Category:

Landowners Come Last

3/1/2025

Transmission companies use the same playbook every time. By now, I know it by heart.

Projects are planned by the regional grid operator that many people don't even know exists. Although the process is open to "stakeholders," those stakeholders have no idea that such an organization is planning a new transmission project that is going to cross their land and, perhaps, take their home. Once approved by the grid operator, the utilities conduct secret meetings and grease the right palms. They engage with your state agencies and elected officials to convince them that the project is a good idea. It's all one big, happy party... SECRET happy party. Your elected officials and your state agencies don't engage you or send notice. They leave that up to the utility, and the utility doesn't want you to know until it's so far into the routing process that you can't have any real impact on where it goes. You're supposed to remain dumb and happy until the last minute. Then the utility springs it on you as a fait accompli and conducts a farcical public information and notification process. At this point, they hope you're out of options and that you will jump into action to push the project off yourself and onto your neighbor. That's the first reaction of the vast majority of people, until someone finally figures out it's not about where it goes, it's about whether it goes.

But, until you finally receive notice, you should know that the utility has been very busy consulting with everyone except the landowner who would be forced to host the transmission line on his property. And don't you know it, NextEra has been very busy trying to schmooze a path for its portion of the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link (MARL). This presentation recently surfaced, although it's been common knowledge to a bunch of people who were hiding it from you for months.

marl_schmooze.pdf
File Size:	4634 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

Perhaps your most important take away from this little peek into what's been going on behind your back is this slide. Click to download the above file to see a larger version.

This is the roadmap of NextEra's routing process. The red box is where "we" are. It's a point called "Engage Counties and KEY STAKEHOLDER With Preliminary Route." Right... KEY STAKEHOLDER... but that doesn't include the most important KEY of all... the landowners who will be asked to host this project. When are impacted landowners notified? Three turns away at "Open Houses", which is nearly the last pit stop on this highway to hell. By that time, everyone else that won't see it from their house has been consulted about the route and brought on board. Landowners come last on this journey.

Landowners are presented with a couple of routing options and are expected to spend all their time fighting each other over where it goes, instead of joining forces against the real enemy. And they call this "community consultation"... when the decision has already been made.

DAD - Decide, Announce, Defend. DAD is a top-down, minimally participatory method of public management. You're sheep and they are the sheepdogs. This never works on a smart, engaged public because the last "D" never ends. People won't give up when their very home is on the line. And when the utilities are put on the defensive, they say and do the stupidest things, most of them dishonest. Nobody is buying it. We all know how to smell a rat. Propaganda is a useless waste of money.

So, what else is in that power point? Well, there's a full map of the MARL project, including FirstEnergy's portion. NextEra has been pretending that the eastern part of the project doesn't exist and that their project simply ends in Frederick County, Virginia.

But it's clearly shown on a map that the end of NextEra's MARL is simply the HANDOFF POINT. That's where their transmission line connects directly to FirstEnergy's transmission line.

We're all in this together, folks! Landowners and communities impacted by NextEra's MARL are in the same boat as landowners impacted by FirstEnergy's MARL. Neither one of these line sections can happen without the other. Kill one, kill them both.

Here's what the landowners impacted by NextEra's MARL are facing:

Landowners on FirstEnergy's portion are facing the tear down of an existing 138-kV transmission line, expansion of the existing easement at least 100 feet, and the building of a new 500kV line with a 138kV circuit on the same new towers.

Pay attention, people! It's coming! Although the most FirstEnergy has done is threaten to "survey" its existing easements on its part of this project, you should also know that they are working behind the scenes, much like NextEra, to schmooze KEY STAKEHOLDERS to accept the project before you even realize that they've decided on a route across your property. The announcement will come later, with Open Houses of our own. By that time, the route is set in stone. Be prepared to fight!

0 Comments

The Meaning of Collaboration

1/24/2024

0 Comments

What does "collaboration" mean?

Collaboration is a partnership; a union; the act of producing or making something together. Collaboration can take place between two people or many people, strangers or best friends. To collaborate is to commit to the possibility of producing an outcome greater than one that would be developed in a silo.

NextEra, one of the utilities assigned to build PJM's coal-fired transmission extension cord from West Virginia to the data centers has been bandying that word about, but I don't think they know what it actually means. If they actually do know what the word means, then they must be intentionally rebuffing concerned citizens while pretending they are "collaborating." Either way, it's disingenuous. And it will be the root cause of future project delay... and ultimate failure.

MidAtlantic Resiliency Link partner NextEra has begun its "collaboration" with a shell of a website. The website says:

The company’s goal is full transparency and collaboration with communities and stakeholders...

The website includes a form at the bottom if you "have questions." This seems to be the only avenue for a concerned citizen to begin "collaborating" with NextEra.

So, I did.

Have you considered a direct route from the new Woodside substation to Aspen in order to avoid all the opposition? Yes or no?

This is what I'm talking about.

It's a conceptual point-to-point connection from coal-fired generators to data centers that has not been subject to the "routing" lens. You can see a bigger version here on slide 41. When routed directly from generator to load, this line does not cross Jefferson County, WV and does not require a new 500kV transmission line across Loudoun County. So, is it even being considered? Yes or No?

NextEra's reply sounded like it was written by a Magic 8 Ball.

Thank you for your interest in the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link. No route has been confirmed at this time. Any route that has been circulated at this stage is conceptual. We are in the process of developing a detailed routing study to evaluate route options. As part of this process, we will work with First Energy, the other transmission developer assigned a portion of the route, to identify a point of interconnection.

Once again, we appreciate your engagement, and we look forward to working with you as the project progresses. Thank you.

Best regards
MARL Team members

MARL Team members? How many were crowded around the keyboard typing that reply?

Yes or no? Can I get an answer here? I tried again:

So, yes or no?

I didn’t order a word salad.

Is a direct route from Woodside to Aspen even being considered?

And here's the reply from "the Team."

Thank you for your email.

Yes, all options are being evaluated as part of the routing study. In general, the main goal of the routing study is to collaborate closely with local communities, stakeholders, regulators and landowners to identify a route that meets the technical specifications and economic needs of the project while avoiding or minimizing impacts on landowners, local communities and the natural environment. At the same time, this project was selected by the regional grid operator to meet regional reliability needs and any final route must meet that criteria. Thank you.

Is that a yes? I don't think so. If the answer was simply "yes" then none of that other stuff was necessary. So, this must mean the answer is actually "no"? But our slippery "Team" can't actually "collaborate" with anyone to answer a very simple and basic question. How is any "collaboration" happening when inquiries are met with total nonsense and local communities are being rebuffed from participating in the routing process?

So, I tried one last time to appeal to "the Team's" strategic thinking (such as it may be):

Dear “Team”,

You should have stopped at “yes,” unless the answer is actually no. I still don’t know. Are you looking at any routes that cross the Appalachian Trail further south than the current crossing?

Your latest word salad raises more questions than it answered.

1. Who are the “stakeholders” if they are not local communities, regulators and landowners?

2. What are the technical specifications of the project?

3. What are the economic needs of the project?

4. What are the “regional reliability needs” criteria of the route?

If your goal is to collaborate closely with local communities, you are not developing a good relationship with the communities if you cannot answer a simple question. Trust is the most important factor in developing community relationships and it is severely lacking right now. Keeping communities in the dark while you develop a route is not collaboration. If you cannot provide clear and accurate information, impacted communities will get their information elsewhere, from people they can trust.

The “team” stuff is also off-putting to impacted communities. Can’t you be a real, accountable person, instead of hiding behind a vague moniker like “team”?

Well, I guess I must have hurt "Team's" fee-fees because I haven't heard from them at all this week.

I guess I'm going to have to "collaborate" with myself to answer my own questions. No big deal, I've been doing this for more than 15 years now.

Who are the “stakeholders” if they are not local communities, regulators and landowners?

Perhaps they are greedy elected officials, lobbyists, the data centers, other corporations with tons of money, astroturf front groups, hired advocates, environmental and other special interest groups whose agenda can be directed with generous donations, and other entities nowhere near the proposed route. Why would any of these "stakeholders" have an interest in the route of the project? It's not going to be in their backyard. In fact, they may only be "stakeholders" in order to make sure it doesn't end up impacting any of their own interests and, instead, impacts yours.

What are the technical specifications of the project?

I think the technical specifications of the project are to connect over 10,000MW of coal-fired electric generators in the Ohio Valley to data center alley via a new 500kV electric transmission project. Of course, this has no correlation to routing... the project could go anywhere and still make the connection. But it's supposed to sound official and you're not supposed to question a statement like this because you're supposed to be dumb.

What are the economic needs of the project?

This one is easy! Let's refer to PJM's Constructability and Financial Analysis Report for this project. NextEra bid that it could complete MARL for $683.5M. PJM's analysis of project cost put the project more in the neighborhood of $1.2B, a 30% increase. But, hang onto your wallet... NextEra included a contingency budget of 14%. NextEra also offered some cost control promises. NextEra's Return on Equity is capped at 9.8%. Its equity share is capped at 45%. These numbers are important because the ROE is the amount of interest NextEra earns on the capital costs of MARL for the next 40 years while we slowly pay them back for the project (think mortgage, or car loan, where you finance a big purchase over time). NextEra can only contribute 45% of project costs that will earn that 9.8% ROE, the other 55% of project costs will have to be debt, which we repay at its own interest rate. NextEra offered a "soft cap" on its expenditures that promises any expenses that exceed the estimate earn no return at all -- 0%. However, regardless of any of these provisions, NextEra's earnings cannot be lower than 7 or 7.5%. Then NextEra promised a schedule guarantee that the project would be completed by its June 2027 deadline. For each month the project is delayed past then, NextEra's ROE falls 2.5 basis points, with a maximum drop of 30 points. What is a basis point? 100 of them make up 1 percent of the ROE. Therefore, a 9.8% ROE contains 980 basis points.

Wow, we're just going to be saving buckets of money here! Or maybe not. Anyhow, all this is relevant to know that NextEra must control its costs. It cannot make any routing changes that increase its costs such as different routes, different structures, different land acquisition. NextEra is also sensitive to staying on schedule. If "collaborating" with you delays things, then your opinion doesn't matter.

What are the “regional reliability needs” criteria of the route?

This is pretty nonsensical. Regional reliability needs are rooted in technical specifications and inservice date. The "Team" is just repeating itself and trying to make it sound like something different.

Yesterday, I was reading a news article about MARL and I ran across the same ridiculous phrases that populated. my own email exchange with "the Team." Maybe "the Team" is nothing more than an automated robot choosing from a list of approved phrases to respond to inquiries that are used by many big companies. If so, is it programmed to "collaborate" or simply to pretend?

Do you trust NextEra? I don't. NextEra can't answer a simple question. Much of what they said is meaningless gibberish. Trust is first and foremost and NextEra has already blown it. Of course, gaining the trust of a public that suspects NextEra wants to take their property and construct a huge transmission line on it is an uphill battle to begin with, but hiding behind "the Team" and refusing to answer a simple question with a straight up answer destroys whatever trust ever might have existed. Get your information elsewhere.

True "collaboration" on developing a project route means that impacted communities should be participating in the route development and evaluation process. However, they are not. Instead, NextEra is developing the route all on its own, using its own criteria, and will only "collaborate" with the community to show them the finished route selections and accept their feedback. None of the routes are proposed by impacted communities. Impacted communities are estranged from NextEra's actual routing process. This isn't "collaboration." It's route consultation by fait accompli.

And that never works. Impacted communities want to know what problem is being solved and to be active collaborators in developing the solution. Keeping them in the dark until the route is selected is not "collaboration." It's a route developed in a silo. And it's a recipe for project delay and failure.

0 Comments

How the Community Consultation Sausage is Made

8/23/2023

0 Comments

Utilities, regulators, elected officials, grid planners, environmental groups, and pretty much everyone else not personally affected by a new transmission line or substation tell us that "early consultation" with impacted communities makes projects better. You're supposed to go away happy with the new infrastructure clogging up your backyard because you were "consulted."

Consultation is a chimera. It's an act. They make a big deal out of pretending that your input and concerns matter, but they really don't. You don't matter one bit and nothing you say, or any suggestions you make, have even a ghost of a chance of changing their predetermined plans. Oh, sure, they give you a bunch of busy work to do, maybe a committee or other place to be creative, or just vent, but nothing you produce will ever be good enough to pass muster. Why is that?

It's because utility planning is done behind closed doors. The utilities and the grid planner, like PJM, create a fully-formed project before informing the public and beginning their fake "community consultation." The community is approached with a fait accompli and the only options for the community is where to put it. This is intended to cause community clashes between neighbors over siting, while the real enemy, the utility, gets no pushback at all. Don't fight with your neighbors over where to put new transmission, direct your ire toward the real enemy.

When utilities finally roll out their set-in-stone proposals to the community and pretend to "consult", the community will set to work finding new routes, new ideas, new sources of energy, new ways to build transmission without community impact. The community is industrious, creative, and usually right. But when the community's suggestions are presented to the utility, the utility has 1,001 excuses why none of these solutions can ever work. Where's the "consultation"? It's a one-way street and the utilities simply bat away any new ideas. They don't have to accept, or even consider, your ideas. They're betting they can convince regulators that their ideas are better than yours because they are "experts" and you're just an uneducated peon.

The utilities then present documentation of their fake "community consultation" to regulators and say that the community prefers their plan to other alternatives. The conclusion is that, after consultation, the community is on board with the utility's original plan and therefore regulators should approve it.

This exact scenario is played out in this recent article about a new substation in Fayette County, West Virginia. The utility planned a new substation along Rt. 60 at one of two sites. One of these sites was the desired site all along, but to pretend to give the community a choice, a second dummy site was added to the mix. The community didn't want a new substation at either site. It wanted the utility to put the substation somewhere away from the highway. But, "...the company determined the other suggestions were not viable for the scope of what the project needed to house." Gee, imagine that! None of the other suggestions were viable at all. There was absolutely no way to make them work, or for the utility to compromise at all with what the community wanted. The utility's community consultation consisted of "...outreach and providing simulations of the project’s infrastructure." The utility showed the community photoshopped representations of how the project would look next to the highway if they built it their way. That is not "consultation." It's propaganda. The utility pretended that its picture show made the community happy.

“I think that sort of input that we got from the community and then also doing that modeling to show folks what it was going to look like when it’s constructed both helped along the project,” he said.

And the PSC said that the utility's preferred site was favored by more community members.

The commission observed that while many residents were still opposed to both the Garage Site and the Post Office Site, which is adjacent to the Victor Post Office on Route 60, they seemed more accepting of the Garage Site over the Post Office location.

Oh, they "seemed" more accepting? Was that finding based on some hard evidence? That's like asking the community if they would rather be flooded or burned. Neither one is an acceptable option. The community wants to be left alone and not put in "pick your poison" position. The community actually chose neither of these options, but how would they prove the PSC's conclusion was wrong?

Community consultation is a performance. Unfortunately, it's one in which the community must participate. But a smart and cohesive community knows how the sausage is made and plays their own games with the utility during community consultation simply to document the community's road to victory in the regulatory process. The utilities are not your friends. The regulators are not your friends. The only ones you can trust are your fellow impacted landowners, your friends, and your neighbors. That's where grassroots action starts and succeeds.

0 Comments

PJM's Implausible Deniability

8/18/2023

1 Comment

Regional grid planner/operator PJM Interconnection says that it selects proposed projects based, in part, on their "constructibility." Other factors PJM considers are cost, and whether or not the proposal solves all the grid issues in the RFP (which PJM calls an "Open Window').

PJM's credibility goes right out the window, though, when it ignores "constructibility" issues and pretends the projects it selects are "constructible."

What is "constructibility"? It's the likelihood of permitting problems, the ease of getting equipment and supplies, and OPPOSITION. Let me say that again... the likelihood of opposition to a transmission proposal developing makes it less likely that the project will actually ever be built. That's why utilities should never site new projects on old routes from abandoned projects that developed opposition. If a transmission project was opposed at that location in the past, there's a 100% chance that opposition will develop there again.

If PJM really cared about "constructibility" it would conduct public outreach before selecting new transmission projects. But what if PJM is simply erecting a smoke screen of "plausible deniability" so it can pretend unconstructible projects that it favors are actually viable?

And if PJM was constructing a "plausible deniability" constructibility scenario, it would rely on the most implausible claims of the utilities that have proposed the projects.

Here are some actual claims made by project proponents in their proposals to PJM.

A large scale set of projects that solve the growing congestion issues in the southern Pennsylvania/northern Virginia/Maryland/West Virginia area. The project involves strategic rebuilds, substation upgrades, and greenfield transmission lines that primarily follow existing corridor. This strategic use of existing corridor greatly reduces the risk of projects being delayed due to opposition.

Colocating the line with the existing transmission line helps mitigate viewshed issues and permitting risk.

No. It does not. Cutting a new corridor next to an existing one does not prevent opposition. Those folks with existing corridors on their property don't want another, and they don't want to lose more land to an electric line that provides no benefit to them. You can't expect the same people to make the same sacrifice over and over again for the benefit of others who never make any sacrifice.

A cultural resource professional assisted with the routing process to identify and minimize impacts to known areas with historic sensitivities.

The utility hired the right contractor who didn't find what he was paid not to find. Why should anyone believe a paid utility consultant? This contractor's idea of "historic" is probably not the same as yours. If it's not on the Historic Register or preserved in some way, it is likely to be destroyed. Opposition doesn't care about some contractor's opinion. Opposition forms and acts based on it's own opinion. Hiring a contractor does not increase constructibility.

There are no unique or sensitive environmental concerns or impacts with the proposed transmission line that cannot be addressed.

But you didn't ask the landowners who live there what they think and they are the ones who control opposition. What does "addressed" mean? It means the utility blows a lot of smoke and nonsense and plows ahead according to its own plan. Then the utility can say it "addressed" your concerns... by telling you your concerns are stupid.

The combination of these three elements provides a comprehensive solution for the current requirements in the area. Four documents are attached to show the progress already made on this...

Except you forgot to mention that the PA PUC already denied your application for this project the first time it was ordered by PJM. Ordering it a second time does not change the PA PUC's mind. And it certainly does not change the minds of the impacted landowners who created massive opposition.

But, but, but....

The Rice-Ringgold 230kV Route is the result of a robust siting and outreach process which included input from landowners, local officials, and key stakeholders on a multitude of study segments. The proposed route will be 130 feet in width, parallels existing rights-of-way including interstates, roads,railroads, and existing transmission lines for 42% of its length, and best minimizes potential impacts to the natural and human environments. The extensive Siting Study is available for review under PA PUC docket A-2017-2640200. In addition, the Proposing Entity has been able to obtain 70% of the required ROW, via option agreements or easements, for the Rice-Ringgold 230kV line route.

Oh, you mean the PA PUC docket where they denied your first permit application? The landowners refused to go along with the transmission plan. What good is their "input" when it consisted of a firm "no." And speaking of "robust" how many of those landowners have you consulted about bringing this project back from the dead? I'm going to bet it is ZERO. They will oppose this project again. Guaranteed.

But, but, but...

The project will use steel, monopole structures with foundations. The use of steel monopoles was determined during the siting of the Proposed Solution due to significant landowner opposition to lattice towers, particularly in agricultural areas.

That flat out never happened. Landowners objected to the project itself, not just the tower structures. The utility simply made up a landowner preference for monopoles. It's sort of like asking... would you rather be shot or stabbed?

As the Proposed Solution continues to move forward, representatives will continue to be available throughout construction to answer questions from landowners.

And that stops opposition how? Landowners have long ago stopped believing any of the lies the utility tells them.

The Peach Bottom - Doubs Route is mostly in rural areas. Northern portion of the route is located in southern Pennsylvania with rural and farmed properties and then the route heads to the west. The route is to the north and west of Westminster and then heads in a south-westerly direction to Doubs.

Rural people hate transmission at least as much (or more) than suburban/urban people. This is because those rural farm folk depend on their land to make a living. When portions of the land are removed from production and devoted to new transmission lines, it reduces the farm's income. Just think... what if a transmission line in your back yard took part of your paycheck away from you every pay day? Rural siting does not make a project more constructible.

PSE&G will coordinate all outreach, real estate-related requests, and efforts to identify environmental and non-environmental conditions affecting the properties along the proposed Project route. Working collaboratively with our internal Outreach Team, PSE&G will coordinate stakeholder engagement and public outreach with land acquisition planning. This level of collaboration will help to ensure proactive and cohesive stakeholder communications in order to better serve landowners and impacted individuals and entities. PSE&G contemplates the need for access roads and areas, as part of any lands to be acquired

PSEG has identified several properties that are suitable for this proposed solution. The Project Team has initiated contact with the property owners and will continue to work to acquire site control in the event of award. The Project Team will work with impacted stakeholders, municipalities, and local authorities to obtain the necessary property rights to construct and maintain its facilities. While this solution is located outside of PSE&G territory, PSE&G is committed to a transparent, timely, and efficient land rights acquisition process for any site control required. PSE&G intends to utilize the same land acquisition professionals from start to finish, ensuring landowners have the same team assigned to their negotiations throughout the process.

You get the same annoying land agent showing up unannounced at your home, and maybe your job, and calling you incessantly. Maybe they'll even contact other family members, neighbors or friends and ask them why you're resisting. Land agents are aggressive jerks. Having the same one bothering you is not a benefit.

Outreach is just another word for outrageous lies and one-way information. Any suggestions you make will be ignored. You will be promised all sorts of stuff (but never in writing). Reality is going to be very different.

It doesn't matter how much "information" you spew, landowners still don't want your project and will form a wave of opposition.

The greenfield transmission line between North Delta station and Northeast station will require an ROW with a width of 85 feet in residential areas and 100 feet farmland.

But it's the same project in both places! Why take more land if it's a farm? Do you think farmers have more to spare? Inequitable treatment fuels opposition.

ROW will be acquired to widen the existing transmission line corridor from 150 feet to 200 feet. Approximately 102 acres of additional ROW will be acquired, which is all privately owned. Negotiations with private landowners will be based on fair market values determined by a third-party appraiser. Negotiations with private landowners will be conducted by PPL ROW Agents and PPL contracted ROW agents.

That third-party appraiser? He's just another hired utility contractor paid to find what the utility wants him to find. He likely lives in another state and has never even set foot in your county. His job is to research land sale prices in your county and find the lowest ones he can so the utility can offer you rock bottom and tell you it is "fair market value." The utility only pays you for the value of the land in the easement. It does not pay damages to the remainder. It does not pay for decreased property value. It does not pay for permanent loss of income. This is nothing more than standard procedure for ROW acquisition. There's nothing special about it that makes it more likely the project can be constructed without opposition.

PPL Electric is committed to open communications and transparency throughout the project lifecycle. As such, PPL Electric develops a project-specific Community and Outreach Plan based on the unique conditions associated with each project. To communicate clearly and transparently, PPL Electric utilizes a wide variety of strategies including, in-person meetings with local municipalities and regulators, direct mail, project websites, fact sheets, frequently asked questions, and public open houses. For example, during previous projects, PPL Electric has developed a strategic public outreach program that served as the cornerstone of project success. The program included soliciting input from, and providing timely updates to, external stakeholders from the onset of the project through to completion. This was achieved using face to face meetings, direct mailings, multiple rounds of open houses, fact sheets, press releases and an interactive website.

Sounds just like every other transmission "outreach plan." It's a flurry of secret gladhanding meetings with public officials, a lot of lies, and a complete lack of compromise. Landowners aren't fooled by this. Opposition will develop. There was never a "success." Landowners were harmed and they hate you.

Most high-voltage transmission projects will require a state siting approval. To begin the siting approval process, Proposer plans to hold pre-application meetings with the regulatory agency to introduce Proposer and the Project, as well as confirm its understanding of the process. Shortly thereafter, Proposer will simultaneously begin collecting siting data and start its outreach efforts so that public siting input is incorporated at the earliest stages of the Project. Once the Proposer identifies a preferred site/route and at least one viable alternative site/route, Proposer will carry out environmental and detailed engineering work in order to establish a highly- detailed Project plan to support the siting applications.

Oh yes, secret meetings with their friends at the regulatory commission before they file an application and before the landowner or the public knows about it. "The earliest stages of the project" has long passed by the time the public finds out about it and starts making suggestions for alternatives. That's the one thing that scares these clowns the most... you finding out about their plans before they want you to know... and trying to change the project in publicly beneficial ways. There are many ways to build transmission (or not), but the utility wants to do it THEIR way on YOUR property and they doesn't want to hear any suggestions from you.

And finally, here's the ultimate word salad about "robust public outreach" that only begins after all the important decisions have been made and the only role left for impacted landowners and the public is to comply. This is how opposition forms. Landowners matter!

The Company is committed to working with all interested stakeholders through a robust public outreach program to address/respond to community concerns and inform the public about the project to the greatest extent practicable. The Company believes a well-designed public outreach program can have numerous benefits, including fostering a cooperative relationship with landowners and other stakeholders, expediting the regulatory permitting process, and assisting with project development. In general, the purpose of the community outreach plan is to gain community support for the project. In the affected communities, the Company’s public outreach plan will educate the public and relevant stakeholders on specific project details to enable timely regulatory approvals and construction activities. Elements of the public outreach plan will include the following:1) Identify potential issues at an early stage by engagement with key community stakeholders at the outset; 2) Broaden the community engagement process to identify potential and relevant community benefits that can facilitate community support for the proposed project; 3) Develop a broad base of community support for the proposed project before the regulatory agencies; and 4) Develop a comprehensive administrative record documenting the community outreach process that can be presented to the regulatory agency or, in the event of a legal challenge, to the appropriate court. The outreach plan proposes to dedicate considerable time and resources in engaging the community, and specifically the affected community during the planning process to identify highly sensitive areas that have the least amount of cultural, environmental, and social impacts on the community. The plans will reflect avoidance of impacts rather than mitigation. However, in some cases, if avoidance is not possible, then the Company will involve the community in providing appropriate and practical mitigation measures. The Company will commence its public outreach activities following project award.

Landowners will NEVER cooperate or support the transmission project. This old public relations schtick has been tried over and over again and it is always a miserable failure that starts a wildfire of opposition that makes a transmission project unconstructible.

"Community benefits"? What's that? It's rewarding the larger community unaffected by the transmission project with trinkets and gifts for their cooperation. The "community" loses nothing and makes no sacrifice. It's all gain and no pain. The landowner, however, takes one for the team and is not comforted at all by the new library across town. "Community benefits" attempts to split your community into sacrificial lambs and greedy pigs. Landowners must be compensated by law because they are losing something tangible. "The Community" isn't compensated because it's not losing anything. There's a reason for that. Not all communities can be bribed to throw their neighbors under the bus. In fact, it may actually increase opposition.

This is the reality that PJM does not want to hear. It prefers to live in the land of lies created by the transmission companies where it can claim plausible deniability because the transmission companies filled their proposals with lies about constructibility.

Isn't it time you gave them a little reality so that they have to evaluate these projects honestly?

1 Comment

Same Old Tired Ideas Can't Solve Transmission Issues

10/30/2022

2 Comments

A webinar was held on Friday that attempted to solve "the big question is whether there is enough political will to overcome the forces of NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard) to secure new rights-of-way through states and localities that aren’t direct beneficiaries." Or at least discuss this issue. Although the host did a remarkable job of trying to keep the event on topic, and to include questions from the audience as well as those from invited media, the panelists wrecked the event by side-stepping questions and talking about things that completely avoided the topic of the webinar. There were absolutely no new thoughts, ideas, or plans to solve the NIMBY issue.

The panelists were Maria Robinson from DOE's new "Grid Deployment Office", a guy from EEI, a guy from a transmission company, and our old pal Michael Skelly.

Maria Robinson might have been the biggest disappointment. She shared that industry and government need to work together to get transmission built. Where are the so-called NIMBYs in this equation? She doesn't want to acknowledge that affected people even exist. How is it that landowners are supposed to gladly surrender their property for new transmission when they don't get any respect?

I asked her the following question: In a recent interview you said, “We’re really looking at engaging the folks that will be most impacted potentially”, while also mentioning “a pot of money that could be used for economic development in communities impacted by interstate transmission lines.” Since landowners who will have to look at and work around new transmission lines every day are “most impacted” how would economic development in the broader community compensate the most affected landowners? Wouldn’t the money be better spent lessening impact on most affected landowners?

Maria's answer side-stepped the question, which was how does she square her concern for "most affected" with doling out financial bribes for "impacted communities"? Instead of comparing/contrasting directly impacted landowners with local community organizations or governments that are not directly affected (but are financially rewarded for the misery or others), she simply pointed the finger at Congress and said the legislation they passed did not allow her to award money to landowners. She refused to recognize that paying bribes to entities that are not affected does absolutely NOTHING to solve the NIMBY problem.

Robinson might actually believe that transmission is built to satisfy "needs" of consumers. Consumers already have electricity -- the great renewable push is being undertaken to satisfy the "needs" of political ideology. Just a bunch of government functionaries, spending money Congress is taking out of YOUR pocket and accomplishing absolutely nothing at all.

She thinks her job is to "bring stakeholders together" and "help them understand why transmission is important." But she only mentioned engaging states and tribes in particular, not landowners. She even had the gall to claim that "we" have found that engaging stakeholders earlier and more often "helps" alleviate the local concerns around transmission that leads to significant delays. Who is "we", Maria? There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that these affected NIMBYs can be re-educated to accept impacts and make personal sacrifices for politically-motivated electric transmission projects. In fact, the evidence (piles of actual studies on transmission opposition) shows the exact opposite. Landowners don't respond to propaganda and glad-handing. And landowners are the ones who carry out the long and loud opposition that delays (or cancels) transmission projects.

The first thing Maria needs to do, if she actually wants to succeed instead of just wasting taxpayer funds treading water in a political quagmire of transmission delays, is recognize those NIMBYs and find out what it is they really want. Until that happens, she's just another big government disappointment.

One of the reporters asked when transmission became a political issue and was laughed at and told it's always been political. The real answer is that transmission became a political issue when the transmission itself was proposed for political reasons. We've built a lot of transmission in this country in the past in order to provide plentiful electricity to all who wanted it. It's when additional transmission started to be proposed to favor the generation resource fad of the decade (whether it was coal and gas, or today's wind and solar) that opposition began to develop. And opposition is winning. I have a huge list of electric transmission projects that have been proposed in the past but ultimately abandoned, or significantly modified, because of delays caused by entrenched opposition. The opposition now has the upper hand and Maria has absolutely NO WORKABLE PLAN to deal with it.

She seemed to recognize that reconductoring existing transmission to increase its capacity can be done "faster" and without the opposition headaches, but she didn't seem to understand why. It's because reconductoring doesn't take new rights of way across previously unaffected property. It's the new rights of way that are the problem.

Someone named Elizabeth Weiss submitted a question that began by recognizing that Wisconsin has had success in building out its transmission network by utilizing existing highway rights of way instead of taking new land and asked if siting transmission on highway rights of way might be a national model that could be employed to get things accomplished. Bravo, Elizabeth, whoever you are! You hit the nail on the head! Unfortunately the panelist who sidestepped this question blathered on about a "national will to build transmission" and that we need the government to make new transmission corridors. What? Hello? It's the new rights of way that are the problem! Not "national will". There's no way to impose any "national will" on landowners who know that they don't NEED to sacrifice new rights of way when existing rights of way are right there for the taking.

Landowners and their forthright opposition groups have been asking for the "national will" to have a conversation about using existing rights of way in order to avoid new impacts, however they have been consistently ignored. We're not going away. We're only going to get louder and larger until we become part of the solution, instead of just a problem to be side-stepped or silenced with greater government power.

Maria ended the webinar with a big smile and assured everyone, "It's a great time to get involved" in transmission. Unless you're a landowner, Maria, then it's a terrible time to have politically motivated transmission sited across your land, next to your home and in the middle of your farm food factory. How completely tone deaf, Maria Robinson!

And, of course, the event wouldn't have been complete without Michael Skelly trying to answer every question posed (even when it was directed at someone else). His "uhhh" punctuated sentences, incorrect facts (it's really Southern Cross, not "Southern Spirit") and useless interjections are worse than ever.

I know we've all gotten older since the Clean Line days, however, some of us have aged faster than others. Maybe it's time to retire and go play on the fire pole?

I was greatly entertained by this webinar, however I'm not sure how useful it was for solving the transmission problem. As one audience member opined, "If I was one of the reporters, I would have come away wondering what there was to write about." Indeed! Just the same old panelists with the same old, tired ideas.

2 Comments

Invenergy Expert Promises Are Worth Zilch, Give or Take Bupkus

9/18/2022

0 Comments

I love a well-written motion (legal documents of all kinds actually). What you might at first glance dismiss as dry, boring and impossible to understand can become as enjoyable as a best seller if written by a lawyer with talent. Good writing skills are what set great lawyers apart from mediocre ones. And the snarky footnote is like finding cream filling in your cupcake. Snarky footnotes are true art. You can insult your opponent (and sometimes the court) but only if done in a very clever fashion. And that's why I love this Motion so much.

Now we all know that Invenergy's expert witnesses are gas lighting everyone, but rarely do they get called out on it, especially in a regulatory proceeding. However, in a Motion filed on Friday, Paul Neilan, attorney for one of the intervenors in the Illinois Commerce Commission case asked the ICC to strike portions of the testimony of two Invenergy witnesses that strayed a little outside their own "expertise" to make worthless promises and turn hearsay into "facts".

In the Testimony of Rolanda Shine, this non-lawyer witness promises the ICC that Invenergy won't charge Illinois ratepayers for the Grain Belt Express without first asking the ICC's permission. Except the ICC has no authority over whether or not Illinois ratepayers get charged. Only the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can decide if Illinois ratepayers will be charged for a project whose rates are under its exclusive jurisdiction. As the Motion says,

GBX’s undertaking to seek this Commission’s prior approval of any cost allocation within
Illinois is worth zilch, give or take bupkus. GBX Witness Shine offers to this Commission an agreement that would affect rates and charges for facilities that transmit electricity from one state for consumption in another. FERC has exclusive jurisdiction over the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce. 16 U.S.C. 824(a).

And I just need to pause here a moment to add a few comments. First of all, Invenergy has asked FERC to convene a technical conference to explore allocating a merchant transmission project's (like GBE) "reliability" and "resiliency" attributes to captive ratepayers. See FERC Docket No. AD22-13. In other words, GBE wants to charge all ratepayers in the region, including those in Illinois, for made up "benefits" provided by GBE. This is wrong on so many levels. One reason is that a merchant transmission project assumes all risk for its project. It cannot seek recovery from captive ratepayers. Another is that these made up "benefits" have not been found needed by regional grid operators. It's like your neighbor planting a flower garden and then making you pay for part of it because you looked at it. Do you need more "reliability" provided by GBE? No? Then why should you pay for something you don't need?

Secondly, Invenergy has recently filed a complaint against grid operator MISO asking that GBE be added to the regional transmission plan (where some network upgrade costs may be passed to ratepayers). See Docket No. EL22-83.

And third, Invenergy has stated that it plans to help itself to "government" sources of financing. These financial opportunities have been made available thanks to the recent Infrastructure and Inflation Reduction Acts. One that Invenergy mentions would use taxpayer money to purchase capacity contracts on merchant transmission projects for the express purpose of financially propping up merchants that don't have enough customers to make their project economic. Don't the people of Illinois pay federal income taxes? Yes, yes they do. Therefore, would the ICC have to approve GBE's application for a capacity contract? I'm sure Ms. Shine didn't mean that. And even if she did, the ICC cannot control the federal government's giveaways.

Invenergy's promises are garbage.

The Motion also asks that a portion of the Testimony of Shashank Sane be struck due to impermissible legal conclusions and because it is hearsay.

In Sane's testimony (yuk, yuk, yuk, been looking for an opportunity to type that) he repeats an incorrect legal conclusion that he read in the Illinois Renewable Energy Access Plan. He repeats it like it is a fact. It's not. It's wrong as can be, as the Motion points out.

It's about time someone with knowledge of federal energy statutes and regulations steps up to put out the flame of Invenergy's little gas lantern. Sadly, we don't seem to be able to count on the state regulators to have this kind of simple knowledge... and that's probably why Invenergy keeps misinforming everyone. A knowledgeable attorney is a breath of fresh air!

0 Comments

Help Wanted!

5/21/2021

0 Comments

Now here's an interesting twist... Dominion Virginia Energy wants the public's "advice" in siting its new transmission connection to its new offshore wind farm in the Virginia Beach area.

Dominion Energy Virginia is seeking public feedback and advice about linking its planned wind farm, 27 miles off the Virginia Beach shore, to the 500 kilovolt backbone of its statewide power grid at the Fentress substation on Centerville Turnpike in Chesapeake.

Bravo for taking suggestion, Dominion! Communities burdened by new transmission will absolutely, positively rebel against a fait accompli transmission proposal.

Is there a "good" way to present a transmission line proposal to the public? Not if you're approaching the communities with a fully-formed idea of what you're going to build and where you're going to put it. The only good way to involve a community in a transmission proposal is to approach them with a need before making decisions about what to build and where. Presenting a community with a problem to be solved and allowing meaningful input into the solution selected is the only way a transmission company can get community buy-in and support for the proposal. Everything else is nothing more than a battle to push a bad idea the community doesn't want off onto someone else.

But Duh-minion only gets it half right... no, maybe even less than that. They simply use the *idea* that they are seeking community advice in an attempt to trick the community into thinking they are involved in solving a problem. When all the window dressing is removed, this is nothing more than your routine transmission siting exercise.

Dominion has already selected 6 routes. The community gets to pick its favorite. Are you kidding me? That's not how it works and it's not going to fool anyone. Dominion would have done better to ask for help connecting its offshore wind farm and left the siting options hidden for the time being. Must be a control issue. Dominion can't stand not having complete control.

The power company has part of the route nailed down: the 27 miles of underwater cable to a landing point at the state military reservation at Camp Pendleton. It also has proposed an underground route through the southernmost reaches of Naval Air Station Oceana, to comply with regulations restricting structures near airfields, which the Navy must still review.

Its research into what’s on the ground, in terms of neighborhoods, wetlands, wildlife and historic resources has led it to six options for the final roughly 15 miles to the Fentress station.

“We can look at maps and desktop it, but it’s not until we talk to people that we’ll really understand these alternatives,” said Kevin Curtis, Dominion’s vice president, electric transmission.

Guess what alternative they're going to get from the community? Bury it. All of it. On existing rights of way. Without that alternative, opposition begins. Why? Because burial is already an option for portions of the route, such as the path through the air station. If Dominion can bury it under the ocean, and through the air station, then it can bury it the entire length.

One option for one of these routes would be to bury the lines for a stretch. That could create much more disruption during construction and mean they were costlier to install and repair than running lines overhead but would mean that portion of the lines would not be visible.

Oh, please! These are transparent excuses that don't even make sense. Too disruptive... as if having 3 separate overhead 230-kV lines in parallel isn't disruptive at all. One time disruption to bury the project? Or 50 years of disruption from an overhead line? Installing a buried transmission line isn't really that disruptive. They do it on streets all the time. It's a shallow, narrow trench, not a whole lot different than fiber optic cable installation. Costlier to install? Maybe, but cheaper to maintain, especially in a coastal area subject to extreme weather. Dominion's excuses are plainly excuses and completely illogical in the face of their plans to bury it at the air station and along a portion of one of the route alternatives.

With this kind of deceptive roll out, Dominion is doomed. Why?

Five routes would run along the never-built Southeast Parkway, now an open space corridor through the most densely populated neighborhoods between Oceana and an area southwest of Princess Anne Road, between the Virginia Beach National Golf Course and the Princess Anne Athletic Complex.

Two words... densely populated. It's over before it begins when Dominion ham-hands its rollout like this.

Help wanted? Not hardly... unless the "help" Dominion is looking for consists of wildfire opposition leading to an entrenched battle.

Well, there goes that offshore wind idea.

0 Comments

Grain Belt Express Admits It Plans To Change Project

1/10/2021

1 Comment

In a recent letter to landowners, Invenergy admits that it is PLANNING to change its Grain Belt Express project:

Grain Belt Express has announced a proposed plan to increase the project's delivery capacity for Kansas and Missouri consumers.

This is a PLAN to change the project that was permitted by the Missouri PSC. Invenergy admits that it will have to get this CHANGED PLAN approved by the PSC.

Grain Belt Express will be seeking regulatory approval for this plan...

But not yet. Right now Invenergy has been telling the PSC that it hasn't decided to change the project yet and therefore can continue to operate under the existing permit. Is that like asking your Mom if you can have a cookie after you've cleaned out the cookie jar? The PSC isn't in the business of permitting projects after the fact... a utility project must be permitted before it begins activities. Perhaps this is why the PSC has decided to hold a hearing on whether the changed Grain Belt Express project is no longer in compliance with the permit it was issued?

What other silly things does this letter say?

Increased Local Delivery to Kansas and Missouri
As you may be aware from recent news, Grain Belt Express has announced a proposed plan to increase the project's delivery capacity for Kansas and Missouri consumers. For many years before lnvenergy Transmission acquired the project, local stakeholders called for more of Grain Belt's power to be delivered locally. This plan makes sense as demand for clean energy has grown in Kansas and Missouri. For the first time, this would open the option for Kansans to benefit from energy produced in-state, and in Missouri, it would expand access beyond the 39 communities across the state that are already contracted to receive service from the line.
Under this plan, up to 2,500 megawatts of Grain Belt's 4,000-megawatt capacity would be delivered to Kansas and Missouri consumers, who would see up to $7 billion in energy cost savings over 20 years. This requires expanding the already-approved converter station in northeast Missouri, which would double the overall economic investment in Missouri to approximately $1 billion.

Local stakeholders called for increased local delivery of power from GBE? Where? When? I don't recall that ever happening. In fact, as far as the public is aware, GBE has failed to find "local" customers for all of its originally offered 500MW of delivery to Missouri. That doesn't sound like a call for more local delivery. It actually sounds like a call for LESS local delivery.

And the logic here is even worse... "local" delivery to Kansas would be effected by shipping power from Kansas to Missouri, and then back to Kansas? Does Invenergy know how stupid that sounds? Local delivery of power to Kansas would be most efficiently done on existing transmission. You don't need GBE for that.

Another problem with this "plan" is that GBE is a merchant transmission project (at least according to its current permits) that would negotiate service with voluntary customers. If the "local" customers don't sign up for service, they receive none of it. The customers of GBE would be distribution utilities that in turn sell electric service to retail customers. There is no new "option" for Kansans to sign up for service individually. They are captive consumers of whatever their electric provider decides to to, and GBE has not revealed any voluntary wholesale customers, aside from a few municipalities who purchased "up to" 250MW of service (which is half of what was originally offered by GBE). Where's the customers, Invenergy?

Expanding the converter station? Has that been approved by the regional grid operator? The grid operator must engage in numerous studies to determine how much power may be injected into the existing transmission grid by GBE. Changing 500 MW to 2500 MW is going to be a significant increase in power. It's going to require certain changes and upgrades to the existing grid, and Invenergy is going to have to pay for them all. Perhaps Invenergy is planning to inject its power elsewhere on the grid? The feasibility of expanding the converter station has not been made public.

Grain Belt Express will be seeking regulatory approval for this plan, which would also allow for project construction to proceed prior to approval in Illinois. In the meantime, as the proposed changes do not affect the approved route, project development activities are proceeding based on existing regulatory approvals.

Invenergy is going to ask for permission to build only a portion of the transmission line? But GBE told the PSC that the economic feasibility of the line was premised on selling service to utilities in the eastern PJM grid at a much higher price, and in order to do that, GBE must be connected in Indiana. Without the leg through Illinois, the project is not economically feasible. Is Invenergy going to build a road to nowhere and hope that things come together later? Doesn't sound very plausible, does it? Invenergy would have a lot of explaining to do at the PSC before it got approved to do that. In addition, GBE's Kansas permit requires approval in Illinois before it can build the project in Kansas. Looks like two states would have to approve the road to nowhere.

In Kansas and Missouri, Grain Belt has moved from monopole to steel lattice structures, resulting in more compensation for landowners per structure.

Oh, please! It's not about more compensation for landowners, it's because lattice structures are CHEAPER for Invenergy to build! And why was it that lattice structures were compensated at three times the price of monopoles? Because they're more invasive and take up more ground and are harder to work around. Save the drama for your mama, Invenergy!

Grain Belt Express, along with its land partner, Contract Land Staff ("CLS"), is in active dialogue with landowners along the route as our team continues to sign voluntary easements in Kansas and Missouri. Thank you to those who have signed agreements to date. We value open conversations with landowners and landowners' attorneys to provide timely, accurate, and useful information that will allow you to make the best decisions regarding your land.

Voluntary. All easements are voluntary. So is "dialogue" with CLS land agents. Thank you for signing an easement? Did this letter really go out to landowners who have already signed voluntary easements? Or was that some glaring attempt to make landowners believe they have missed the bandwagon if they have not signed up? If so, that's pretty insulting to the intelligence of landowners.

Our goal is to secure all easements voluntarily and to make informed facility design decisions
related to your property. That is possible only with open communication. If we have attempted to contact you and we have not yet reached you or your legal representative, please contact your CLS representative at your earliest convenience.

Is Invenergy saying they have not yet made "facility design decisions" for the project? I find that rather hard to believe. It looks more like an attempt to get landowners to believe they can change the design of the project if they only call now. Operators are standing by...

And then there's this. I laughed so hard I gagged... and almost threw up. Positive Energy? Didn't the wheels fall off that when Invenergy rolled it out? Who hasn't read all about it?

Positive Energy: Pass it Along
Finally, 2020 has brought some significant challenges to the world. We believe that Positive Energy is needed now more than ever. Grain Belt will bring affordable power for families and businesses, jobs for workers, and local investment in school districts, and public services - that's positive energy. With everything going on in 2020, we want to pass along positive energy to you, and hope you do the same. These days we all need it.

I don't know about Positive Energy... but I am positively revolted at GBE. Is Invenergy positively lying to the PSC? Is Invenergy positively negotiating with landowners under false pretenses when it negotiates for a different project than the one it has permitted? Let's hope the PSC positively gets to the bottom of this!

1 Comment

Who Do You Think You're Fooling, Invenergy?

9/29/2020

6 Comments

Now who do... who... who do you think you're fooling?

I got notice yesterday that Invenergy is sending this letter out to landowners along GBE's route. There's a lot to argue about in this letter, in particular this imperious statement by Invenergy:

"Grain Belt Express will be seeking regulatory approval for this plan, which would also allow for project construction to proceed prior to approval in Illinois. In the meantime, as the proposed changes do not affect the approved route, project development activities are proceeding based on existing regulatory approvals.”

It sort of makes your head hurt, right? "We need regulatory approval for a new plan" but on the other hand "we're proceeding to try to negotiate an easement based on the approval of our old plan." Sounds to me like Invenergy doesn't have a valid approval for its current plan. The route has absolutely nothing to do with it!

And then I got to the end of the letter. The last paragraph positively smacks of poorly concocted propaganda.

Positive Energy: Pass it Along

Finally, 2020 has brought some significant challenges to the world. We believe that Positive Energy is needed now more than ever. Grain Belt will bring affordable power for families and businesses, jobs for workers, and local investment in school districts, and public services - that's positive energy. With everything going on in 2020, we want to pass along positive energy to you, and hope you do the same. These days we all need it.

For more information about the project visit the project website at www.GrainBeltExpress.com
and Follow us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/GrainBeltExpress.

What in the world does any of that have to do with landowner notification or easement negotiation? Not a thing. It's an incongruous insertion that's maybe supposed to have some psychological effect on the landowner reader... a little bit of "feel good" siphoned off the national coming-together in the initial days of Corona. Sorry, Invenergy, that ship has sailed.

Did Invenergy and its PR contractors have a virtual meeting lately where landowner distrust and hatred were discussed as a problem to solve? Did they cook up a new marketing slogan to deploy on landowners in order to make "feel good" happen while reading a letter talking about acquiring easements, and distract the landowner to engage with GBE for a positive reason? Geek out, public relations geeks!

The new branding statement is "Positive Energy." It's capitalized like a proper noun. It's designed to pop up with annoying frequency in GBE's marketing to landowners in order to replace all those hateful thoughts about GBE with Positive Energy!

Convinced that Positive Energy was some poorly designed marketing ploy, I took GBE up on its invitation to visit their Facebook page because I was pretty certain I'd find a glowing roll out of Positive Energy on social media. I wasn't disappointed. In fact, the whole exercise made me laugh for hours.

On GBE's Facebook page, there was this video. *

With everything going on in the world right now, we couldn’t think of a better time to focus on the positives. We’d love to hear your stories. We’ll start – We’ve been working with landowners across the country to build clean, reliable, low-cost energy solutions for communities. Let’s keep that energy flowing! Tell us stories of positive energy being passed in your community.

And someone had already commented to share their Positive Energy story!

Katie Hatfield-Edstrom
I've noticed more of those sidewalk share libraries pop up in our community lately. I love seeing them and so does my kiddo. The idea is so simple...give what you don't need anymore and take what you do. I've also seen small community pantries with non-perishables and small farmer stands. In times like this, it is nice to see people thinking of how they can share and help others out. I guess the food and books are just the Positive Energy that feeds our souls these days!

Isn't that interesting? Miss Katie had capitalized Positive Energy in her comment. Now what random person would be so cued into the marketing scheme of capitalizing the catch phrase like that?

I found it completely irresistible.

Turns out that Katie the Commenter works for HDR. HDR is a "strategic communications" contractor "that works to help our clients manage the social and political risk associated with infrastructure development." HDR does this by "...specialize[ing] in grassroots education and outreach through existing social groups in communities. Our teams leverage web, video and social networking and are experienced with wide-scale media campaigns that include targeted digital, print, television and radio material." Katie is the "Strategic Communications Power Sector Lead & Senior Coordinator" at HDR. Her skills are: "Katie is a skilled communication strategist that has expertise in message construction, audience analysis, and is trained in facilitation. Prior to her tenure with HDR, Katie was a university professor, specializing in public communications, campaigns and social movements, and media communications. As a senior coordinator, she is responsible for leading strategic communication efforts for our clients. Katie practices her understanding of communication while leading local, regional, and statewide projects. She excels in leveraging existing communication strategies, while employing fresh tools and technologies to achieve the best possible outcome for our clients."

Considering that Katie was the only commenter, and had her comment answered by "Grain Belt Express" saying "We love that!", I got a little curious about who was using the "Grain Belt Express" account as their sock puppet. So, I asked:

Make sure the branding slogan is in caps, Katie from HDR, Grain Belt's public relations contractor. Nice touch! I just hope some other HDR employee is using the GBE profile, and you're not talking to yourself.

Suspecting what was about to happen next, I preserved this comment thread... And wouldn't you know it? GBE deleted my comment and Katie uncapitalized the words "positive energy" in her post within minutes. If I was totally off base with my theory, there was no reason for Katie to edit her post (and it does say "edited") and certainly no reason to kill my post like a surprising hidden rattlesnake.

So, I renew my question... Who do? Who? Who do you think you're fooling, Katie, HDR and Invenergy? Your attempts to change landowners' feelings about GBE don't seem to be working. I'm not sure you really understand the problem you're trying to solve.

You've got to get up pretty early in the morning to fool a farmer.

Positive Fail.

P.S. No hard feelings, Katie (because I know you're reading this). I've been eating PR geeks for breakfast for more than a decade now. You're certainly not the first.

*UPDATE: Whoops! It looks like Positive Energy has died an early death. Invenergy/HDR/Katie simply deleted the entire Facebook thread about Positive Energy yesterday. Positive Energy has been chucked out with the garbage. However, it looks like Invenergy found something new to use while it was rooting through the trash yesterday. Stay tuned!

6 Comments

Central Maine Power Bleeding Cash Trying To Thwart The Will Of The People

4/14/2020

0 Comments

Wowsers! Central Maine Power has spent more than $7M so far on its campaign to stop a referendum vote on its New England Clean Energy Connect transmission project, and if it keeps spending at this rate it could dump another $13M into the transmission toilet, making it the most expensive referendum campaign in Maine history, according to the Natural Resources Council of Maine.

This astounding amount of political spending by Maine’s largest utility amounts to $55,448 per day from January through March, which compares to the average medium household income in Maine of $55,602. The government-owned Canadian energy giant Hydro-Quebec has spent $2.047 million as part of its coordinated effort with CMP to defend the project against a citizen initiative successfully brought forward by more than 66,000 Maine voters to stop the project. Total daily spending by the two companies combined over the report period was nearly $77,000.

And what did they spend it all on?

CMP’s political campaign includes a vast network of out-of-state political consultants; misleading and simplistic television, print, and online advertising; and mobilization of lawyers and lobbyists trying to stop Mainers from voting on the project. The company has spent lavishly on polling, private investigators to stalk petition gatherers, opposition research, consultants that specialize in blocking citizen-initiated referenda, helicopter services, and even fine dining. The company’s political spending reports show:

$5.139 million on TV and cable ads and $70,138 on digital ads
$870,623 on direct mail and print ads
$505,495 on polling and survey research
$99,021 on a private detective firm, Merrill’s Investigations, to stalk Maine citizens who were gathering signatures
$91,520 on campaign manager Jonathan Breed since October, already significantly more in six months than the annual salary of $70,000 for Maine’s governor
$94,392 on an Oakland, California-based opposition research firm, VR Research
$75,000 on an Arizona-based political firm, Signafide, whose sole purpose is to discredit signatures for citizen’s referenda
$2,500 on helicopter services
$2,077 on fine dining, including at David’s, Flood’s, Union, and Katahdin restaurants

... along with lavish "salaries" for certain named individuals. And what did it get them? Nothing. A judge found that the petition had enough valid signatures to be included on the November ballot.

If CMP and Hydro-Quebec are spending this kind of money trying to thwart the will of the Maine people, what's in it for them?

Huge profits are at stake for these corporations, and investors in CMP’s parent company, Avangrid, recently expressed significant concerns that Maine people might defeat this project. Hydro-Quebec stands to make $12.4 billion on this project and CMP and its parent companies would earn $2 billion.

I suppose $20M or so is a drop in the bucket compared to those kinds of profits, however that seems to be what the companies will be paid according to the contract with Massachusetts to supply power. Those numbers also include the companies' costs to generate and deliver the power. For HQ there's still a healthy margin, but maybe not for CMP, whose profits become smaller and smaller for every dollar they spend on this campaign. If CMP fails at thwarting the people and the referendum passes, the company will not be able to recover any of this money. It will be gone forever. At what point will CMP be too far down into its profits to continue this game? The ultimate joke will be if they manage to get the project built, but it's a monetary loss for the company. Be careful what you wish for, CMP!

“At this rate, CMP and Hydro-Quebec could spend more than $20 million by November in their effort to sell Mainers a project they don’t want,” said Natural Resources Council of Maine Advocacy Director Pete Didisheim. “This level of spending is unprecedented, deeply troubling during the current coronavirus pandemic, and, frankly, obscene. Mainers should be outraged that CMP would spend this much money when the company still struggles to restore power outages and deliver accurate bills.”

CMP seems to be its own worst enemy here. As if voters can't see how obscene the company truly is when it comes to NECEC... My money's on the people for the win!

0 Comments

<<Previous

Landowners Come Last

The Meaning of Collaboration

How the Community Consultation Sausage is Made

PJM's Implausible Deniability

Same Old Tired Ideas Can't Solve Transmission Issues

Invenergy Expert Promises Are Worth Zilch, Give or Take Bupkus

Help Wanted!

Grain Belt Express Admits It Plans To Change Project

Who Do You Think You're Fooling, Invenergy?

Central Maine Power Bleeding Cash Trying To Thwart The Will Of The People

About the Author

About
StopPATH Blog

Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
Email me

Archives

Categories

About the Author

AboutStopPATH Blog

Archives

Categories

About
StopPATH Blog