The PSC also has corporate separation concerns about FirstEnergy manipulating energy markets. Welcome to the club, fellas! (not that we actually expect you two to DO anything about it if that occurs) The PSC has ordered a separate proceeding to deal with these agreements. In the meantime, Harrison will continue to operate under existing agreements.

So, now you know why Toad is huddled under his desk, sucking his thumb, and waiting to be reprogrammed.

Be careful of the lies you spin, FirstEnergy, you might just have to live with them.

1 Comment

Kansas Landowners Fighting For Their Heritage Against Regulators and Texas Wind Speculators

10/6/2013

0 Comments

This is Thomas Stallbaumer. He and his ancestors have been stewards of this land in Nemeha County, Kansas, since 1854. He plans to eventually hand the care of this land over to his children, who plan to hand it to their children in turn. This picture was taken by his daughter, Kayla, as he gazed over land that has been virtually unchanged since his grandfather built a home here more than 150 years ago.

But now a company from Texas wants to build a high voltage transmission line less than a thousand feet from Stallbaumer's property. This is what he will be looking at in the future while relaxing on his swing, if Clean Line Energy Partners gets its way.

That's hardly a fair reward for a lifetime of hard work and dedication to the preservation of this land. The electricity to be carried by the proposed transmission towers is being touted as "clean" renewable energy for "eastern states." Next time you easterners flip the switch to waste some of your "clean" energy from Kansas wind farms, remember Thomas Stallbaumer, sitting on his swing and wondering why Kansas regulators and Clean Line Energy Partners don't know the difference between energy that is merely renewable, and energy that is sustainable.

"Sustainable energy is the sustainable provision of energy that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs."

Renewable energy, as defined by Clean Line Energy Partners, is energy that is produced by a renewable source, even if production and delivery of that energy causes permanent harm to humans, animals, and businesses, and removes sustainable farmland from production...forever. Clean Line Energy Partners' unsustainable energy practices force regulators to make a conscious choice of who must sacrifice so that others may benefit. Sustainable energy requires no sacrifice.

These cheerful people are the Kansas Corporation Commissioners who will be presiding over an evidentiary hearing this week, where Clean Line Energy Partners will be spinning a web of lies and justifications for its project, and asking these people to silence the objections of Thomas Stallbaumer, and other landowners just like him all across Kansas.

In 2011, the KCC approved the power of eminent domain for a project that had no customers, proclaiming it "needed." The Commission bought Clean Line's illogical contentions without performing even perfunctory examination of their validity. None of the Kansans who would eventually be expected to sacrifice for this project were notified or allowed to participate in that hearing.

This year, Clean Line was back with another application, this time for a route meandering across the state, from southwest to northeast. The only "notice" some affected landowners received occurred at a very late date, in some instances AFTER the deadline to file testimony that had already been set by the KCC. The "notice" also misinformed landowners of their legal rights to participate in a hearing that could result in the condemnation of their real property. Further inquiry at the KCC produced more misinformation, with landowners being told that they must hire an attorney to intervene in the case on their behalf.

And the legal errors continue. Last week, pro se intervenors were prohibited from filing testimony because the deadline for testimony had passed nearly two months prior, weeks before the legal deadline to intervene. Read the direct testimony of Thomas's son, Matthew, that was filed before the Order denying it. I dare you to forget Matthew's testimony after reading it and looking at the exhibits. Intervenors were also told that they would not be permitted to participate in cross-examination, submit exhibits or even call witnesses. Intervenors will be limited to making opening statements and filing post-hearing briefs. In essence, intervenors are now being limited to meaningless "participation" whereby they will not be allowed to submit any evidence that may contradict Clean Line, nor allowed to even question Clean Line's evidence. This is not due process. This is not justice.

The KCC is in a big hurry to make a decision on this case within an arbitrary 120-day deadline. They have been hurried along by aggressive Clean Line attorneys who have been doing their best to ban Kansans from the proceeding. What's the hurry on a project that has no customers and is not needed for reliability or market efficiency reasons? Why must this project be rushed through approvals in Kansas to such an extent that the citizens are stripped of their right to participate in a legal process that could take their property?

If the KCC and Clean Line thought a quick process would avoid scrutiny, they are mistaken. In fact, this travesty of justice has attracted nationwide attention, and will continue to do so this week as the case is heard.

Check back here for more landowner stories and updates on hearing progress.

0 Comments

"America's" Power Plan Greenwashes Transmission Profits - No Actual "Americans" Involved

10/1/2013

0 Comments

Big coal, big gas, big tobacco, big pharma, big wind, big green... what do they all have in common? A desire to control your thoughts and actions to increase their own financial gain.

Now big wind has joined with big green to push an agenda they have dubbed "America's Power Plan."

What's the surest way to tell you're the victim of propaganda? Use of the word "America" as a shroud to hide financial or political goals and make you think that everyone else is on board with it. It's deployment of the most classic propaganda devices in an attempt to control you. Just say no.

"America's" Power Plan has been developed by environmental groups and transmission developers to inform the public what landowners and consumers want in an attempt to influence energy policy. No actual landowners or consumers were consulted in the creation of this "plan." "America's" Power Plan doesn't represent the plan of "America." It's simply a vehicle for environmental group leadership to check a few renewable energy boxes and for transmission developers to make money. Lots of it.

This farce has been perpetrated by funding from the Energy Foundation, which is a shady front group whose own source of funds is unclear. What is clear, however, is how much this "foundation" meddles in both foreign and domestic policy in order to meet goals that may not be shared by "America." They've got plenty of money to give away to groups who agree to do their bidding, including the creators of "America's" Power Plan.

The greenwashers leading the pack here are the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). Stop supporting this organization. It stopped listening to the public a long, long time ago and now merely exists inside its own little political echo chamber where its well-paid employees tell themselves that greenwashing greedy corporate initiatives that may not be in the best interest of "America" is "saving the planet." After all, their big salaries are paid for by the very energy interests whose initiatives they facilitate with their support and "green" promotion.

And here's NRDC's gushing praise of their own big lie. NRDC insists that their plan for siting "120 megawatt-miles" (that's enough to almost completely replace all existing transmission) of new transmission at a cost of "$6B per year until 2050" (that's $220 Billion dollars of electric ratepayer debt) will make ranchers and farmers see the light and welcome the destruction of their businesses by new transmission lines.

The siting plan, entitled "Finding a Home for Renewable Energy and Transmission" (aww, sounds like a huggable pound puppy who just wants your love, doesn't it?) pretends that landowners are on board with this "plan." However, no actual landowners or consumer groups were consulted in its development, despite the plan's claim that:

"Reform must reflect a new approach to siting — one that recognizes the effect wholesale power markets have on transmission planning, and one that meets the needs of landowners, wildlife and society as well as project sponsors and investors."

It seems that they managed to get everyone else to the table to approve this plan, except the landowners, which can only mean that the landowners are the ones getting the shaft here. Without buy in of affected landowners, "America's" Power Plan fails.

This is not a Landowner or Consumer Plan!

Co-authors and reviewers of this plan include representatives of environmental groups, the benighted Center for Rural Affairs (who has strayed far afield from its original focus on independent farmers, in favor of corporate financial interests), political and business interests, and transmission owners and developers, such as Jimmy Glotfelty from Clean Line Energy Partners. Ooops... sorry.... did I say a bad word?

Where are the landowners and consumers? They aren't part of this "America."

I could go on for pages about the stupid contentions, condescending clap trap, and sheer arrogance contained in the siting plan, but instead I'm just going to concentrate on the "plan" to have landowners clamoring to host new transmission infrastructure.

"Additionally, decision-makers must pay special
consideration to private land owners. Private landowners
play an invaluable though often overlooked role in
the siting and construction of both generation and
transmission infrastructure. Particularly in the Eastern
Interconnection, transmission projects are built almost
exclusively on private land. How landowners are treated
throughout this process can determine whether projects
are more rapidly approved and developed or delayed
and even halted."

Here are the plan's six new options for willingly giving up your property for transmission development. All six of them read like ways for transmission developers to simply swoop in and collect the gold after neighbors have been pitted against each other in a greedy battle to assemble rights-of-way, where the financial wants of the few trump the property rights of the many. If you find anything in here that you, as a landowner, think is viable, please let us know. The landowners who've looked at it so far think it's just more unworkable, heavy-handed land theft. Maybe if the authors had actually consulted some landowners affected by transmission projects when writing their "plan," they would have found that out before publishing this, instead of after.

• Special Purpose Development
Corporations (SPDCs) focus on providing
landowners with another option for
just compensation. The condemning
authority creates an SPDC, allowing
the landowner to choose between two
options. Landowners can either opt
to receive the traditional fair market
value for the parcel or they can elect to
receive shares in the SPDC. The value
of these shares is commensurate with
the fair market value of the parcel the
landowner has committed to the project.
The condemning authority then sells
the SPDC to a transmission developer
at auction. The sale increases the value
of the SPDC, and the landowners’
shares are transferrable on the open
market. Each shareholder is entitled to
project dividends. The result is that the
landowners’ compensation is tied directly
to market value, unlike traditional “just
compensation.” By giving landowners
a stake in the project’s success, things
can move more quickly and fairly. This
framework is applicable to utility-owned
transmission projects; a merchant
developer does not have a mechanism
for recovering equity dilution from
rates and may instead prefer to offer
landowners annual payments tied to
project royalties.

• Landowner Associations refer to groups
of landowners that come together with
a shared interest. These associations
have been particularly successful
for wind development, and are also
suitable for shorter transmission lines.
Each participating landowner is given
a proportional share of ownership in
the association based on the amount
of land they want to make available
for development. As an association,
landowners then approach developers
for projects. Members of the association
that physically host turbines or
transmission infrastructure are given
a premium, but all members of the
association receive a portion of profits.

• Tender Offer Taking enables developers
to test landowner interest in several
corridors by drawing proposed
boundaries for a given project, and
offering an above-market price for all
landowners within the boundary. The
developer then confidentially monitors
acceptance, and goes forward with the
project once a predetermined threshold
is met (applying eminent domain
authority to any remaining holdouts). If
the threshold is not met, the developer
shifts attention to a different corridor.
Tender offer taking is well-suited to large
projects that can be broken into discrete
segments.

• Good Neighbor Payments represent
ongoing payments to landowners that
are near enough to a new project that it
affects them even if it does not require
taking over their land. For example,
wind farm opposition sometimes comes
not from direct landowners but from
neighbors who are affected; thus wind
developers often pay neighbors annually
for noise impact. This concept could be
applied to transmission development
by providing annual payments to
aesthetically affected landowners and
neighbors. In the case of a landowner,
good neighbor payments would be in
addition to any easement negotiation
made. Developers could also pay bonus
payments to farmers who are affected by
infrastructure on the land they cultivate.

• Self-assessment enables landowners
to report the value of their land once
a plan to condemn is announced. The
landowner’s tax liability is then adjusted
to the reported value. The condemning
authority then decides whether to
take the land at the reported price
or look elsewhere. If the developer
chooses to look elsewhere, the
landowner is thereafter prohibited from
transferring his land for less than the
announced value. This solution allows
the landowner to assign a personal
value to the benefit or deterrent of
hosting new infrastructure. A variation
of self-assessment involves an opt-in
mechanism whereby a landowner can
choose to receive a property tax break in
exchange for agreeing to be subjected to
condemnation.

• Annual payments allow landowners
directly impacted by transmission
projects to receive compensation tied
to the amount of power transmitted on
the line. Under this scenario, payments
are distributed each year the project is
in service. Payments can be adjusted
yearly, to account for inflation, and
can be augmented in the event that
the agreed upon right of way is used
for an additional purpose. Annual
payments could provide the landowner
with a greater sense of ownership in
the project, decrease the incidence
of landowner holdouts and ensure
compensation commensurate with the
growing value of land. The Colorado-based
Rocky Mountain Farmers Union
has proposed a version of this concept
for both transmission and wind farm
development.

Anything in that list change your mind about having to operate your business around transmission lines and towers? Anything in there that makes the taking of private property by eminent domain for the private profit of transmission developers more palatable? Didn't think so.

Did you see anything in there about how consumers or regulators have agreed to pay even more for new transmission in order to compensate landowners to their satisfaction? Or about the cost effectiveness of land-based utility scale renewables when landowners are compensated satisfactorily? Nope, me neither.

FAIL, "America," FAIL!

I just can't resist pointing out the plan's recommendation that we "improve interagency, federal-state and interstate coordination." Right. This comes on the heels of the environmental groups unsuccessfully filing for injunctions to stop the Susquehanna Roseland transmission project from plowing through the Delaware Water Gap National Recreational Area. These environmental pietists are the worse abusers of federal and state process to hold up projects that they don't like. So, at this time, I must say... stuff it, you hypocrites!

The plan also says if cooperation fails, then it's time to threaten states with a process that no longer functions:

"FERC backstop siting authority can play an important
psychological role in encouraging states to coordinate
and lead in transmission planning, making it a useful
siting tool. The best value of backstop siting is not in
its exercise, but in the possibility of its exercise."

Wow... it wasn't too many years ago when these environmental hypocrites were lined up against FERC backstop siting threats. What a difference a little corporate money makes in environmental priorities.

"America's" Power Plan is just another expensive failure because landowner resistance to new transmission is growing and coalescing into a coordinated, knowledgeable movement that will not be denied. Time for a new plan.

0 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

Is Atlantic Wind Connection's Shift in Focus a Sign of Frustration?

More Clean Line Shenanigans in Mendota?

FirstEnergy and WV PSC Use Media to Quell the Public at "Public Comment Hearings" in West Virginia

FirstEnergy and Its Captive Customers Give Each Other the Stink Eye in Shepherdstown

An Open Letter to EUCI From "The Public"

How Bad Transmission Projects Die

AEP, Wild Animals, Eminent Domain and Cyber Stalking

WV PSC's PYMWYMI Harrison Transfer Conditions

Kansas Landowners Fighting For Their Heritage Against Regulators and Texas Wind Speculators

"America's" Power Plan Greenwashes Transmission Profits - No Actual "Americans" Involved

About the Author

About
StopPATH Blog

Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
Email me

Archives

Categories

About the Author

AboutStopPATH Blog

Archives

Categories

About
StopPATH Blog