The New York Times has finally done away with Clueless Blogger Matt Wald's soapbox.  Now what are the investor-owned energy companies going to do when they need a journalistic patsy to re-package their press releases as "news?"

Here's hoping that Matt has a nice, soft landing on some investor-owned utility's flack couch where he can finally be among his own kind.

FirstEnergy has been swirling round and round the bowl for the past few weeks.

Now the wheels have come off FirstEnergy's poorly executed plan to dump antique coal-fired electricity plants on it's West Virginia customers.

Despite FirstEnergy's desperate pleas for the WV Public Service Commission to approve the company's transfer of coal plant assets from their unregulated (company financed) Ohio subsidiaries to West Virginia's regulated (ratepayer financed) subsidiaries before early May, the PSC issued an order on Feb. 11 setting a procedural schedule that won't hold hearings until the end of May.  A decision won't come until several months later.  FirstEnergy needs to transfer these plants between their subsidiaries to raise over a billion dollars cash that the company desperately needs to pay down its debt.

It's not "to help ensure reliable power for our Mon Power and Potomac Edison customers in West Virginia for many years to come," it's to raise desperately-needed corporate cash that West Virginia's captive ratepayers will be stuck repaying for years to come.  Let's at least be honest about it, shall we, FirstEnergy?

Last week, Fitch cut FirstEnergy's ratings.

On Monday, FirstEnergy reported a loss for the fourth quarter.

Yesterday, FE's stock was downgraded.

Today, FirstEnergy announced a tender offer to buy back some of it's high interest rate debt.  The scheme here is to offer a premium to holders of these high interest rate bonds FE issued so that they will sell their bonds back to the company.  To finance this buy back, the company will borrow money at a lower interest rate than they would have paid the holders of these bonds.

Kind of reminds you of watching sick water buffalo flounder and drown, doesn't it?

Research for another project turned deja vu this morning when I ran across this phrase:

“Awarding a downward-biased ROE by hewing only to a ‘knee-jerk’ application of recent precedent would result in a regulatory ‘gotcha’.”

Now where have I heard that bumptious phrase lately?  Could it be in PATH's "case-in-chief?"

"Now that investors are captive, awarding a downward-biased ROE would result in a regulatory “gotcha” that would violate regulatory standards and undermine the Commission’s own incentive policies."

Yup, same "expert."  How many times will AEP pay this guy to theatrically yell "wolf?"  As many as necessary, since they're using ratepayer funds to pay this "expert" to say the same thing over and over on different cases.

Quick, someone grab a violin, FERC is single-handedly destroying our economy!  *shudders in horror*

I wonder if the Commission's eyes also roll back in their heads every time they read "regulatory 'gotcha"?  Maybe they have a sort of office football pool going where they make bets on when Avera will pop up wailing "regulatory 'gotcha'" in a case.  If not, they should consider it.  Might be fun.  At least more fun than reading Avera's billowing opinions over and over again.

It looks like Clean Line Energy Partners' opposition denial honeymoon is so o-ver!

In addition to the active and vocal BlockRICL opposition that has been giving the Rock Island Clean Line headaches in the states of Illinois and Iowa, now citizens of other Midwestern states, like Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri, are questioning the Grain Belt Express and Plains & Eastern Clean Line projects and beginning to organize to oppose those projects.

Silly Clean Line, you can't build a transmission line without opposition.  It's not about whether the transmission line is transporting "clean" or "dirty" energy, it's about need for the transmission line.  Affected landowners will always question the determination of need for a new transmission line.  And what does Clean Line have?  "Wind" energy must be transported to east coast states so that wind developers in Kansas, Oklahoma and Iowa can get rich?  Its not about farmers or landowners cashing in, it's all about private, for-profit corporations and their investors making a whole bunch of money off the backs of what they arrogantly consider to be uneducated rube farmers and environmentally conscious but sadly oblivious east coast consumers who are easily fooled by the green-washing Midwest "wind" scheme.

Let's examine some of the propaganda and empty promises Clean Line is utilizing in a rather sad, transparent attempt to build false advocacy for its project with the hope that it will be enough to influence state siting approvals.

1.  Hold "open houses" for local businesses and "collect their information" and tell them they will be notified to bid on project supplies and labor when the time comes.  By making these kinds of empty promises to local businesses, Clean Line buys their support and advocacy for free!  By the time these local businesses realize that there's no role for them in building one of these "clean" lines, it's too late.  The Texas shysters will already have their state approval to take property by eminent domain and build their money-making transmission line with imported labor and supplies.  The fact is that building high voltage transmission is a highly specialized industry and labor will be imported for the duration.  The only "local" jobs may be a few fast food servers or motel housekeepers to serve these professional transmission builders for a few weeks while temporarily housed in your locality building the line.  Supplies and components will be contracted from a handful of large corporations, many of them manufactured in other countries.  If you don't believe me that Clean Line's promises to local businesses are empty, try getting Clean Line to sign a supply or labor contract with your local company today.

2.  Holding "open houses" for landowners and pretending that Clean Line is interested in answering questions and receiving information from affected landowners.  This is a ruse used by the company to evaluate the possibility of opposition and give the appearance of community consultation.  It is also set up to divide and conquer landowners individually by suggesting that cooperation could push the line over onto a neighbor's property *wink, nod.*  Landowners come away with more questions than answers, but most likely the magic has already happened, despite Clean Line's best obfuscating efforts.  The ones who will lead the opposition to the project have already self-selected and made important contacts with like-minded individuals over plates of free Clean Line ham.

"One landowner came with a plastic sack and took about a two-inch width of slices of ham. I looked at him and he said, 'I've got cats,' " Nelson said. "Everybody else was saying, 'We might as well eat. That might be all we get.' "

3.  Pretending that the transmission lines will carry 100% renewable energy desperately wanted and needed in east coast states and that the cost of the lines will not be end up in local electric bills.  These "clean" lines will also carry electricity generated by fossil fuels because the maximum capacity for a variable resource like wind is somewhere around 35%.  Also, federal regulations prohibit Clean Line from banning fossil-fuel generators from buying capacity on the line.  While Clean Line is telling the public that it is a merchant, or privately-financed, enterprise, Clean Line has asked federal regulators to approve broad socialization of merchant lines to those who do not consume the renewable electricity, claiming that new transmission lines create regional "reliability" benefits simply by existing.  If Clean Line and other "renewable" energy benefactors are successful in socializing the cost of their projects across entire regions, we're all going to be paying to transport renewable energy from coast to coast, whether we consume any of it or not.

4.  Bullying of landowners, consumers, citizens and government agencies by Clean Line personnel.  The prospect of a huge profit can make corporate lackeys do despicable things.  Compare this photo of Clean Line President Michael Smelly (in the cast - let's not even think about how that might have happened) "observing" the interaction between the public and federal environmental impact statement personnel during a public scoping meeting with these photos of PATH Transmission personnel "observing" the interaction between the public and federal environmental impact statement personnel during a public scoping meeting.  "Observation" easily degenerates into intimidation when things aren't going to the transmission line company's liking.  Don't be intimidated!

It's time for Texas-based, Wall Street-financed, Clean Line Energy Partners to quit denying its opposition, and come "clean" with the public.  Fact is, Clean Line is applying to states for the right to condemn right of way for its private, for-profit, project through eminent domain.  But, Clean Line hopes you rubes will be good sports and allow yourselves to be taken advantage of by its hired, professional land sharks, err, I mean "land agents," and sell your land early and cheaply.  Don't be foolish, always seek your own legal counsel before signing any agreements.  Your attorney will tell you that the longer you resist land sharks, oops, I mean "agents," the higher the price of your land climbs.  Land owners who resist eminent domain grabs receive, on average, 5 to 6 times the original offer by holding out and settling on the court house steps just before a hearing.

And while you're holding out, you might as well explore whether organized and intelligent opposition can halt the transmission project in its entirety.  Yes, it can.  We killed the PATH project.


Don't get me wrong, I like clean energy as much as the next guy.  However, I'm not expecting Midwest farmers and other electric consumers to sacrifice their land and their money to allow me the privilege of believing that I'm somehow helping the environment when I turn on my centrally generated "green" electricity.  Clean Line is nonsense.  If you want to help the environment, how about making your own personal sacrifice to supply your own, locally-generated renewable power, such as installing solar panels on your own roof?  It is not sustainable to destroy prime farmland to meet your own personal renewable goals. 

The east coast doesn't want or need Clean Line's overpriced "wind" power.  Just say no to Clean Line.

So, if you're asking yourself -- do we really need these "clean" lines for renewable energy (no!); is there other opposition to these projects that I can join (yes!); and can opposition cancel one of these projects (yes!!), you've come to the right place.

Get in touch with the folks at BlockRICL, or email us for more information.

Corporate America is never satisfied when there's a buck left on the table that could be in its own pocket instead.  That's why the corporations who stand to profit financially from building hundreds of billions of dollars of new high voltage transmission lines from coast-to-coast are constantly attempting to tinker with laws and regulations put in place to protect the consumers who fund new transmission.  No matter how many times their ambitious plans to preempt state authority with federal control are foiled, corporate America bounces right back like one of those inflatable punching clowns.

This time it's The BiPartisan Policy Center banging corporate America's greedy drum with a new report:  Capitalizing on the Evolving Power Sector: Policies for a Modern and Reliable U.S. Electric Grid.

The report is being pushed on the public by well-compensated industry spokespuppets Rick Boucher and Curt Hebert, who are joined by environmental patsy Allison Clements to recommend:

"Proposing an improved federal backstop siting authority for interstate transmission lines to replace the authority provided in EPAct 2005 – the authority is linked to transmission lines chosen through an Order 1000-compliant planning process, ensures states have a more significant role in determining the outcome of proposed transmission lines, and provides adequate protection of federal lands."

But here's what the Clueless "report" actually says:

"Congress should replace the existing backstop siting
authority in § 216 of the Federal Power Act with a
new, targeted backstop siting authority. In particular,
this new authority should provide that FERC may
grant a requested federal permit approving a
multistate HVDC or 765+ kV AC transmission project
within a state if: (1) the state siting authority (a) has denied the project without offering an alternative
route that is consistent with relevant state law, or
(b) has not issued a decision within 18 months
of receiving a completed application, or (c) has
insufficient authority to grant such an application;
and (2) the project has been approved by a state
siting authority in another state."

This isn't giving states a "more significant role in determining the outcome of proposed transmission lines," this is preemption of state authority in its entirety.  Under this proposal, states have only one choice -- issue a permit or have the federal government do it for them.  But this is nothing new.  Former FERC Commissioner Suedeen Kelly said it quite succinctly in her 2007 dissent:
 
"The authority to lawfully deny a permit is critically important to the States for ensuring that the interests of local communities and their citizens are protected. What the Commission does today is a significant inroad into traditional state transmission siting authority. It gives states two options: either issue a permit, or we’ll do it for them. Obviously this is no choice. This is preemption."

Notice also that the Clueless recommendation only includes bestowing FERC backstop authority over HVDC or 765kV AC transmission lines.  Why do you suppose that is?  It's because the "task force" was stacked with American Electric Power executives, and AEP is the only company who builds 765kV lines.  HVDC lines are favored by fake "renewable" transmission projects proposed by green shysters Clean Line Energy, whose "clean lines" will also carry fossil fueled electricity masquerading as "clean" energy.  Clueless "environmental" organizations like NRDC have taken a big, long, drink of Clean Line's kool aid and think that by assisting corporate America in preempting regulation in order to build a whole bunch of new transmission will usher in a 100% renewable energy future.  Not going to happen, so get out of bed with the devil.  How did Obama's "Rapid Response Transmission Team" to ramrod the building of "renewable" transmission lines work out for you environmental groups?  Aren't you all suing the National Park Service over its dirty decision to destroy the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area with a 500kV transmission line?  How many times are you cleaniacs going to get duped by a greedy, dishonest industry before you wise up?

And how about this recommendation featured in the Clueless report:

"FERC should issue policy guidance clarifying
that regional transmission expansion plans may
appropriately include – and provide cost allocation
for – projects with capacity that will not be utilized
immediately if such projects: 1) enable the efficient use
of scarce rights of way, or 2) serve location-constrained
generation, and the projects will provide regional
benefits (including transmission access for future
renewable development) over their lifetimes."

So, the Clueless think that consumers should finance an overbuilding of transmission, just in case there's a need for it later?  CONSUMERS CAN'T AFFORD THIS!  How about you all "enable the efficient use of" existing rights of way by rebuilding and increasing the capacity of existing transmission lines all within existing rights of way first before building new lines on new "scarce" rights of way?  And don't give me that "location constrained renewables" line either.  Why is there absolutely no mention of offshore wind in your Clueless report?  Why does your version of the wind map not include offshore resources?  Is that because development of offshore wind doesn't require the building of a whole bunch hugely profitable new transmission lines by corporate America?  Right.

The Clueless also refuse to examine a clue that's right under their noses.  We may not need ANY of this new transmission they're in such a hurry to permit and build.  In a 2012 "report" of its own, Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Electricity Infrastructure, the American Society of Civil Engineers said:

“Anticipated future changes regarding the feasibility and implementation of distributed generation and smart grid technologies also add uncertainty about what future infrastructure system will look like. As the  cost-effectiveness of small-scale generation equipment increases, there is a potential for more ‘distributed generation,’ with ‘microgrids’ that can reduce the need for future investment in large central generation plants and associated transmission lines serving them. As sophisticated 'smart grid' computer systems become more available to digitally monitor and instantaneously shift demand or reroute power (to offset equipment failures or other sudden supply and demand changes), there is also a potential for change in future needs for transmission and distribution investments.”

Or perhaps we should focus on the Clueless love for a bigger, more fragile grid to integrate huge quantities of unreliable, variable resources.  Bigger does NOT mean more reliable.

So, what do others think about the Clueless report?  The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) issued a press release stating:

“NARUC strongly opposes the recommendations calling for the expansion of the federal government’s authority to site transmission facilities. The report recommends that Congress give federal regulators permission to overrule a legitimate State decision determining that a power line is unnecessary if a nearby State with different needs and resources says that it is. Essentially this policy would give one State de-facto siting authority over another, which is certainly against congressional intent. Moreover, where current law limits the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s backstop authority to power lines in so-called ‘National Interest Electricity Transmission Corridors,’ the report recommends greatly expanding FERC’s authority nationwide. Therefore, this recommendation abandons the existing law’s goal of improving the efficiency of the transmission network by reducing congestion in favor of policies that increase rates for retail customers who receive little or no benefits, without necessary and proper oversight by the States."

NARUC also stated that they do not endorse any of the recommendations of the Clueless report.  The real shocker here is that NARUC was included as a "contributing organization" to the report, but its advice and recommendations were completely disregarded by the industry and "environmental" sycophants who wrote the report.

NARUC failed to drink the kool aid and should be commended for standing up for the rights  and wallets of the consumers they represent, who are the ultimate financiers and supposed beneficiaries of all this proposed new transmission. 

NARUC says we don't need the Clueless recommendations.  State authority to site transmission projects is NOT broken and the states are the ONLY ones looking out for the interests of consumers.

In exchange for approving a permit allowing utilities PSEG and PPL to destroy the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area with their proposed Susquehanna Roseland transmission line, Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and the National Park Service extorted $66 million from the utilities.  The $66 million is to be placed in a fund administered by a private conservation organization, who is supposed to use the money to buy and preserve inferior land on the fringes of the park.

The utilities and the Park Service have been quite secretive about the private conservation organization, how the money will be used, and what properties are being scoped for purchase.

The Pocono Record has been investigating this secret, unholy alliance to come up with some answers for the public.

Conservationists try to short-circuit power line project in Del. Water Gap park

Conservation fund eyes 4 properties near Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area

The private conservation organization who will administer this fund, while scooping off a hefty percentage for themselves, is corporate greenwasher The Conservation Fund, whose Director is compensated at the rate of nearly half a million dollars a year.

The Pocono Record has identified five parcels of land, out of many, to be purchased.  Why the secrecy?

The "mitigation fund" extorted from the utilities will be reimbursed to them by all electric consumers in the 13-state PJM region, plus a 12.93% yearly return on equity on the unpaid balance.  The utilities are using YOUR money to pay their "blood money" bribes needed for permission to destroy YOUR park, and earning interest on it.

Johnson said the rate of return is in fact 12.93 percent and said it is true PSE&G would earn a rate of return on the land purchase.
"The current rules say the cost of a project such as this will be shared by electric customers who will benefit," she said.

This $66M "secret" mitigation fund is YOUR money.  Where's the required transparency in electric rates you are charged when amounts spent are mired in secrecy?  Why is no one holding the utility feet to the fire and utilizing existing transparency processes to dispel all this secrecy?

Continued secrecy will only build on public suspicion and contempt.  It's time for PSEG and PPL to come clean, before the public is forced to use due process to uncover these juicy secrets.

What are you trying to hide, PSEG & PPL?

Here's another ignorant blogger who insists "you’ll need a lot -- try 25,000 miles -- of new high voltage transmission lines" in order to cut carbon emissions. 

At an average cost of about $12M per mile to construct new transmission, that's a whopping $295 BILLION dollars worth of new capital investment in transmission.  And if all these projects end up over budget, as most do, it could be much, much more.  And we must also add yearly operations and maintenance costs, taxes, and incentive rates of return for these transmission lines to the cost, bringing the yearly additional cost to consumers to fund new "renewable" transmission to a whopping $62 BILLION.

Where did the blogger get such an outrageous idea to embrace new transmission without any consideration of the reality of its cost?  He drank the koolaid at a wind industry propaganda session put together by the "Americans for a Clean Energy Grid."  There are no real "Americans" in this astroturf front group posing as the widespread support of an independent uprising of disinterested people.  "Americans for a Clean Energy Grid" is composed entirely of companies that stand to profit from industrial-scale wind farms, the building of new transmission lines, or are environmental groups funded by private "foundations" that more closely resemble a Russian Matryoshka doll.  Inside the doll is another doll, and inside that doll is another doll, etc.  When you peel the layers of "initiatives" and "foundations" away, you're going to find self-interested corporate money.

The blogger is being played by one of the oldest tricks in the ol' propaganda arsenal, the one known as card stacking.  Real Americans are being fed a pack of lies, however it looks like some Americans aren't buying what this front group is selling, judging from the comments on the subject blog post.  One commenter goes into a long-winded explanation about how distributed generation is going to obviate most of this new transmission.  But, another commenter cuts right to the bald truth:

"In our country, attention is relentlessly kept on BIG systems because that's where BIG corporations make their BIG money, and that's where they want focus to remain. I have long wondered why environmental organizations have not taken this obvious issue on BIG time. Perhaps because there are no BIG donations behind that cause?"

Of course, she's right.  This article spells it out:

"A great deal of regulatory and political muscle stands behind modernizing the U.S. electricity grid. Unlike Entergy, many traditional utilities are getting deeper into the business.

For example, earnings from high voltage transmission climbed 41% at Northeast Utilities (NU) in the first nine months of 2012 and contributed 23 cents a share to the nine-month EPS of 66 cents. An enthusiastic Northeast Utilities CEO Thomas May told analysts at the third-quarter conference call, “Deregulation was something many of us in the industry fought… It is the best thing ever to happen to you, our shareholders, because it set off this [high voltage transmission] building boom.”

Retail utilities owning transmission lines, which must be available to competitors, potentially creates conflicts of interest and a regulatory thicket. ITC, as an independent transmission company with no retail business, doesn’t have that problem. It’s a pure play in a regulated, political popular industry."

But when the nesting dolls are taken apart to their smallest member, who will Americans find?

The fossil fuel industry, of course.

So, if we examine the dolls we have pulled apart here, we have Americans being fooled by industry hiding behind front groups funded by corporations who are being fooled by other corporations. 

Americans need to wake up, because that $62 BILLION electric bill will soon be in everyone's mailbox.

A fierce energy battle over authority to site and permit new high-voltage interstate transmission lines has been underway for years inside the Beltway.  Now the battle has moved to your state capitol, and if you ignore it, you may just end up with a transmission line right in the middle of your living room, and your rights to property ownership and due process obliterated.

Electric transmission permitting and siting has historically been the responsibility of states.  This has caused problems for utilities who want to increase their profits by building new lines because the states may deny applications for lines where need is not proven, or where the state's citizens receive no benefit from the project.  Your state public service commission is the ONLY authority who is looking out for you.

The utilities who build transmission lines would much rather have the federal government site and permit interstate transmission lines.  The federal government would champion national interests.  Under federal authority, all decisions would be made in D.C. by politically appointed regulators and you would be disenfranchised from any meaningful participation.

The utilities and their bought and paid for congressional representatives, along with certain federal agencies, have been trying to take authority from the states for years, but their aggression has been as yet unsuccessful.  The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Cheney's Secret Energy Task Force) put several vehicles to usurp state siting authority into law.  One was to give "backstop" siting authority to FERC in the event that a state failed to act on a transmission line application for more than one year.  FERC defined "failure to act" to also include denial of an application, however their backstop authority was neutralized through the courts.  Another vehicle to usurp state authority that has not been seriously utilized until now is the authority granted to states by the EPAct to form interstate compacts to site and permit transmission lines on a regional, instead of a state-by-state, basis.

Now the utilities, federal agencies, and their "corporate bill mill" are asking states to voluntarily relinquish their authority by passing interstate transmission siting compacts into law.  They intend to accomplish this through the use of an "education" (indoctrination) campaign targeted at state legislators and "model legislation" to be introduced by state legislative puppets and shepherded through approval by corporate lobbyists.  The corporate bill mill behind it is one of the "mini-ALECs," known as The Council of State Governments (CSG).

CSG has announced that "a new transmission line siting compact developed by The Council of State Governments’ National Center for Interstate Compacts is ready to be introduced in state legislatures across the country."

The idea here is for states to voluntarily relinquish their authority to site and permit transmission to a larger regional body made up of "member" states who have passed the interstate compact "suggested" legislation written by utilities and slipped into your legislature as the work of a sponsoring legislative member of CSG.  Your state legislative sponsor didn't write this bill, in fact, he or she probably didn't even read it before submitting it.  That's the way these corporate bill mills work.

While the public's attention has been focused on FERC's Order No. 1000 attempts to regionalize planning and cost allocation for interstate transmission projects, the interstate compact bill has been quietly honed to a razor-edge and is now ready to pass unnoticed through your state legislature.  The interstate compact bill will do much more damage to your due process rights than anything FERC can dream up and must be stopped.

This secret scheme of utilities, CSG and the federal government to neutralize state authority has been underway since 2010.  Meetings, "hosted by the Office of FERC Commissioner Philip Moeller," were held in 2010 and 2011 that included CSG personnel, FERC personnel, and utility representatives.  The interests of citizens and electric consumers were not represented, except as a discussion of "NIMBY Challenges."  That's all you are to these people - "NIMBYs."  According to the PATH transmission attorneys, "NIMBY refers to "Not In My Back Yard," a common position taken by certain opponents whereby the opponents do not necessarily protest the specific proposal but, rather, protest the location of the specific proposal as being too close to their own property."  "NIMBY" is a propaganda tactic known as "name-calling" whereby a negative connotation of an idea or group is used instead of an argument.  Name-calling is a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against a group, idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an argumentum ad hominem -- a way of removing participants from an argument.

According to a white paper written by the working group after the first meeting, the whole premise behind this is based on this lie:

"There are two key reasons why a more collaborative and efficient approval process is needed: First, the demand for electrical energy has grown and is projected to continue growing across the nation – even with investment in energy conservation/efficiency. Second, low cost electricity that is environmentally responsible will be particularly attractive to consumers and businesses."

Electrical demand is not growing.

But wait, the white paper also reveals the real reason for interstate compacts:

"The multiyear application review process and separate evaluations by multiple jurisdictions constitutes a growing burden for transmission companies..."

Regulation is a "burden" to transmission companies earning more than 10% yearly on their investment in new lines.  But new transmission lines are an even bigger burden to electrical consumers who pay for them and sacrifice their properties through eminent domain takings to create new transmission line rights-of-way.

The group identified challenges to transmission line siting, including those pesky NIMBY Challenges:

"One of the greatest challenges to increased transmission line siting comes from NIMBYism (not-in-my-backyard), where local municipalities, environmental groups, and others oppose having lines run through their respective areas. Such opposition—while warranted in certain cases—can lead to costly delays that potentially impact grid reliability and loses sight of the over-all regional or national benefits of a more robust transmission grid."

The white paper goes on with this description of due process:  "NIMBY groups often seize upon the competing interests of the stakeholders to frustrate the regulators with overlapping jurisdictions."

And finishes with this thought:  "It is important to note that there are two forms of NIMBY, each of which involves a different response—the first is one comprised of local geographic issues, such as landowners. The second type of NIMBY is environmental and is often represented by outside groups. Each group’s concerns will need to be addressed during the pre-application phase in order to ensure a smooth process."

News flash:  There's now a third form of "NIMBY."  It's the consumer who will pay for all this transmission, have property taken through eminent domain, and would prefer to consume locally-produced renewable power.  Smooth that, while you manage to be both arrogant and clueless at the same time.

Another "challenge" is the statutory responsibility of a state to determine whether a proposal is needed by its citizens.

"Another stumbling block to siting transmission is that states consider their local interests, not those of the regions they inhabit. In turn, regions often neglect to consider the needs of other regions, and the nation, as a whole, in maintaining reliability and bringing new energy to market."

When are the "regions" and the nation going to consider providing for their own needs instead of constantly taking from consumers, taxpayers and landowners under the guise of "the needs of the many trump the rights of the few?"

So, here's what the group decided an interstate compact needed to do:

1.    "Need" findings would be regional so that pass-through states who do not benefit would be forced to find a project "needed."

2.    Create an interstate siting board to overrule reluctant states and "facilitate a smoother process."

3.    The interstate siting board would have sole authority to site the line in all affected states.

4.    Form "partnerships" and sign Memorandums of Understanding with relevant federal agencies to "streamline the siting process."

5.    Make it nearly impossible for a state that feels railroaded to "opt out" of the compact.

6.    Approval by the interstate siting board would bestow individual state eminent domain authority to transmission owners.

What do the transmission owning corporations behind this scheme think about interstate compacts?

“Clearly, we haven’t made any progress on federal siting legislation” since EPAct05, he said, “so if the states can think more broadly in terms of a compact, I think that’s a good start,” Jimmy Glotfelty, executive vice president of external affairs for Clean Line Energy Partners, told
TransmissionHub. “There are a lot of things a compact could do.”

Yes, an interstate compact can strip a pass-through state like Illinois of its permitting authority so that Jimmy can build his unneeded Rock Island Clean Line project and make a bundle of money.

So, where's the "model" legislation?  Despite hosting a page of information and links about interstate compacts, CSG fails to display the proposed legislation anywhere on its website.  What is CSG trying to hide?

Here's the "model legislation" as it was introduced in the Washington state legislature on December 31.

Features of the proposed interstate compact:

1.    Creation of an interstate "Commission" consisting of:   "...from each member state, three (3) representatives: one appointed respectively by the governor, the legislature, and the state agency with siting authority or as otherwise prescribed by the adopting state."  The expertise of your state public service commission will no longer be needed to review and approve transmission projects -- political appointees who know nothing about utility regulation will now make all the decisions.

2.    "In member states, federal backstop permitting under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) may not be requested."  This is the big selling point for interstate compacts, however, there is no more "federal backstop permitting," it was previously nullified by two different federal court decisions!  While sec. 215 still contains the language, the "backstop" has been so diluted as to be worthless.

3.    "Public notification of the application and the proposed line shall be provided to each involved state by the convening state."  Notice is given to states, not to the affected public.  You may never know a transmission line is coming through your front yard until the bulldozer shows up.

4.    "Once a route is certified by the combined state application review board, eminent domain shall be based on each state's existing authority."  The "Commission's" approval of a project will trigger eminent domain in member states.  But wait...  you haven't even been "notified" yet!

5.    "Affected federal agencies and tribes shall be notified and the "Commission" shall include one advisory
representative for federal agencies (if federal land is involved) and one representative for all federally
recognized tribes (if tribal land is involved) who shall serve in an ex-officio capacity."  Ex-officio in this instance means in a non-voting capacity.

6.    "The first "Commission" hearing shall occur within 90 days of the initial filing and is intended to assess the
completeness of the application. A second "Commission" meeting will occur no more than 30 days after the initial
decision. The second meeting will assess the merits of the application, including, but not limited to the
proposed route, regional and national energy needs, and costs."  That's 120 days - 4 months - between filing of an application and evidentiary hearing.  No more technical reviews, no more quasi-legal process!

7.    "The "Commission" at their initial meeting shall establish procedures by which interveners may participate in developing the formal record for the application review.
The "Commission" shall hold at least one public comment hearing in each of the involved member states. These public comment hearings must be completed within 120 days after the initial application filing."  Here's where you fit in, little NIMBY.  The "Commission" will decide what your rights are and limit your participation to as little as public comment at one hearing somewhere in your big, wide state, probably located as far away from the project area as possible.

8.    "Commission" meetings are open to the public, unless the "Commission" votes to close them.  Then it's too bad for the public.

9.    "The "Commission" will issue conditional or final approval based on the record within 270 days of the filing of the application unless the applicant and the "Commission" agree to a different timeline. The "Commission" shall outline the required actions in instances where conditional approval is granted.
All decisions of the "Commission" will be based on majority vote, with each involved state having one vote as determined by a majority vote of each State Project Review Panel.
A state, based upon the rules of the involved states, may alter the route for the transmission line within its
boundaries by assuming incremental costs."
The only outcome for an application before the "Commission" is approval or conditional approval.  Denial is not an option.  In that case, why even bother with this kangaroo court at all?  If a state doesn't like the route and wants to change it, they do so at their own expense (which will probably be prohibitive).

10.    Your only right to appeal a decision of the "Commission" is to petition for rehearing within 90 days.  If still not satisfied, you may appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court (as in Washington, D.C., folks, no matter where in this big, ol' country you may happen to live).  Isn't that convenient for the ordinary landowner?  If you appeal and lose, you will be responsible for all legal fees and court costs of the "Commission" and the transmission owner.  This could be hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars.  Ordinary citizens don't have this kind of money, therefore, ordinary citizens will be disenfranchised from the appeals process.

11.    The "Commission" can make up or change its own rules at any time during the process.

12.    If a member state "defaults" on the compact as determined by the "Commission," the "Commission" can  assess fines or penalties or take other action against the state (paid for by taxpayers, of course).

13.    "The "Commission" may accept contributions and other forms of funding from federal agencies,  compacting states and other sources."  You mean like the transmission owners whose application is being reviewed?  No, that wouldn't present a conflict of interest at all...

14.    "Withdrawal from this compact shall be by the enactment of a statute repealing the same, but shall not
take effect until the later of either the final determination of a pending application involving that state or one (1) year after the effective date of such statute and until written notice of the withdrawal has
been given by the withdrawing state to the Governor of each other member jurisdiction."  In the interest of full disclosure, this should probably be dubbed the Hotel California bill.  States may check out, but they may never leave.

15.    This has to be my personal favorite provision:  "All member states' laws conflicting with this compact are superseded to the extent of the conflict."  So, if any of your state laws conflict with anything the "Commission" wants to do, the "Commission" rules!

Why would any state agree to an interstate compact like this?  CSG plans to persuade states through propaganda, half-truths and lies as indicated in this presentation.  Some minor "disadvantages" states forming interstate compacts must overcome include:

"Loss of individual state sovereignty and delegation of state regulatory authority to interstate entities."

That about sums it up.

The model legislation is based on two lies that its proponents will spin:

1.    States will be subject to federal backstop siting without a compact.  Federal backstop siting has been nullified by more than one federal court decision.  There is no federal backstop siting to be worried about.

2.    The transmission siting/permitting process is "broken."  There's nothing wrong with our current state-based approval processes.  Projects are being approved and built within 5 years.  Others take longer due to transmission owner incompetence.  This is not the fault of the states.  State authority is the only process that protects the due process rights of citizens and must be maintained.

How does CSG predict its "suggested state legislation"  will fare in state legislatures this year?

“It’s always a little hard to predict [but] a ‘pretty good’ response rate during [the first] legislative session is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 to 12 states,” Crady deGolian, director of the CSG’s National Center for Interstate Compacts, told TransmissionHub. “Given the fact that probably most of the focus will be in the West and in the Midwest ... I think we could probably hope to achieve somewhere in the neighborhood of seven to 10 states [during the first legislative session] if things go well.”

Only if YOU allow it to happen, and I would strongly urge you not to.  Pay attention to what's going on in your state legislature this year, especially if you live in the west or midwest.  Find it.  Kill it.  And spread the word to all your friends in other states.  Together we can prevent the creation of this corporate-created, jackbooted "Commission" who proposes to strip you of your due process rights, your property, your money and your pursuit of happiness.  Just say no to corporate governance.

If you haven't been keeping an eye on PJM's Order No. 1000 compliance filing at FERC, you've been missing out on a remarkable display of overreaching greed and self-importance. 

The main issue of contention appears to be PJM's state agreement approach to cost allocation for "public policy" transmission projects driven by individual state renewable portfolio goals.  PJM's approach is to have these type of projects proposed by the states whose RPS requires them, and who agree to pay for them in their entirety.  Entities who stand to profit from building this type of transmission believe they should be free to develop these projects without input from the beneficiary states and that these projects provide some hard to identify regional benefit and therefore should be allocated to all consumers in the PJM region, either in whole or in part.

Since "public policy" is a state matter, decided by state legislators on behalf of their constituents, who the heck do these for-profit transmission builders and Pollyanna environmental organizations think they are to take over administration of individual state policies and direct how they will be fulfilled and paid for?

The transmission builders are representing their own interests to profit from new transmission to meet "public policy" goals, and the environmental organizations are representing their own ivory tower, academic, environmental goals.  Neither of these groups represents the consumers who will pay for new transmission.  The only entities here representing the most important "stakeholder" of all (YOU!) are the states.  The Organization of PJM States makes it quite plain that transmission owners and environmental organizations simply don't have the authority to propose and force "public policy" projects.

"Absent an explicit legislative directive for a project’s construction, turning a “public policy” into a “transmission need” for a project that is not economic or needed for reliability will likely require the interpretation and/or extrapolation of laws or regulations. Such policy decisions and pronouncements are appropriately made by governmental entities and not by private interests or regional transmission planners. OPSI agrees with FERC that the regional transmission planning simply is not the forum for making policy decisions as “[i]t is not the function of the transmission planning process to reconcile state policies.” No employee in the PJM chain of command is appointed or elected by the citizenry to interpret, implement, or reconcile state laws and regulations. The State Agreement Approach appropriately identifies that only authorized policymakers should make the policy decisions and pronouncements that will be required to convert “public policies” into “transmission needs.”

PJM knows that allowing self-interested entities to dictate how individual state energy policy is implemented is a recipe for disaster and has wisely chosen to allow the states to direct and allocate costs of these projects.  It's the only way anything is going to get built, ever.  However, these gung-ho entities refuse to see how their rabid attempts to force the issue are going to tie "public policy" transmission up in the courts forever.  Whatever, fellas, the lights aren't going to go out if these projects don't get built, and the delay will only serve to prove that the most reliable and economic deployment of renewables is through distributed generation, not centralized utility-scale generation.  So, keep on holding your breath until you turn blue, it's quite amusing!

I do, however, have to hand out an Audacity Award to the glad-handing shysters at Clean Line Energy Partners for their suggestion that merchant "public policy" projects should also be partially allocated on a regional basis.

A merchant project is paid for entirely by the entity who builds it.  All risk is assumed by the transmission owner, who may recover their costs of building the line from the generators and customers who subscribe the line.  No costs are allocated to captive customers.  Costs are voluntarily assumed by entities who buy the "renewable" transmission.

However, Clean Line's merchant business model is falling apart before their very eyes and now they want YOU to help them pay for it.  "Renewable" merchant projects like Clean Line's are not economically feasible.  The cost of building the line makes the cost of its product more expensive than competing "renewable" generation.  Clean Line has been relying on subsidization of generation costs through the production tax credit to lower the cost of its product.  Now with the PTC on the chopping block, Clean Line is looking for another sugar-momma to subsidize its uneconomic business model through allocation of costs to captive ratepayers who will not purchase one electron transmitted over the line.  Give up, Clean Line and quit wasting the Zilhkas' money.  Thanks for pointing out how ridiculous the rest of the whiner entities' proposals about regional allocation of "public policy" projects can be when extrapolated out to fill your own pockets.  Every circus needs a clown.  Or is it a monkey on a bicycle? ;-)

Citizens of Illinois and Iowa are joining forces to "Block RICL."  "RICL" stands for Rock Island Clean Line, "a  500-mile overhead high voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission line that will deliver 3,500 megawatts from northwest Iowa and the surrounding region to communities in Illinois and other states to the east, areas that have a strong demand for clean, reliable energy." 

RICL is one of four merchant transmission lines intended to feed "clean" energy from the midwest to the east and west coasts.  Click on the different projects available here to see maps of each project's intended service area.  RICL and the "Grain Belt Express" are intended to serve the mid-Atlantic coastal states who are not only developing their own in-state renewable resources, but working toward harvesting the excellent off-shore wind resources in the Atlantic.  Developing off-shore wind and local resources provides local jobs and boosts the economy in these states.  RICL and the Grain Belt Express do nothing but suck money and jobs out of east coast states.

RICL - what a stupid idea.

RICL opponents are blocking RICL's progress in Illinois with a huge, strong, grassroots organization that is using tried and true transmission opposition tactics developed by other transmission opposition groups (you'll see some things that sound quite familiar on BlockRICL's website), as well as developing new and effective tools for successful opposition. There's also a companion opposition blog, Ridiculous RICL, written by one of the Illinois farmers whose land is proposed to be taken by RICL through eminent domain.  Blogger Scott Thorsen isn't buying RICL's lies and shines a little sunshine on RICL's propaganda.  BlockRICL is also part of a growing, national grassroots transmission opposition network, coming soon to transmission owners' nightmares from coast-to-coast.

See BlockRICL's website here.

See RiciculousRICL blog here.