The folks who stand to make a bundle building unprecedented amounts of new electric transmission are busy trying to tell everyone what citizens affected by said new transmission want.  They think they can define you, marginalize you, and take what's yours to serve themselves.

We saw these same arrogant suggestions in comments on FERC's transmission planning rulemaking recently.  But we fought back.  Now they're taking their arrogance to the media.  Well, sort of media... as if we can take biased "Climate News" as any kind of real media.

According to these arrogant shysters, a brand new "investigation" reveals the answer to transmission siting was determined 50 years ago.  They are now promoting a 1970's transmission line siting battle as the answer to contemporary transmission opposition.  Their "investigation" supposedly reveals that the only mistake made in that battle was not notifying affected landowners early enough in the process.  The take away is supposed to be if today's transmission developers engage with landowners early in the process that opposition can be avoided.

Perhaps most objectionable about the article's contentions is that they are taking great liberty with the history.  The First Battle of America's Energy War is a story that has been studied extensively by today's transmission opposition.  It's a lesson in what not to do.  Do not get bogged down in governmental processes designed to distract your attention.  Do not let the transmission company and their governmental lackeys set your agenda.  Do not play the part they have written for you.  That part ends in defeat because it's designed to run you over, take your property, and build a transmission line there whether you object, or not.  Earlier deployment of the highway to hell will not change the outcome.  It will not result in a docile, happy, affected community.  It doesn't change the fact that land use, prosperity, health, heritage and economic impacts will be visited on the few for the benefit of the disconnected and ungrateful many who believe they can use "stupid" rural America to serve their needs.

Transmission opposition to overhead lines on new rights of way is going to happen.  There is no way to avoid it.  Pretending a 50-year old battle holds the key to today's transmission opposition is nothing more than creative fantasy.  Perhaps they should spend more time studying today's opposition.  If they did, perhaps they'd realize that we've come a long way, baby.  What happened with the PATH project?  The Monmouth County Reliability project?  SWEPCO's Kings River project?  AEP's Windcatcher?  Transource's Independence Energy Connection?  New England Clean Energy Connect?  Cardinal Hickory Creek?  All the Clean Line Energy projects?  I'm probably forgetting a few, and for that I apologize.  The cancellations of hotly opposed Big Transmission projects over the past decade have been too numerous to rattle off the top of my head.  (Somewhere I have a list that I prepared several years ago for an event where I was speaking... somewhere I can't put my finger on right now.)  What would happen if someone studied all these cancelled projects to find the common denominator?  I suppose it would depend on who does the study.  But the only ones who can arrive at the right answer are the transmission opposition groups who won the cancellations.  Collectively, I'd say that the common denominator is overhead transmission on new rights of way.  If you poke a stick into the lion's cage, you're going to piss off the lion.

Maybe the solution is not to engage the lion in the first place.  How can transmission developers do this?  Buried transmission on existing rights of way.  As the developers of the SOO Green project have proven, if you don't create new rights of way using eminent domain, the lion simply doesn't care all that much.  SOO Green has found the secret sauce...

When transmission opposition and transmission developers agree on something, maybe it deserves a second look?  Instead, the shysters doggedly insist that it isn't a solution at all.

They're not more complicated.  The technology to bury electric transmission along existing rail corridors exists.  It's probably a lot less complicated that engaging in decades-long battles with affected communities.  Costly?  Yes, it may have a higher upfront cost, but it also saves an enormous amount of money the developer would otherwise spend battling opposition, not to mention the time involved.  Time is money, and the environmental groups clambering for new transmission say we don't have the luxury of time.  Why, then, do they insist on doing things the hard way when SOO Green provides the true "shining example" of how to avoid expensive, time-consuming opposition?

One of the first things a community does when notified of a new transmission proposal is find a way to shift it elsewhere.  Sorry, it's just the knee jerk reaction.  However, in all successful opposition groups realization of the true enemy (transmission company) quickly follows.  Then attention may shift to ways to mitigate the impact upon their collective group.  Burial is a favorite.  Out of sight, out of mind.  However, because transmission projects are always presented as fully formed ideas, the developer will always try to shut that idea down because it's not in their plans.  Excuses are usually cost, with a promise that if the community pays the extra (estimated at 10 times the cost), then the project can be buried.  That's no mitigation offer.  It's a dead end.   And why should a community pay to mitigate the impacts of a project from which they will not benefit?  This also applies to crazy ideas to financially bribe local communities to accept impacts.  When ratepayers are picking up the tab for the project, that community will be paying to bribe themselves!  And why is it that financial bribes should be the responsibility of beneficiaries in other areas, while the cost of burying the project and not incurring the impacts of the project in the first place gets left on the doorstep of the affected community?  This is not logical... at all.  Transmission developers also whine that buried projects are harder to maintain and faults are unable to be seen, leading to longer repair times.  WRONG!  Buried projects are completely unaffected by weather, fire, sabotage, and accident.  They fail less often.  But when they do, modern technology can pinpoint the location of the fault to a very small section of line, which can be accessed for repair via regularly spaced maintenance vaults.  Underground transmission is designed to provide for easy detection and repair of faults.

Oh boy... how did I get so far afield?  I've got things to do today, other than this blog.  Let's cut to the chase here...

These arrogant greedsters will continue to push their narrative that only a boot on the neck of rural America can usher in a renewable energy future.  Instead of working with rural America to find a solution, these folks continue to push for more authority to simply take what they want.  Case in point... I emailed the author of this piece 2 days ago.  No response.  They don't want to find an acceptable solution.  They just want more power to control the lives and land of folks in rural places by pretending they know what you want.

Ultimately, it will fail.  Whether it's quickly, courtesy of  those who thoughtfully make public policy, or in a long slog punctuated by protests and violence reminiscent of the 1970's, is up to them.

We have a voice, and we will continue to use it.

Happy New Year!  My wish for the year is that the news media quits behaving like a political commentator and begins investigating and reporting actual news while allowing the reader to make up his own mind without plowing through a bunch of biased hogwash and meaningless buzzwords.

Case in point:  The Wall Street Journal.

How in the world did the mighty fall so far?

It looks like WSJ hired a bunch of biased and uniformed energy reporters with a political agenda.  Not really surprising, based on the history, but it's actually getting worse!

These two political hacks masquerading as reporters think that Joe Biden can do something to speed up electric transmission permitting and siting. 

No, he can't.  Adding new layers of government control SLOWS things down, it does not speed them up.  But never-you-mind, these two gals believe!

What?  The federal government is going to file a petition to intervene in each state transmission permitting and siting process?  That's what she wrote.  Of course, that's not anywhere near accurate.  She just has a general idea that the feds can somehow force a state to permit, so she makes up some feel-good sounding crap that means absolutely nothing at all.  You know, a REAL reporter would have investigated this matter, found the enabling legislation, and then asked questions of the federal agencies involved.  This lazy reporter just made crap up.

Here's reality:  This is NOT a new process.  It's one that became law back in 2005.  What is new is a change to the wording of the statute that supposedly gives FERC the authority to site (and grant federal eminent domain authority) for a transmission line that is denied a permit by a state utility commission.  The old law only gave FERC authority if a state failed to act on a permit application. 

There's also a whole lot more to this process, such as a congestion study and designation of NIETCs.  This MUST happen first because the only transmission projects eligible for federal usurpation of state authority must be in a NIETC.  Even with a NIETC designation, the state process must play out before it could bump to FERC.  Also, add years of rulemakings and governmental bureaucracy (environmental reviews) to the mix.  And, does Congress actually have the authority to claim a role in electric transmission siting?  Our Constitution says the feds can't step into an area that was left to the states.  Add years of court challenges to this list.  Why didn't the reporter mention ANY of this?

You know, the whining of developers should have tipped a reporter off that there was more to this picture.

Of course it doesn't.  It does nothing but throw tax money at a problem and attempt greater force to crush people who object.  The harder the government stamps its boot on the neck of rural America, the more entrenched and creative the opposition will become.  Acting like a bully is never the way to get someone to cooperate.  Waving a big stick and threatening to beat someone with it if they don't get in line is not the way to solve a problem.  What the hell is wrong with you, Rob Gramlich?

Who is this clown?  What does a "power-sector consulting firm" actually do?  The reporter wasn't the least bit curious to uncover that Gramlich appears to be Bill Gates' energy investment lackey in his evil plan to take over the world.  Muhahaha, as Dr. Evil would say.

But let's get back to Mike Garland and his affront that a couple of people can stop a transmission line.  Ya know what, Mike?  There's a really simple solution to your problem.  If you bury your transmission line on an existing right-of-way, nobody is even going to want to stop your project in the first place!!  It's a miracle!  Maybe if Mike quits trying to take land from other people upon which to build his profit-making power line, we could make some real progress here.  No sticks, no made up propaganda, no reporter bullshit needed.

And where did the reporter get this notion?

Poor little city gal.  She doesn't know where her food comes from!  She completely misses one of the biggest concerns:  Transmission interferes with farming and lowers the yield.  There's actually a lot more to it that the reporter *could* find out, if she bothered to actually contact a rural transmission opposition group.  But she doesn't have time for the folks who grow the food she stuffs in her pie hole.

This whole article is full of derogatory presumptions, such as bringing up NIMBY, and blaming opposition on the fossil fuel industry.

These thoughtful committed citizens changed the world.  It wasn't about preserving fossil fuels.  Those companies did their own thing because they were protecting their own financial interests from competitor Avangrid.  If the shoe were on the other foot, Avangrid would do the same.  There's no honor among thieves.  I'll give you another analogy to go with it:  The enemy of my enemy is my friend.  If these companies wanted to dump a bunch of money into defeating the power line, are the grassroots groups supposed to stop their opposition?  Think about it, little city gal, and realize what you're "reporting" is presumptuous garbage.

And let's talk about Bob Kump's assertion regarding what this is really about.  Bob gets it wrong.  What it IS about, at its very core, is money.  Piles and piles of big green money!  Kump and his company stand to get very, very rich if they can build a transmission line through rural Maine and pretend to sell "renewable" power to Massachusetts.  It's always about the money.

The comments on this article are numerous.  Perhaps the most infuriating is this one:

Bribing local communities in exchange for quietly accepting economic, health, and environmental impacts?  But how does that change the impacts?  It doesn't.  Not one bit.  This is the epitome of urban arrogance.  "Oh, let's put our nasties in some place far away where the people are poor and grateful for our crumbs."  Ya know, some states, like West Virginia, are tired of being urban toilets in exchange for a handful of colorful beads.  How about avoiding those impacts in the first place?  Burying the transmission project on existing rights-of-way means that nobody has to suffer, or be paid off to do so.  We're really not grateful for your beneficence.  Take your bribes and shove them.  Maybe if you put your big stick up there first, it can pave the way.

However, the comments overall seem to be telling the reporters the same thing... that Big Government is never the solution.  In fact, it's more likely to be the problem.

It seems to me that this article could be summed up in one sentence.

Some People oppose transmission, but Most People need new transmission.

Some People are rural.
Most People are urban.

Did the reporter actually count everyone to see which should be labeled "some" and which should be labeled "most"?  How many is "some"?  How many is "most"?  Or are the words "some" and "most" propaganda words used to subliminally sway reader opinion?  Doesn't look like it's working.

This article is nothing more than a bundle of glittering generalities that mean absolutely nothing at all.  What a complete waste of time and effort.  How about reporting the facts for a change and leaving the opinion on the editorial page?  Shame on you Wall Street Journal!

I don't write a lot about gas pipeline issues, but this article in Marcellus Drilling News deserves an exception.

The adjectives used are exquisite (and of course unnecessary).  Someone's knickers are in a hard twist over this court case.  As if the judges could be swayed by ad hominem arguments in an industry newsletter.

Radical, arrogant and, my personal favorite, UPPITY are adjectives used to describe landowners in the opening paragraph.  The rest of the article is behind a paywall, but I can guess that it probably contains more derogatory adjectives and arrogant observations about the gas industry's opponents on this matter.

Landowners "don't like how the pipeline left a mark across their horse pastures."  So, all affected landowners have horses, and pastures?  Or only the moneyed few who spent their own hard-earned cash on a legal battle?  Not sure if gas rates are like electric rates in this way, but if this pipeline were a transmission line, the landowners would also be paying for the gas company's legal fees, propaganda, and lobbying, to get this project approved. 

But there's always the courts, and the buck stops there.

In case you're curious about the eminent domain aspects of this case, here's another news article without the adjectives (or maybe creative adjectives for the gas company, instead). 

And if you're really interested in stripping the biased media crap from this issue, you can listen to the Oral Argument at the Court here.

Do companies get genuinely angry at the citizens who rise up to challenge their arrogant presumptions?  Yes, but they normally don't demonstrate it in such a public fashion.  But I guarantee your company overlords are talking about you in derogatory fashion in internal emails, if you've managed to get under their skin far enough.  Been there, done that.

The energy industry is frustrated, both the fossil fuel industry and the clean energy industry.  One because they suddenly can't build anything at all, and the other because it can't build things fast enough to suit.  Landowners are the target of both.  How DARE landowners actually fight back to keep what they rightfully own?  The adjectives are probably going to get a lot more creative in the future.

Who do you think you're fooling, Invenergy?  In response to a puffy, propaganda editorial touting the "genius" of Grain Belt Express, Monroe County Missouri Associate Commissioner Marilyn O'Bannon speaks for Missouri in a response op ed, Misleading Missourians is the real aim of the Grain Belt Express.

O'Bannon says,

It looks like Invenergy's "Way of the American Genius" public relations campaign hasn't fooled anyone... anyone at all.

New transmission without landowner sacrifice?  Now that's REAL American genius!  But GBE is a bargain basement, leftover idea that Invenergy bought at fire sale prices from defunct Clean Line Energy Partners at the time it went belly-up after wasting $200M of its investor's money.  Instead of making GBE better, and making it welcome by everyone, Invenergy continues to spend as little as possible trying to make this bad idea work.  It's not like Invenergy cannot bury this project on existing rights of way, it's that it simply chooses not to.  The people of Missouri are not respected in the least by Chicago-based Invenergy and its super-rich CEO Michael Polsky.  Any flimsy excuses by Invenergy that it cannot bury its project should fall on deaf ears because the company has demonstrated that it CAN bury new transmission when it demonstrates a bit of respect for landowners in its path.

Corporate greed?  That's right!  Instead of building a more expensive project that doesn't require landowner sacrifice, Invenergy seeks to squeeze maximum profits out of its project idea through the use of eminent domain to acquire land as cheaply as possible.  It's not like the use of eminent domain creates cheaper rates for GBE's customers.  GBE's rates will be market-based; that is it will charge the maximum amount it can negotiate with customers based on the market value of the transmission capacity.  The market value will not change if GBE uses eminent domain.  The market value depends on the value of the service to voluntary customers.

Customers?  GBE only has one, and that contract is priced below cost, a loss leader, signed for the purpose of Public Service Commission approval.  The claims of savings are based on numbers at least 5 years old, and that pie-in-the-sky figure was created based on overpriced contracts with Prairie State that have since expired.  Isn't it time for Invenergy to do a re-calculation based on current contracts and market prices, instead of spending its time creating fake "American Genius" marketing campaigns that serve no foreseeable purpose?  Who is Invenergy marketing to with this campaign?  Is it supposed to be the landowners?  Is it supposed to be the County governments, who have yet to grant assent for the project to cross county roadways?  Is it supposed to be potential future customers that Invenergy has not even attempted to negotiate with in a fair and open manner?

Invenergy isn't fooling anyone, except maybe itself.  Missourians know that there's a very real possibility that the project will never be built.  Instead of seeking customers and financing for its project that would assure Missouri's elected officials that the land taken by eminent domain would actually be used for a public purpose, Invenergy wastes its time and money pretending to be a genius.

If Invenergy takes land using eminent domain now, there's no guarantee that the land will actually be used for a public purpose.  What happens if Invenergy takes land now and later cancels its project?  Will it have to give the land back when it doesn't serve a public purpose?  Or will it be able to keep the land it took under the guise of public purpose and use it for its own private profit?

Missouri's elected officials are understandably cautious, and they're not fooled in the least by Invenergy's smoke and mirrors.

Read the whole editorial for yourself.

Special interests have successfully pushed through their plan to make two important changes to federal law regarding transmission.  The "Infrastructure" bill is chock full of lots of stuff, but I'm only going to concentrate on two things that are going to waste an enormous amount of time and a whole bunch of taxpayer funds trying to build electric transmission roads to nowhere and usurp state authority to site and permit new transmission.

Let's look at the second issue first.  Congress amended Section 216(a) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824p) to give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority to issue a permit for a transmission project for which a state "has denied an application seeking approval pursuant to applicable law."  See the law that was amended here.  See the amendments to the law here in Section 40105.

But there's a whole bunch more to it that's going to practically guarantee more than a decade of process and court battles.

In order for FERC to exercise its newfound authority, the transmission project must be sited in a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor (NIETC).  These corridors may be designated by the U.S. Department of Energy after it performs a "study of electric transmission congestion."  The law was amended to add that "the designation would enhance the ability of facilities that generate or transmit firm or intermittent energy to connect to the electric grid."  Looks like it's not limited to renewables, although why should we designate corridors that would take private property to transmit "intermittent energy"?  Only if we want our electricity to work "intermittently"?  Also, "the designation would result in a reduction in the cost to purchase electric energy for consumers."  Must result in cheaper energy.  Renewables, with all costs included, are not cheaper.  But never fear, our heroes in Congress have included a protective guardrail for landowners whose private property would be taken by a new FERC permit...  "...in the determination of the Commission, the permit holder has made good faith efforts to engage with landowners and other stakeholders early in the applicable permitting process..."  There, that solves everything.  As long as transmission company land agents begin pestering you with incessant phone calls and by showing up at your property unannounced at their own whim early in the process, you're protected.  This is just so much undefined garbage that it does absolutely nothing to protect landowners.

However, the congestion study and NIETC designation would take years to accomplish at DOE, where well-fed bureaucrats stumble lackadaisically through their work days.  And then guess what?  Any designation is a federal action that requires an Environmental Impact Study under NEPA.  That can take perhaps 5 years... because bureaucrats, you know.  After that, it's a surety that any corridor designation would be challenged in federal court.  Add at least one year, possibly two.  Also, these DOE congestion studies are only performed every 3 years (although DOE has never delivered like there is any deadline whatsoever).  The last one was performed in 2020.  It remains to be seen whether shifting political winds will cue up another study before the three-year deadline is up.  It also requires that, in order for FERC to "permit" a transmission project, the project must first go through a state permitting proceeding and be denied.  That will take another year or more.

So, let's put this on a timeline:  2023 - congestion study.  Perhaps a designation a year later, after "consulting" with states and Indian tribes - 2024.  Add EIS - 2029.  Add court challenges - 2031.  Meanwhile, the transmission project must first seek state approval.  It remains to be seen whether this will occur before or after they try to establish a corridor.  Most likely, the corridor designation will precede state application because what good is having FERC backstop authority if you can't threaten state utility commissions with losing jurisdiction if they deny?  So, let's add another year for state permitting, and then how many years do you think it may take FERC to site and permit if it decides to use its new authority?  I'm going to estimate at least three, because first FERC has to come up with regulations for its permitting process, which means a rulemaking and then possible court challenge on the rulemaking.  And even if it manages to jump all these hurdles, FERC's permit and siting can still be, once again, appealed in federal court.  Add another year.  I think we're up to like 2036 now, but who's counting?  Yup, this is REALLY going to help with immediate building of transmission for renewables.  You morons!  You've tied yourself up with new layers of Big Government process that's going to take at least 15 years to untangle. This is going to be a colossal waste of time and resources.

And then let's get down to basics... is this move to usurp state authority to site and permit new transmission even Constitutional?  The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution provides that the “Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  Can the federal government simply mandate a takeover of state power to site and permit electric transmission like that?  This is going to be an interesting slog through the federal court system.

Think that new law is stupid?  You ain't seen nothing yet!  Congress also added a new section creating a "Transmission Facilitation Program."  (See Section 40106 of the new law linked above).  In a nutshell, this is a federal effort to use our tax dollars to build transmission roads to nowhere.  Lots of our tax dollars!

This new provision establishes a "fund" of $2.5 Billion for the Secretary of Energy to "enter into a capacity contract with respect to an eligible project prior to the date on which the eligible project is completed."  What's a capacity contract?  It's a contract to purchase capacity (use) of a new transmission project.  A merchant transmission project is a market-based project.  Although there is no regulated "need" for new transmission, an investor may propose to build one at his own expense with the hope of selling capacity to a voluntary market.  If there are no volunteers to buy the capacity, then there is no market need for the transmission project and no one will use it.  In that instance, the project is not built and the investor eats the cost of his own failure to attract market interest.  However, this stupid new law props up unneeded projects using your tax dollars!  If a proposed merchant project cannot attract any voluntary customers to pay for and use its project, then the federal government could buy the capacity, even though it is not going to use it.  Because the federal government is underwriting this private profit project with your tax dollars, the merchant can go ahead and build, even though it has no customers of its own.

A transmission road to nowhere with no customers, paid for by you.  We're going to build unneeded electric transmission across your property using eminent domain, and then let it sit there and rot because nobody is using it.  Have we reached the pinnacle of stupidity yet?

Oh, but wait, the federal government has a solution... it can only "enter into capacity contracts that will encourage other entities to enter into contracts for the transmission capacity of the eligible project... for not more than 50 percent of the total proposed transmission capacity of the applicable eligible project."  So, it's sort of like painting Tom Sawyer's fence.  The federal government thinks that if it underwrites the cost of a transmission project that nobody wants to use or pay for, that will somehow "encourage" those customer to change their mind?  If it wasn't economically attractive in the first instance before the government stepped in and added a bunch of additional costs and interest to the cost of capacity, it certainly won't be attractive to customers at an increased price.  Did these folks fail elementary school math?  A transmission project that did not attract any customers when it was first offered it not going to magically attract interest after the Secretary of Energy starts painting Tom Sawyer's fence using your tax dollars.

So, what's going to happen when the customers aren't "encouraged?"  The federal government will continue to prop up the transmission road to nowhere that nobody uses "for a term of not more than 40 years".  

How much of our money might the Secretary pay for this capacity that it isn't going to use?

It's going to buy 50% of the project's capacity at a rate that will support 100% of the project's construction.  There's nothing "fair market value" about that calculation.  The federal government is going to underwrite the entire cost of unneeded transmission roads to nowhere and then try to sell capacity to a third party that didn't want to buy it in the first place.  It doesn't matter if anyone is ever encouraged to buy the capacity from the federal government.  That unused transmission line is going to sit there rotting for 40 years... or maybe forever.   And what happens if the Secretary doesn't manage to sell the capacity to anyone else over that 40 year contract?  It simply forgives the entire amount it paid to the private party over the life of the transmission road to nowhere to be used by nobody.  What does the government care?  It's not their money... it's yours.

There must be a need for every transmission project.  We can't just build them because we think they're pretty, or they provide jobs, or maybe someone might want to use them someday.  Need is determined either by a regional planning organization or a market need for the project demonstrated by signed capacity contracts.  The federal government can't create a "need" by signing fake contracts for capacity that may never be used.

This craziness tap dances all over the current rate model of merchant transmission.  FERC may grant a merchant transmission project the authority to negotiate rates with voluntary customers in order to pay for its project.  The negotiation process must be fair and is subject to regulatory scrutiny.  In addition, there may be no captive customers for a negotiated rate project.  All participation is voluntary.  When the federal government starts signing capacity contracts without any market competition that would serve to keep contract prices at fair market value, it is no longer a market-based process.  In addition, when the federal government starts trying to resell unwanted capacity it has purchased, it would have to meet the same scrutiny as the original project owner.  Not sure that can even happen without a whole bunch of new rules.  FERC is going to have to have a huge, regulatory reckoning with its negotiated rate authority process and precedent before any of this nonsense happens.  So, another time consuming, money-wasting dead end.

Also, a state may deny to approve a government-funded merchant project.  Then they'd have to go back to square one designating a NIETC corridor.  Round and round the regulatory revolving door they go!

Never let advocacy groups make new laws.  They're not smart enough not to harm themselves and others.

The only drawback here is that fighting all these battles is also going to be time-consuming and expensive for affected landowners.  But we never give up!  Game on!

We all know that the media is uninformed about transmission, and that they carry the water for "clean energy" companies and progressive politics.  The whole "green is good" thing has been slowly changing our thinking for decades through the use of propaganda.  Most people don't even think about it anymore, they simply accept it and believe that "green" can do no wrong.  Except, what happens when some pundit pretends to take a deep dive into "our power grid" but ends up spewing misinformation and ad hominem attacks?

It's not like it's mainstream news, however it was broadcast on HBO.  Millions of people saw it.  And it's complete and utter crap.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver did a story about "the power grid" on Sunday.  I didn't watch it.  I don't watch HBO.  But, someone who did tipped me off about it.  I found a video of the show on YouTube.  Here it is.

*Warning*  Extremely salty language and jokes.  If you're going to be offended, perhaps you should skip it.

Before I get into the really offensive part of this stupid propaganda, let's briefly go over the points he got wrong.

Now let's get to the most offensive part of this whole video.  John attacks one grassroots transmission group and says they are maddening and "sound like d*cks".  He also criticizes the landowner's attire, as if that ad hominem attack could make his point?  He selectively edits the video he appropriated to make it appear that the landowner made a stupid point that serves John's narrative that these people are selfish d*cks.

The opposition group he attacked is the Stop Transource folks from the eastern part of the route.  The video he appropriated is this one:

John focuses on one particular landowner who was obviously involved in harvest.  He wasn't dressed in a fancy suit for the job.  He was working hard to harvest the food John puts in his sh*tty casseroles.  The crack about what he was wearing was arrogant and stupid.  Compare John's video story at 16:16 to the actual footage at 36:49 on the Heritage Unprotected video.  At 16:34, John edited out something that causes a jump in the video.  What was edited out was this:

That part didn't fit John's narrative that landowners are selfish d*cks, so he edited it out.  That part actually proved that the selfish d*cks are the folks in the city who want cheap fossil-fueled power from Pennsylvania because it's cheaper than running their own "clean" generators.

These people do not deserve this smear job from the very pretentious John Oliver, yukking it up at someone else's expense while filling his pie hole with the food they work so hard to produce.

These people are actually RIGHT.  It seems that John didn't bother to compare the video to the present day state of the Transource transmission project.  Maryland regulators required Transource to cancel this part of the project and simply add new wires to existing transmission towers.  If he had bothered to watch the whole video, he might have noticed that this idea was mentioned by landowners.  Turns out they were right all along.  They did not have to compromise or be flexible.  Transource did.  Also, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission denied the project because it would increase electric rates in Pennsylvania, instead of lowering them for Washington, D.C. and Baltimore.  Turns out that the transmission congestion that was the basis for this project had managed to evaporate on its own.  There was no economic, market efficiency, need for this project after all.  The landowners were right about that, too.

Seems like John should apologize to the folks he maligned.  But, guess what?  A show that exists to spew propaganda and malign folks for a few laughs doesn't actually have a place where the viewers can send their comments.  Information is a one-way street at Last Week With John Oliver.  HBO doesn't care what you think, or if you were offended.

Too bad, really.  John is quite funny, but this story has revealed that his topics are nothing more than created propaganda.  Nothing actually funny about that.

I hope a pigeon poops on his head.

This article is about the citizens' referendum in Maine that killed the New England Clean Energy Connect... or is it?  Although ostensibly about the adventures of Massachusetts to get "clean energy" at the expense of neighboring states, it has a broader lesson.

Two words:  Merchant Transmission.

The article says:

Merchant transmission is an entirely different animal than transmission built by regulated public utilities and states must end treating it the same when it comes to eminent domain.  Although the regulators who approve these projects know the difference, hardly anyone else does, including legislators, local governments, the media, and sometimes even the landowners affected by it.  It's up to you to educate these people and work to update your state's eminent domain laws to protect the people of your state from speculative energy projects without a public purpose.

First, let's talk about regulated public utility transmission.  It's something most people are familiar with.  For this kind of transmission line, there is a public purpose.  Numerous independent regional electric grid planners across the country study the system's needs to determine whether new transmission is needed to keep the lights on.  When a need is found, the grid planner approves a new project, which is then sent to the appropriate state utility commission(s) where the line would be built for subsequent approval.  All transmission must be approved according to the state's laws governing transmission before it may be built.  If a state also finds the project needed, it grants a permit and eminent domain authority to the utility in accordance with the state's law.  This allows the public utility to condemn land for the project, if necessary.  However, regulated public utilities use this power sparingly and prefer to coerce landowners to sign voluntarily.  A public utility historically uses its eminent domain authority on less than 5% of the needed easements.  Public utilities are heavily regulated, and the rates they charge for public purpose transmission are what's known as "cost of service" rates.  As you might have guessed, the public utility can only charge electric consumers for its cost of the project, plus a return (profit) set by regulators.  The return allows the public utility to recover a reasonable profit on its investment in the project, which is slowly paid for by electric consumers over its useful life, usually 40 years.

While not ideal for affected landowners, who must sacrifice their property for the general public good, it's what was historically developed to allow for electrification of our country in the last century.  But the historical public purpose for condemnation has been reimagined in the past 20 years, and state laws granting eminent domain authority to public utilities have not kept up with these changes.

It's time for change!

The biggest reason for change is the development of merchant transmission.  Merchant transmission is, at its most basic, a speculative transmission line proposed solely for investor profit.  The idea behind it is that there is a market need for additional transmission beyond that needed for a public purpose.  A group of investors may determine that there is a market for one of these supplemental projects, although there is no public purpose for it.  If a merchant proposes a new transmission project, it must find voluntary customers to pay for it.  Because there is no public purpose, the cost of a merchant line cannot be involuntarily allocated to captive electric consumers.  Investors put their own money up for the project and hope that they can attract enough voluntary customers to pay for the line, plus an attractive profit.  A merchant is granted authority to fairly negotiate rates with prospective customers.  If the merchant charges too much, it won't have enough customers.  The rates it can negotiate are set by the market for transmission capacity.  If a potential customer believes the rate it has negotiated is economic and will supply a need for its customers, in turn, then a contract is signed and the customer is on the hook to pay the contracted rate.  The need here is a market need, not a public purpose need.  The lights will still stay on for everyone if the merchant project is not built.  The merchant takes a risk that a supplemental market for its project will develop.  If it does not, then the merchant will not build the project because there is nobody to pay for it.  A merchant cannot get a loan to build a transmission line without a guaranteed stream of revenue that comes with negotiated rate contracts with its customers.

And let's talk about merchant transmission rate contracts.  A merchant cannot charge more than its voluntary customers are willing to pay.  A merchant rate is set by market, not its cost of service plus regulated, reasonable profit.  Whatever the market is willing to pay determines the profit.  If a merchant can build its project for less than the market rate, then whatever amount leftover above its cost of service is pure profit for the merchant.  There is no reasonable cap on its profit.  As the linked article above points out, a merchant profit can be enormous, which makes these kind of speculative transmission projects so attractive to investors.  But keep in mind, if the profit that remains after contracts are negotiated with voluntary customers is not enough for the investors, they are not committed to building the  project and can simply fold while absorbing the loss for money spent to date.  Losing a small investment is better than losing a larger amount of money over time selling a service that costs more than the market will pay for it.

So, why are merchant projects a problem when it comes to eminent domain law?

Because states are in a position to either approve or reject the project based on speculation.  If a state approves a merchant project, it must grant it public utility status under current laws.  Public utility status determines that the project serves a public need and grants the utility eminent domain authority.  Not such a problem for a regulated transmission project ordered to serve a public need.  The public utility is under orders to build the project if approved.  It can't decide afterwards that there is not enough profit in it and cancel its plans.  If approved, the project will meet a public need, and any land acquired using eminent domain is only used for a public need.  But public utility status is a problem when granted to merchants.  Because the merchant has the option to cancel the project at any time, it may never serve a public purpose.  But a private investor in the project may have still acquired land "for a public purpose" using eminent domain.  There's no provision requiring a merchant to actually use the land it has acquired for a public purpose.  In that case, the land will have been acquired through eminent domain without the required public use, or public purpose.  Our Constitution prevents the acquisition of land by private parties for a private use.

The tragedy currently unfolding in Missouri illustrates why public utility status and eminent domain authority for speculative merchant transmission projects must end through modernization of state eminent domain laws.

The Grain Belt Express merchant transmission project owned by private investor Invenergy has been approved by Missouri regulators and granted public utility status and eminent domain authority.  But it still doesn't have the approval it needs in Illinois, and its Kansas approval is tied to future approval in Illinois.  The only state where GBE currently has the authority to condemn property is Missouri.  The entirety of the project has not been approved in other states, and it does not have enough voluntary customers to pay for the project.  It's only known customer is a small group of Missouri municipalities who signed a contract to pay an amount less than it would cost GBE to provide the service.  This "loss leader" contract was only signed so that GBE could tell the Missouri utility commission that it was providing "benefit" to Missouri in order to schmooze its way to approval.  GBE has still not reached the point in its development where it has enough customers and permits to build.  GBE is still only a SPECULATIVE transmission project.  There is no guarantee that it will ever be built.

But GBE has been asking Missouri landowners to willingly sign over their land now for a project that may never be built or used for a public purpose.  The landowners who resist are being threatened with eminent domain, and GBE has made good in its threat against one landowner in Buchanan County.  It has made a court filing to take this person's property using eminent domain.  In the event that GBE is successful, then it will own property for a project that it may never build.  What happens to that property if GBE does not find enough customers, or is denied the additional permits it needs to build the project?  GBE will still own an interest in that landowner's property, an interest it has acquired that may never serve the public.

Until GBE has signed enough customers, received all its necessary permits, and committed to build the project, there is no "public use" or "public purpose" for the speculative taking of private property.  Our Constitution does not allow the taking of private property without public use, but that's exactly what's happening in Missouri.  Right now.  GBE is threatening condemnation on more than 50% of the property it *could* need for its speculative project.  Remember, regulated public utilities typically condemn less than 5% of the easements, and only then when construction is imminent.  Regulated public utilities only use eminent domain as a last resort on a project that they are committed to build.  GBE is condemning NOW the majority of the property it *could* need later, when it may have customers and permits necessary to complete the project.  There is no "public need" to condemn property now for a speculative project.

State utility commission conditions that attempt to prevent a speculative merchant from hurting landowners by beginning construction before they have customers and permits for the entire project do not work.  Missouri requires GBE to have funding for the complete project before beginning construction, but not before using eminent domain.  Kansas, too, prevents construction until all permits have been granted, but it doesn't prevent eminent domain.  State eminent domain law needs to be updated to rein in eminent domain authority for speculative merchant projects.  Updates to state law to prevent the granting of eminent domain for merchant projects until they have necessary permits, customers, and have legally committed to building the project are  desperately needed to protect citizens.  If you haven't yet been put in the position to have your land condemned for a speculative private profit purpose, count yourself lucky... and hurry down to your legislator's office to make sure it doesn't happen.  Congressional "infrastructure" legislation will light a fire in investor circles to propose more merchant transmission in exchange for taxpayer-funded financial reward.  Missouri is teaching the lesson right now and should be first to protect its citizens from eminent domain abuse.

Only one state has updated its laws to deal with merchant transmission.  Several years ago, Iowa passed legislation that prevented above-ground merchant transmission.  Think that ended merchant transmission?  It did not!  Another speculative merchant transmission project is in the works that complies with the new law.  SOO Green Renewable Rail is proposing a merchant transmission project that is buried on existing rail rights-of-way.  Changing state law to rein in merchant transmission did not make Iowa undesirable for merchant projects.  It did not scare anyone away.  It simply ensured that future merchant projects are less invasive for the state's citizens. 

Why doesn't Missouri require GBE to be buried on existing easements like the SOO Green project?  Doing so won't make the project impossible.  But what it would do is cut into Invenergy's enormous profits.  Building underground is more expensive, which siphons off some of Invenergy's profit.  Invenergy wants to build the cheapest project it can so that its profit is bigger.  The negotiated market rates for a merchant project won't change if the project is buried, or uses eminent domain to acquire land cheaper.  GBE's rates would still be set by market.  But if SOO Green is risking its money betting that even a buried project will create a profit, then it is possible, even for GBE.

Ask your legislators what will happen to the easements GBE condemns now, if the project is cancelled later due to rejected permits and lack of customers?  Will GBE have to restore the land and return the easements?  There's nothing requiring that.  GBE can keep the land it condemned without a public use, and then use it for any private purpose it likes.  What good is a linear easement across 200 miles of Missouri?  It could be used for a number of things such as  a pipeline of some sorts, including one of the new-fangled and extremely dangerous CO2 pipelines.  It could be used for a private toll road.  It could be a private railroad.  It could be sold at a huge profit to someone else for any of these projects, and more.  There is no guarantee that it will be used for a public purpose.  And our Constitution states: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."  There is no provision that allows the taking of private property for a private use, but that is exactly what Missouri is allowing to occur today.

GBE's use of eminent domain is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

And I don't mean transmission opponents.  They've been awake forever.  They never sleep.  I'm talking about the "clean energy" cheerleaders who love new transmission "for clean energy" simply because it is NOT IN MY BACK YARD.  We know that these people would feel differently if it were.  Case in point -- Howard Learner and the Environmental Law and Policy Center, who thought "clean line" transmission in someone else's back yard was a fabulous idea... until one of the lines got proposed for his back yard.  Howard has since woken up and doesn't think this is a such a great idea anymore.  Woke Howard has gone on to do great things, such as the recent injunction to stop construction of the Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission line in Wisconsin.  Way to go, Howard!

The powers that be and the mainstream media have just woken up to the fact that transmission opponents have the upper hand over new energy policy designed to build more "clean" transmission because every community targeted with a new overhead transmission line on new rights-of-way will oppose the project.  Every.Last.One.  And, as this article points out, opposition methods are getting really creative and... *gasp* transmission opposition is winning!

As this country stupidly plows ahead trying to construct enough new transmission to "circle the Earth about 10 times" it's going to wake a whole bunch more people by dropping a transmission line in the places they hold dear.  Mass will slowly build until trillions of dollars are wasted trying to build projects that are ultimately stopped by their opponents.  Is this really the path forward?

One company is proposing new "clean" transmission that will be buried on existing rights-of-way for its entire length.  This project has not attracted the expensive, time-consuming opposition that kills projects.  Its effect on landowners would be short and minimal.  Landowners have been offered the equivalent of "good neighbor" payments to accept the project.  And for the vast majority, that's good enough.  It does not obstruct the use of their land, and it doesn't create a perpetual visual burden.

Other projects that don't cause project-killing opposition include rebuilds of transmission on existing rights-of-way, even when above ground.  Simply changing out one existing transmission line for another doesn't bother people as much as a new right-of-way across their property.

What if we designed new transmission to modern standards so that it did not bother landowners and incite opposition?  We'd save a lot of money, for starters.  Although the buried on existing rights-of-way transmission can be more expensive at the outset, it quickly balances out because it does not require hugely expensive outlays to fight opposition.  For instance, the Maine referendum that finally woke up Forbes cost nearly $100M, and the project still faces additional costs to continue to try to fight off the opposition that has killed it.  It is likely to be cancelled anyhow, and at great expense.  Stupid, stupid, stupid!  We would also save time because buried transmission doesn't face delays caused by opposition. 

It's time to hit pause on this idiotic idea to pass new laws meant to thwart opposition to new transmission.  The new laws won't work.  Not by any stretch.  Opposition will just find new ways to kill transmission projects that they don't want.  Giving up is never an option for transmission opposition.  The battle just gets more creative.

Big government can never silence the people, no matter how hard it tries.  We always win.  Deal with it, little NIMBYs.

I've spent the past week hopelessly wading through 165 different comments on FERC's proposed transmission rulemaking (at least the media says there are 165, I haven't counted them).  Average size of the filings are probably around 50 pages, but it seems like the "clean energy now" folks are trying just a bit too hard by submitting filings hundreds of pages long that include additional coma-inducing appendix reports (of course these "reports" are all paid for by special interest $$).

Some commenters agree with us, and some don't.  But some are just downright offensive.  That's where we're going to concentrate right now because there's a big ball of steam building that needs to be released before I take a deep breath and calmly wade back in.

It's the special interests that claim to speak for landowners.  Who the heck are these people and where do they get off claiming to speak for people they have never met, never spoken to, or interacted with in any way?

We'll start off light with what I'm going to call the "Big Green" comments.  These were signed by the typical environmental advocacy industry sycophants (yes, it's an industry since it supports itself with grants from corporations that will financially benefit from the ideas pushed forward.)  Just to name a few:  Sierra Club, NRDC, EarthJustice, Conservation Law Foundation,  and Acadia Center.  These self-serving blowhards commented:

So, let's boil this down.  A landowner is to be "meaningfully addressed" but ultimately dismissed because she's standing in the way of the environmental utopia?  What the heck is "meaningfully addressed?"  It means absolutely nothing.  They also think that landowners would "benefit" from earlier interaction with the transmission developer.  Seems to me that the longer this power struggle goes on, the more the landowner hates the transmission developer.  What may initially be a mild and overly polite granny can turn into Nannie Doss (go ahead, look it up, I'll wait) if you give it enough time.  Don't mess with old ladies... they're generally all out of shits to give.  Trust me on this.

Who are Big Green to tell FERC how we shall be "addressed"?  Moreover what makes them think this will be successful?  It won't.  Big Green doesn't know crap about opposition to transmission.  In fact, they've recently been showing up in state permitting proceedings as cheerleaders for more transmission.  Would any landowner in his right mind let The Sierra Club represent his interests in a transmission line siting case?

Think you're mad now?  Think again, because the Niskanen Center puts the Big Green blowhards to shame.  If you're a regular blog reader, you won't be surprised in the least to find out that Niskanen is pretending that it represents landowners affected by new transmission.  Niskanen has had ZERO interaction with any transmission opposition groups.  That's probably because, like Big Green, they are cheerleading for more transmission.  Also stuff like this:

That's right... if Niskanen was in charge (and maybe they are if they make the right political moves) Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Connecticut, Kentucky, Tennessee Taxachusetts and another minor state would be filled end to end, border to border, with wind and solar installations (and little else).  This is not workable, financially or otherwise.

But not knowing squat about transmission opposition doesn't stop Niskanen from being an expert at it.  Why, Niskanen devoted a whole half-day to a workshop discussing ways to build an equally astounding amount of new transmission in the shortest time possible.  Wow!  A whole half-day?  I've been doing this for 13 years now, and I still haven't learned everything, but I have learned a damn site more than Niskanen.  Niskanen's plan is completely pointless when it comes to landowners and will do nothing but create more layers of delay.  But don't let that stop them...

Here's one particularly annoying passage from their "report."

What's missing from this urban-focused list?  Impacts and obstacles to farming, which is likely the biggest factor for rural landowners who use their land to make a living.  But, what can you expect from a band of burghers who probably think vegetables are manufactured in factories?

Here's another:

Not once in 13 years has any group I've worked with asked for any of these things.  Who are these communities?  And, even if they did, giving a library to a town in exchange for privately-held land owned by someone who lives nearby is not compensation.  The town doesn't own the land being sacrificed.  It has no skin in the game.  If you don't believe me, there's this bridge in Brooklyn that I will sell to you for $10...

There's more... lots more... infuriating comments that could only be made by someone with their head shoved so far up their own keister that the oxygen levels are getting low.

What else could explain how their prattle about Clean Line Energy Partners is in need of a serious fact check?  For example:

Some?  Try ALL, sweetcheeks.  ALL of Clean Line's rights of way were new.  That's one of the reasons opposition was so emphatic and widespread, but not the primary one.  Two words:  Eminent Domain.

How about this?

Financial support?  No.  The government wasn't giving Clean Line a dime.  It worked the other way... Clean Line was giving the DOE money for its "participation."  The partnership was REVOKED not because of the changing administration, but because CLEAN LINE COULDN'T FIND ANY CUSTOMERS and the partnership agreement required Clean Line to have sufficient customers to pay for the project before it could move forward.  Clean Line collapsed because it could not find any customers.  End of story.  Niskanen got the whole DOE thing wrong because it was not involved and has not talked to any landowners who were.

Which bring us to the conclusion... Niskanen does not speak for landowners affected by new transmission, and never will.  Shut up, and sit down, you bombastic blowhards.

Okay, I feel better now.  I'm going back in... if you don't hear from me for a while, toss me a rope.  I may have gotten lost in there.

What's happened to our society when a political group can actually say this to Congress with a straight face?

So, since landowners have been treated badly by the feds under the Natural Gas Act, let's expand federal control of electric transmission line siting so that even more landowners can be treated badly by the federal government?  Do they even know how hypocritical they sound?

This is what happens when your "concern" for landowners is really, deep down, just concern for your own environmental and political goals.  It's not about the landowners... it never was.  Groups like Niskanen use landowners like a battering ram to get their own way because they don't have any compelling supporters of their own.  Landowners are mere pawns in a political game, but yet they allow it because they need the money and political power wielded by these hypocritical institutions to win their own, personal battle.  So while gas pipeline opponents allow Niskanen to "represent" them, electric transmission opponents do not.  Niskanen wants to toss these folks under the bus.  Therefore, who is Niskanen to ask Congress to make electric transmission siting a federal affair?  They need to butt out and shut up.  This is not their battle.

Considering how they have not interacted with any electric transmission opposition group, it takes a lot of chutzpah for Niskanen to tell Congress that new legislation will "protect" landowners.  Niskanen has NO IDEA what issues are important to landowners in electric transmission battles.  Go ahead, read about all the "protections" Niskanen thinks are beneficial to you.  For the most part, they are nothing more than the protections currently available under state law, and we all know how little those do to actually protect landowners.  It's just another slate of "landowner protections" that are created by the folks who seek to take advantage of landowners.  No landowners were consulted in their creation.  It's self-serving dreck about as useful to landowners as a screen door on a submarine.

Oh, but wait... these folks have come up with a new "protection" that actually puts landowners at greater risk.  See Section (j) Other Landowner Rights and Protections on page 27.  Here an energy company is required to return property taken using eminent domain if the project is not in operation by the date on its certificate.  Of course, an energy company need only apply for an extension if it fails to meet the drop dead date, so this provision is unlikely to ever be used.  But, say it does come into play...  In order to have his property returned, a landowner must REPAY the energy company up to 50% of the amount he received in the taking.  That's right... those "compensation" payments cannot be used by the landowner to compensate for the damage done until AFTER a project is completed, less the landowner is given the option to purchase his property back before the project is completed.  Where would a landowner get the money to buy his own property back if not from the original award?  This also overlooks the fact that any part of the compensation described as "damages" is most likely taxable.  The landowner would have to give a great big chunk of his award to the government up front, then bank the rest as insurance in case the project gets abandoned and he wants to buy his property back.  In every instance of an abandoned electric transmission project, the transmission owner has been required to return the easement to the property owner at no cost.  Why should this be changed to put landowners at a disadvantage?  Landowner protections?  Hardly!  This is what happens when the energy project owner writes "protective" legislation for landowners.

Niskanen Center does not represent landowners in electric transmission siting situations.  It does not represent us.  Their shameless audacity in pretending to do so is repugnant.