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

Follow The Money:  $258M Smells Like A Backroom Deal

2/28/2019

0 Comments

 
Okay, now I've officially seen everything.  A foreign, investor owned utility is complaining about "a pretty nasty ad" that exposes its backroom deal with Maine's Governor to sell the state's pristine wilderness for $258M in payola.
CMP has drawn attention to the ad this week, calling it part of a well-funded, dark-money campaign against the project.
Dark money?  An investor owned utility is pointing at a low budget internet ad campaign and calling it dark money?  Investor owned utilities are the kings of dark money!  They dole out millions in political contributions each year with the hope of influencing laws and policy in states where they do business.  They spend buckets of money hiring the top public relations spinners to lie to their customers with smiles on their faces.  They create front groups and fake "coalitions" to advocate for their money-making transmission project ideas.  And, as CMP has so aptly demonstrated in the past week, they create monetary compensation packages to be traded for political support.  Fact:  Maine Governor Janet Mills has publicly supported the New England Clean Energy Connect project because the state and some private interests have been promised $258M in payouts over the next 40 years.

So, "wahhhhh, wahhhhh" CMP, let me call you a wahhhmbulance.  You're such a lily white, downtrodden, paragon of virtue being attacked for your extra large heart and spirit of charity by some big, powerful, "dark" interests who spent a whopping sum on attack ads, reported to be somewhere between $500-$999.  That's dollars.  Five-hundred dollars.

$500 vs. $258,000,000.  Yup, CMP, you poor, poor victim.

And, oh my gosh!  The ad has had 100,000 to 200,000 impressions, the number of times a post is displayed.  Why, I'm offended.  Soooo offended that this ad
has been viewed over 116,000 times on YouTube!  If I was a total geek who had no real evidence of anything but wanted to spin an opinion piece to make it look like CMP is a poor, poor victim of "dark money" interests, I'd dig up stuff like...  As of Wednesday, the highest number of impressions, 12 percent, has come from men, ages 25-34. The next-highest, 11 percent, from women ages 55-64.  Because this would matter greatly in making my point.  Or covering up the fact that I really had no point.

I mean, don't watch this ad

because it increases the impressions and amount of "dark" money spent by Satan and his anonymous henchmen attacking the purity of Janet Mills.  Just look at her, even her jacket is white as snow!

We definitely have to stop the internet spread of this ad
because CMP says it's "dark money" and anonymous.

Even though it is clearly marked as paid for by Stop the Corridor, CMP and Janet Mills need to know where this coalition got its $500 to run the ad.
Maybe we can arrange a double reveal?  Stop the Corridor can show how it raised $500 and CMP can reveal how it raised $258M?  Maybe throw in a little spreadsheet of all CMP's political contributions, lobbying, and memberships for the past year or so?  Probably the public (and CMP's customers) would rather see that than some bake sale records and copies of personal checks for small amounts.  CMP may be surprised how easily citizen opposition groups can raise $500 - $999 to run ads like this:
Please don't do anything that increases the online impressions of this ad.
Central Maine Power doesn't want you to.
Stop it!
Stop it right now!
0 Comments

Buzzwords, Bluster, and Baloney:  Stirring Up Grain Belt Express

2/18/2019

1 Comment

 
Picture
Languished, obstacle, move forward, favorable, finish line, ambitious, momentum, demand, key, tax credit, renewable, next steps... what do these words have in common?  They're tired buzzwords used to describe tired transmission ideas to a tired public who has stopped caring.  Ya know, if it wasn't for the St. Louis Dispatch energy reporter's own personal greenwashed beliefs, there wouldn't be a "story" here.

What's wrong with this article?  It's misinformed, propaganda-driven malarkey that relies on glittering generalities  and opinion.  It's not "news."  It belongs on the Editorial page, not in "business news."
The proposed multistate transmission line, Grain Belt Express, has languished before Missouri regulators for years — with their at times controversial rejections representing the last major obstacle to sending Kansas wind energy east along an intended 780-mile path.
A bigger obstacle to sending Kansas wind energy east is Illinois.  It seems like the reporter is completely oblivious to the court decision in Illinois that vacated the Grain Belt Express permit in that state.  GBE is back to start in Illinois and it is highly unlikely that it will ever be permitted.  The Illinois Supreme Court has serious concerns that Clean Line's merchant, negotiated rates business model does not meet the definition of a public utility.  If it's not a public utility, it doesn't need a permit from the Illinois Commerce Commission.  Clean Line is free to build any transmission it wants in the state, but it may not use a public utility's eminent domain authority to do so.  The same concern has been briefed in Missouri.  Grain Belt Express will not serve all customers equally, which is a hallmark of public utility status.  Without all of the requisite qualifications, Grain Belt Express cannot be a public utility.
While the overall decision on the project’s approval remains the bigger matter before the PSC, the regulatory body announced this month that it was also warming up to begin the separate process of approving its sale.
Warming up?  What the heck does that mean in a regulatory context?  GBE and Invenergy have applied for Commission approval of the sale.  The PSC has set a hearing to determine a procedural schedule.  It does not imply approval.  It merely illustrates the timing differences here where the companies want the PSC to issue a permit to a project based on new ownership BEFORE it has approved said ownership.  It bolsters the argument of Missouri Landowner Alliance that the PSC cannot approve the project based on the qualifications of Invenergy because Invenergy does not yet own the project.
Some outside experts in Missouri speculate that Invenergy’s bid to take over the project can only help its odds of getting across the finish line.
Outside experts?  Renew Missouri is a party to the PSC case.  Invenergy is the applicant.  These are INSIDERS.  And there is no "expertise" here.  It's talking heads spewing glittering generalities and misinformed, self-serving opinion.

James Owen:  this guy has shot himself in the foot so many times by spewing falsehoods in the media that nobody even listens anymore.  If Invenergy wants to buy the project that's proof there's value to the project?  The only proof there is that Invenergy has some sort of scheme in the works to leverage some parts of the project to serve its quest for profit.  The Invenergy/GBE deal is contingent upon successful permitting in Kansas and Missouri.  It is not contingent upon successful permitting in Illinois and Indiana, nor successful transfer of GBE's FERC negotiated rate authority to proposed new parent Invenergy.  If Invenergy intended to build GBE as currently proposed, all those conditions would be present in the contract.  They're not, therefore Invenergy does  not need Illinois or Indiana permits, nor negotiated rate authority, for whatever scheme it may cook up with the carcass of GBE.
She declined, however, to give updates or estimates about Invenergy’s anticipated, or hopeful, timeline for the project.
“I think it’s premature for us to be talking about timelines right now,” said Conley. “When we have a decision in that case (from the PSC), then we can really consider timelines and development and what the next steps for the project are.”

Is that right, Beth?  You can't reveal Invenergy's actual plan for GBE until after the PSC approves the wolf in sheep's clothing?  Then why was it that two Invenergy witnesses told the PSC at hearing last December that the company would have to begin eminent domain proceedings against 700 landowners immediately after approval, and well before it had all state permits in place to build the original concept?  Invenergy admitted that there have been discussions about ending the project in Missouri, or taking a different route around Illinois.  Invenergy doesn't intend to build Grain Belt Express all the way to Indiana and then sell capacity through negotiated rates, does it?  The only thing "premature" here would be letting Invenergy's cat out of its bag and demonstrating its true intentions to the MO PSC before it makes a decision on the project. It's a lot easier to beg forgiveness than seek permission, isn't it, Invenergy?
The project would be accompanied by the large-scale construction of new wind energy generation in western Kansas. Although about 85 percent of electricity distributed by the project would be destined for other states, it would power approximately 200,000 Missouri households. The PSC, even in denying the project through certain legal interpretations, has agreed that it is in the public interest, and would save Missouri customers millions of dollars by promoting access to cheap wind energy.
This is the reporter's opinion.  There are no facts here.  Building a transmission line does not ensure construction of any generation in any specific location.  Eight-five percent will not be destined for other states.  If GBE would have a capacity of 4,000 MW, then 15% would be 600 MW.  GBE proposes 500 MW for Missouri, if it can find customers for that much.  Instead, it only has purported customers for up to 200 MW, which is 5%.  And of that 200 MW, only a bit over 100 MW has actually been "sold" to municipalities in Missouri.  And where does the 200,000 households come from?  Did the reporter add up all the participating municipalities to get that figure, or did he just harvest it from some GBE propaganda?  So, more than 95% is destined for other states currently.  And of that 95%, only 50 MW, or just over 1%, has been tentatively sold.  And since a merchant project cannot be built without customers (customers who would pay much higher rates than those loss leader rates offered to Missouri municipalities), any prognostication about who would buy the capacity and where they would be located is pure speculation and fairy tale.  Also, it matters not what the MO PSC did on an entirely different matter.  GBE has changed significantly since its prior application, and the PSC's opinion may have changed significantly as well.
Picture
The transmission project would be the biggest, by far, that the Chicago-based company has ever undertaken. The company has developed more than 400 miles of combined transmission lines in its history, Conley said — just over half of the distance that Grain Belt would cover.
But what kind of transmission lines has Invenergy developed, Beth?  They've all been short generation tie line segments built without eminent domain authority.  This is a comparison between apples and oranges.  Invenergy has no experience with open access transmission lines with negotiated rates using eminent domain authority.  All Invenergy's transmission lines are private use for the company to sell its product.  Are we supposed to infer that GBE would just be another one of those, albeit more than 700 miles long?  Great!  But no eminent domain authority would be appropriate for that kind of project.  And besides, Invenergy has not applied to build any transmission project.  The PSC cannot approve this project as something Invenergy is building because Invenergy does not own it.
But for any prospective wind energy developer, the end of 2020 has long been a key point on the calendar.
After that point, production tax credits for completed wind projects begin to phase out. Even without receiving the full tax in their entirety, Clean Line officials previously said they felt the project would be cost-effective, thanks to technology and declining costs. Invenergy shares that belief, Conley said — full tax credits or not.
Does this reporter not know that Clean Line isn't eligible for, and will not receive, any tax credits?  There are no tax credits for transmission lines, and GBE cannot be built in time for any new wind to be built that qualifies for the credit.  It sounds good, but it's pure fiction, certainly not "news."

Perhaps this reporter should have attempted a balanced piece by talking with opponents to the project?  It's almost as if there is no opposition at all.  Failure to recognize the opposition does not make it disappear.  It only makes this article look biased.  And what's up with that graphic?  It shows three Clean Line projects, two of which have been officially cancelled, without any recognition whatsoever by the reporter.

This article is opinionated garbage.  The St. Louis Post-Dispatch needs to do better.
1 Comment

Stupid Things The Energy Industry Says

2/1/2019

0 Comments

 
It's not every day we get to laugh out loud while reading energy news.  But the coyness of Hydro-Quebec deserves some kind of award for making me laugh so hard the other day.

In a long report by Bangor Daily News regarding Hydro Quebec's lack of participation in state transmission line proceedings that would significantly increase its revenue, the generator claims it isn't participating because it wasn't "invited" to the festivities.  As if anyone, ever, gets "invited" to participate in regulatory proceedings.  Energy companies routinely stick their greedy noses into all sorts of regulatory proceedings if it may affect their income, so I'm just not buying this:
Hydro-Quebec would gladly appear before the Maine Public Utilities Commission, but it has not been invited, said spokesperson Abergel.

“The PUC is doing its own process,” Abergel said. “If the PUC were to invite us, we’d gladly intervene. We’re very willing to collaborate in that sense.”

Apparently the Maine PUC isn't buying it either, and I wonder if this guy laughed as hard as I did over the inanity of H-Q's response:
But that’s not how the commission process works. Individuals and organizations can intervene in cases, but the commission does not invite them to the proceedings, commission spokesperson Lanphear said.
Maybe he's sent out for some official, engraved invitations?

At least there's comedy.  Laughing keeps you warm.
0 Comments

FirstEnergy Open House Fail

1/28/2019

0 Comments

 
The people of Aurora, Ohio, were ready for FirstEnergy last week, and it looks like its "Open House" effort to charm and pull the wool over everyone's eyes was a complete failure.  FirstEnergy may have counted on light attendance to overwhelm and baffle its critics.  Instead, it got this:
Hundreds packed a public open house convened by FirstEnergy Monday night to reveal plans for the Northern Portage Reliability Project.

The big room at Christ Community Chapel was built to hold 350 and it was so packed that people were turned away within the first half-hour of what was to be a two-hour event.
As the open house began at 6 p.m., traffic was backed up for almost half a mile between the chapel just off Ohio 306 and Ohio 82 to the south.

FirstEnergy employees, contractors and consultants staffed themed tables around the periphery of the room. They included stations entitled Engineering & Construction, Vegetation Management, Environmental, Real Estate and Route Selection. The company created a large centerpiece with big photos on easels showing various points where the company wants to put in power lines. The event was designed for people to circulate, but the crowd made navigation around the room difficult. Some attendees complained that there was no public give-and-take between the company and residents as one might have at a town-hall style event.
Oh no!  People turned away, you say?  Guess you'll have to be punished with more dog & pony shows, FirstEnergy.  Punishment?  But of course!  The pictures tell the tale, and they look just like every other set of news photos of a transmission line "Open House."  Shocked and angry landowners glaring aggressively, transmission company employees making animated faces and hand gestures as they try mightily to make their lies believable.  Aurora clearly wasn't buying FirstEnergy's story.

And why should they, when FirstEnergy is clearly making crap up as they go along.  Why else would there be two different takes on burial costs?
According to FirstEnergy, the cost to run the lines underground along the rail corridor would be three to seven times more expensive than using utility poles.
Or
First Energy has said the underground scenario could create a 10-fold increase in the cost of the project and the above-ground rerouting would be longer that the former rail line, and would send the lines over roadways and home owners’ yards.
Pop quiz!  How  much does it really cost to bury transmission lines?

    Underground Transmission Line Cost Pop Quiz

Take a Guess!
Who could believe anything FirstEnergy says?  It's obvious that depending on who you ask, you're likely to get a different answer.  And some of the answers are conflicting, such as this one:
Jennifer Young, a spokeswoman for the company, said the lines will be carried by 60-foot wood poles and those might be reduced to 45 footers, making them lower than nearby trees.
You mean the height of transmission lines is a purely elective thing?  I thought safety standards dictated clearances to the ground.  If the lines are as safe at 45 feet as they are at 60, why in the world would you have ever planned to build them at 60 feet?  60 foot towers are probably more expensive  and maybe more obtrusive, and definitely more objectionable.  Why would you do that unless it was a safety requirement?  I simply don't believe you that the height of the line "might be" reduced to 45 feet.  The only thing that could reduce the height of your project would be if you eliminated a proposed double circuit that would have required additional height clearances, and where would FirstEnergy be with its redundancy and reliability claims if it built a double circuited line?  This is obviously an empty promise.

I wonder who the genius was who came up with this idea: 
Beach said FirstEnergy measures the viability of various routes by their potential impact on property owners. The western route could affect 111 homeowners (although the company would need right-of-way access from about half that number), and the eastern route could affect up to 177 homeowners with right-of-way access from half that number. He also said many of those properties would have utility poles going up in the front of their properties.

“We have the opportunity to build this and maintain it in the right-of-way with one parcel that’s 100 feet wide for the most part,” said Beach.
And said "opportunity" runs along the back side of residential property.  So, where would you rather have a transmission line on your property, Aurora?  Your backyard or your front yard?  Nothing like stuffing a few strawmen for public execution, is there, FirstEnergy?  How about neither yard?  How about FirstEnergy buries it, or better yet doesn't build it at all?  I did not notice those options on the table.  Of course not, FirstEnergy's game is rigged to allow the company to win (build a transmission line) every time!

Aurora Mayor Ann Womer Benjamin takes on FirstEnergy's lies in this video.  This lovely lady seems knowledgeable, calm, and entrenched to resist.  And there's no more formidable opponent than a determined lady of a certain age, is there, FirstEnergy?  You might as well just give up now and cut your losses.
Unfortunately, you've got to sit through a FirstEnergy crapfest where Bill Beach shoots the strawmen before Womer Benjamin appears, but it's worth waiting for.
0 Comments

Ohio City Plans Eminent Domain To Prevent New Transmission Line

1/18/2019

0 Comments

 
In the Just Desserts category, the City of Aurora, Ohio, says it is pursuing legal action to acquire abandoned railroad right of way that FirstEnergy says it has under contract as the location of a new transmission line through Aurora.

The people of Aurora, and its mayor, have proposed alternatives to the building of the transmission line on an abandoned rail line through the city.  FirstEnergy isn't listening.  In fact, the company will be holding one of its famous dog and pony shows, "where it will seek public input about the proposed routes and the siting process" next week.  Why bother with one of those stilted "open house" displays, FirstEnergy?  The city has said "no."  It's not going to change its mind.  Aurora wants to use the abandoned railway for a recreational path.  In addition, there are 500 homes that will be affected by proximity to the proposed project whose owners won't be compensated at all for the drop in their property values.

What happens at a FirstEnergy "open house?"  Attendees are greeted and shuffled through a series of "stations" where they can ogle a series of display posters with general information, ending at a table of aerial maps where residents can see how close the project will be to the place they call home.  Citizens will be asked to fill out a little card asking which FirstEnergy designed route segments they prefer.  The idea is that people will pick the route farthest away from their property, and the route with the least objections "wins."  Well, not really, FirstEnergy wins!  FirstEnergy wins at this game every time because they get to build a new transmission line.  It's never about whether to build, only where to put it.  However, people aren't programmed to meekly accept a new transmission project as an inevitable fait accompli.  Oh, no, they want to examine whether or not it should be built in the first place.

And on that point FirstEnergy is failing miserably.  FirstEnergy says,
FirstEnergy is planning to construct a new 69-kilovolt transmission line to connect two substations in the Aurora area.  This new line will improve system redundancy and reliability, allowing much faster restoration times should power outages occur like those in recent years.
Did Aurora's transmission system fail a lot recently?  I doubt it.  It was more likely the distribution system.  The transmission system connects generation to substations, and between substations.  Substations step down the power before sending it out on distribution lines to your home or business.  Almost all storm related outages take place on the distribution system.  Transmission line failures are rare.  Bigger lines, bigger rights of way, better right of way maintenance.  So what good is another transmission line between substations when your outage is on the distribution system?  More transmission lines are not the "fix" for power outages.  FirstEnergy is only trying to scare the stupid to support its project.

FirstEnergy also reportedly told Aurora that it will have to pay $5 to 15M more to have the line buried.  But if the line is solely for Aurora's benefit, isn't Aurora going to pay the entire cost of the project anyhow in their electric rates?  It's probably not just for Aurora... and besides, FirstEnergy's estimate is probably as much a paper tiger as its outage scare tactics.  FirstEnergy and other utilities routinely opine that buried transmission costs "ten times" as much as overhead.  That figure has been proven overinflated on numerous projects.  A more realistic rule of thumb would be two times as expensive.  So if ten times is $5M, two times would be $1M.  There, doesn't sound so scary anymore, does it?  Whoever benefits from the transmission line is supposed to be the one who pays for it, and whoever benefits from the transmission line should also share in the cost of its burial to ameliorate its burden on Aurora and adjacent landowners.

FirstEnergy is looking at a hornet's nest on Monday.  Hope they go all out and add a bee smoker station to their display.  They're gonna need it.
0 Comments

Californians Still Making Excuses To Avoid Burial of Transmission Lines

1/15/2019

0 Comments

 
California investor-owned utility Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is still making excuses for its liability for the mass destruction left after its transmission lines sparked another deadly wild fire.  With only $1.4B worth of wild fire liability insurance, and facing upwards of $30B in liability claims, PG&E will file for bankruptcy protection.

But somehow the "bankrupt" company will continue to exist and provide "safe" and economical electricity service to its customers.  Oh, get real!!!

So, let's see... transmission line failures, combined with insufficient ROW clearing, have sparked more than a dozen fires in the past couple years.  What if... what if you remove the transmission lines from the tinder?  Of course it's going to be expensive, but $30B and climbing?  Aging lines in fire-prone areas should be replaced, and new lines should be constructed underground.
“Underground is about 10 times more expensive than overhead,” said Malashenko, who is the PUC safety and enforcement division director. “If we were to underground (throughout) California, all our rates would go up ten times.”
Oh, baloney!  Ten times, you say?  I simply don't believe you!  How about twice... as in two times more expensive, roughly?  Why do you exaggerate like this?  The "ten times" lie is one routinely spewed by transmission companies who don't want to underground their lines.

Underground lines also face risk from earthquakes and floods!  Uhh... because overhead lines face no risk from those hazards?  Of course not!  The risk is the same.  She also claims underground wires are harder to maintain.  Perhaps, but they need less maintenance overall because they're not exposed to the elements.  And it's harder to find the fault when they do break?  What is this?  1850?  I'm pretty sure a fault could be pinpointed to a certain section between vaults.

Excuses, excuses, excuses.  The answer here is quite simple... transmission lines should be buried to protect them from the wear and tear of the elements, and to protect the environment from the risk faulty transmission lines pose.

How about now, PG&E?  Is burial of new lines cheaper than bankruptcy?

And then there's the crazy claims that PG&E is the victim of climate change.  As if climate change caused the fires?  Some would like you to think so.  But the reality is that exposed overhead transmission lines and lack of vegetation maintenance were perhaps the biggest reason for the fires.  And let's take this climate change reasoning a little further, shall we?  Climate change science says we must reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuel electricity generation.  We are supposed to shut down old generation and replace it (although not equally) with fossil-free generation such as wind and solar.  Is wind and solar available to all locations equally?  No.  The climate change folks want to create huge wind and solar farms at strategic locations and run overhead transmission lines thousands of miles to places like California.  The last thing California needs right now is more overhead transmission lines.  Climate change is everyone's favorite villain, but blaming corporate neglect on climate change is a bait and switch of epic proportions.

Less transmission.
Bury it.
Stop robbing utility O&M accounts to increase share dividends.
Bankruptcy is not a way to escape liability.
Think about the consequences of your actions (or lack thereof).
Quit blaming convenient scapegoats.
And maybe, just maybe, investor-owned utilities are a dumb idea.
0 Comments

The Jig is Up, Clean Line!

10/4/2018

0 Comments

 
Today the Kansas Corporation Commission ordered Grain Belt Express to:
By November 29, 2018, Grain Belt shall submit evidence of its financial, managerial and technical ability to complete the Project.
The Commission found the evidence of Clean Line's demise, particularly the exodus of its employees and its sale of non-transmission assets, as submitted by Matthew Stallbaumer in his protest to be "compelling."

Just like the rest of us, the Kansas Corporation Commission wants to know what's going on here.
Looks like the KCC wasn't convinced by Skelly's blather about "personnel changes," nor were they blinded by all the smoke and insults emitted by Clean Line's lawyer or the claims of the incurious, lazy staff attorneys.  The KCC wants to know what's going on with Clean Line.

Dilemma!  We all know what's going on with Clean Line.  All its employees have accepted employment elsewhere.  Its Board of Directors has changed, perhaps indicating a change in investor involvement and backing.  A company that has no employees probably doesn't have any money to pay them.  C'mon, this is basic common sense.  Clean Line really can't fool anyone who cares enough to spend just a few minutes on a google search.

And it looks like the KCC staff is going to have to get off its dead derriere and do some investigating of its own.
Staff is directed to file a Report and Recommendation by February 6, 2019,
evaluating Grain Belt's financial, managerial and technical ability to complete the Project.
Looks like this is going to require the participation of some experienced utility analysts and not just a couple of lawyers still busy blowing the ink dry on their licenses.

Evidence, Michael Skelly, evidence!  Not blather.  Not promises.  Not claims that defy common sense.  Actual evidence of your financial, managerial, and technical abilities.

Looks like the jig is up on Michael Skelly's pretension that Grain Belt Express and Clean Line Energy Partners is still viable!  And now the questions have started...
It might have been less embarrassing to just abandon GBE and slink quietly away.  But you know how Clean Line and arrogance go hand-in-hand... a bodacious, very public, flaming pillar of shame is perhaps what Karma has in mind here.

I simply can't wait!
0 Comments

Clean Line's False Bravado Begins to Unravel

9/28/2018

6 Comments

 
It's like someone has let a litter of kittens into the room where Clean Line has been busy knitting its cover story about how strong its company is, and how it's ready to permit and build the Grain Belt Express.

First it was Matthew Stallbaumer's protest to GBE's motion to extend its permit in Kansas.  Matthew pointed out that all of Clean Line's "leadership" have taken positions at new companies, including head rat Michael Skelly (now working for Lazard in New York).

Clean Line filed an answer to Stallbaumer's protest yesterday that says a whole lot of nothing and telling the KCC not to be alarmed at the personnel changes that have been taking place.  It's perfectly normal for employees to change at utilities. 

Except real utilities hire new people to fill open positions.  Clean Line showed no proof that there are any new people.  Clean Line claimed that the assertion that Skelly, Desai and Berry "are no longer with the company" is false.  I'm pretty sure that's not what Matthew said.  I think he said that the three musketeers have accepted employment elsewhere.  Like Lazard, and ConnectGen.  I wonder, do Lazard and ConnectGen know that their employees are spending their time moonlighting for Clean Line?  Who is paying for their time spent on Clean Line business?  Is it Lazard and ConnectGen?  At any rate, Clean Line didn't deny anything Matthew said, and nobody should take their silence on these matters as agreement or acquiescence.  Right.  In other words, Clean Line has nothing to say in its own defense.

Moving right along...  The Missouri Supreme Court finally booted the GBE case back to the Missouri PSC yesterday.  Counsel for Missouri Landowners Alliance immediately filed a Motion to Establish Procedural Schedule for Receipt of Additional Evidence.  MLA's motion contains a mountain of evidence supporting the likelihood that "Clean Line is now just a shell of the company it was when Grain Belt filed its direct testimony two years ago."  Missing employees, asset sales, project sales and abandonments... there are many unanswered questions about GBE's ability to continue to develop, much less actually finance and build, the Grain Belt Express.

When your company's spiraling down the potty is as public as Clean Line's has been, it's pretty hard to fool regulators, no matter how fast you knit your story about being in a "strong" position to undertake your project.  We've all been watching this circus show for nearly a year now.  It sure looks like Clean Line is out of money and is only pretending at this point.  When will the truth be told?

Hopefully soon.  The Missouri PSC issued an order today setting a conference for October 11 to discuss the procedural schedule and taking of evidence.
The Commission finds that a procedural conference is now appropriate to discuss filing deadlines for a procedural schedule, to include supplemental pre-filed testimony and a date for a supplemental evidentiary hearing.
It's time to show your hand, Clean Line... if you have any cards left.

We'll all be watching.

*Who wants to play a game?  Can you find anything odd or out of place in GBE's answer to Matthew Stallbaumer's protest?  Post your answer in the comments.  Winner receives a free kitten named Kitty Hamm and a ball of yarn.
6 Comments

PJM and Transource Attempt to Hustle Citizens With Doublespeak

9/19/2018

0 Comments

 
In the wake of PJM's recent incomplete and inaccurate "analysis" of the cost benefit study for the Transource Independence Energy Connection, both PJM and Transource have been bloviating in the media about the relevance of their recent "findings."  It's almost like Tweedledee and Tweedledum got together to devise a new joint public relations strategy to assuage the public concern.  (And wouldn't that make for some interesting data requests!) 
Look, fellas, it's NOT WORKING.  I'm not sure who you were trying to kid with all that doublespeak, but it's only further enraged and inspired the public to speak out against the project (and now PJM) in opposition.

Let's start with Steve Herling's Op Ed in the York Dispatch, since it inspired a bunch of new public comment in opposition to the project yesterday in Franklin County.  Mr. Herling's Op Ed is a distinct contrast to what he said during the TEAC meeting on September 13.  But if you didn't attend that meeting (or listen in over the phone) you might not realize how much doublespeak it contains.

Mr. Herling starts out recognizing there is "public interest" in the project.  He thinks it's a recent development.  It's not, not at all.  The public has been concerned about this project since it was brought to their attention more than a year ago.  Opposition was overwhelming and immediate.  Mr. Herling just hasn't been paying attention until now, when it's becoming more of a likelihood that this project will be denied by the states.  Too little, too late, Mr. Herling!

Trying to explain PJM's purpose and the project's necessity to the public at this late stage is like trying to bail out the Titanic with a tea cup.  Good luck with that, but chances are the ship is going down and if you don't scurry to the lifeboat, you're going down with it.

Mr. Herling thinks he's making the electrical system efficient, economical and equitable (alliteration at its finest, probably not the work of Mr. Herling but some PR wordsmith).
After all, it would not be fair for customers in one area to consistently pay higher prices than others do simply because the system’s design prevented some customers from accessing the lowest-cost electricity.

For many years, some customers in the mid-Atlantic region, those in areas of Maryland, Northern Virginia and the District of Columbia, have had to pay comparatively higher prices than customers in other areas have, because bottlenecks in the interstate transmission system have not allowed an efficient flow of the lowest-cost power into the zone.

Oh no!  You really didn't say that, did you Mr. Herling?  Poor, poor, pitiful Washington DC and its affluent suburbs!  Because these special people don't want to have their air fouled by electric generators to serve their insatiable need for electricity, it's up to the folks in "the country" to foul their own air generating power for the cities, and then sacrifice their homes and businesses to new transmission corridors that ship it there.  All so those special folks in D.C. can save a few pennies on their monthly bills.  Maybe if D.C. stops wastefully keeping its cities lit up all night, they could save more than a few pennies (and there are other benefits that could happen in such a scenario, such as a dark night sky with actual stars in it)!  This argument falls completely flat in the sacrifice zone.  We already know we're politically disenfranchised from what goes on in D.C. and the stunning arrogance of telling us we need to sacrifice for them has been a galling lump in our throats for decades.  This argument convinces no one, probably not even these special people you're so concerned about.  The special people have closed all the dirty generators in their own region, believing what you tell them about others farther away that are happy to sacrifice to supply their needs.  We're not.  Haven't been for years. 

You mention the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission like they approved this project.  They did not.  It's not even on their radar.  FERC has nothing to do with transmission siting and permitting.  FERC's only jurisdiction is over interstate transmission rates, and that has not become an issue with Transource... yet.  FERC's jurisdiction does, however, extend to the actions of PJM.  FERC expects PJM to follow its own FERC-approved manuals and tariffs while it conducts its business.  Maybe Mr. Herling should look a little closer to home when talking about the authority of FERC, to make sure he's crossed all his t's and dotted all his i's.  What does PJM's operations manual say about annual re-evaluations of market efficiency projects... and what information must PJM include in just such an analysis?  Maybe Mr. Herling should be saving up his doublespeak for FERC.

And then he says this:
PJM recently completed its annual review of the Transource project. Our thorough analysis of the many factors that go into benefits and costs concluded that the benefits continue to justify the costs.

The analysis considered factors such as recent load and congestion forecasts, current cost estimates, power flow projections, topology, interregional modeling, future fuel prices and generation interconnections.

No, it did not.  At the meeting, Mr. Herling admitted that he did not have updated cost estimates for Transource's part of the IEC.  The cost increases used in the analysis only came from other utilities tasked with updating their substations for the addition of IEC.  IEC's costs have not been updated since 2015!  That is NOT "current cost estimates."  Mr. Herling said Transource is getting ready to put its project out for bid and when the bids are shared with PJM, it will update the costs.  But there's more to deriving a cost than just a bid on materials.  PJM must plug these costs into a formula to derive a revenue requirement for each of the first 15 years of the project.  The formula contains interest rates, operations and maintenance costs and many other factors that will also have to be adjusted to produce a realistic projected revenue requirement.  When Mr. Herling stated that PJM could update the costs after bids were received I do hope he was intending to complete the entire process.  And, even if he is, a transmission project like IEC is paid for over a period of 40 years, not 15.  PJM guesses at the "benefits" over 15 years, compares it to the costs, and then hopes that the other 25 years of project life will follow the same pattern.  What happens if PJM's projections are wrong?  Do we get our money back?  And what happens if IEC ends up costing more than the projected revenue requirement?  Will the company or PJM eat the excess?  Of course not!  We will.  We the ratepayers of PJM are asked to accept all the risk of inaccurate projections.

The issue of generation interconnections also came up at the TEAC meeting.  Mr. Herling admitted that PJM did not use recent retirements in its analysis, and did not include new generation either.*

And then there's the whole reliability issue that first appeared on PJM's analysis of September 13.
During our recent review, PJM found that the Transource project also will address significant reliability issues that are emerging on the regional transmission system, including the potential overload of a key high-voltage line that carries electricity across the Pennsylvania-Maryland border.

Without the additional transmission capacity provided by the Transource project, the system could face serious violations of federal reliability standards, which would require additional measures to address.

The only data PJM provided on this issue was a list of line and transformer overloads.  There were no dates on any of these possible violations.  The reliability issue was pushed to the very end of the meeting, where there wasn't any time for questions or discussion.  How very convenient!  Did PJM perform its duty here when presenting this issue?  No, it just ended the meeting promptly.  But I have lots of questions about this new development!  Are overloaded lines and transformers easily solved by rebuilds/replacements of aging components, or is a new transmission line the only solution?  If so, why the IEC project, which was never designed (or bid) as a reliability project?  There are distinct rules for new reliability projects, and simply re-purposing an unneeded market efficiency project is nowhere to be found.  If there are truly serious reliability problems developing, PJM has a duty to take immediate action to solve them.  What PJM should not do is sit idle and watch these violations develop and hope that a market efficiency project will solve them, especially when the market efficiency project is likely to be cancelled or denied.  Does Mr. Herling think if he ignores the reliability issues long enough that he can later say that a new transmission project (just like IEC) must be built to solve them, when action now to upgrade old components would solve the problem cheaper and faster?  This wouldn't be the first time PJM ignored old, failing components while pushing for a new transmission line to "solve" the problem.

And here's Mr. Herling repeating Transource's most recent lie:
The interstate high-voltage transmission system is a shared resource, and consumers including homeowners, tenants, businesses and industrial plants throughout the PJM footprint benefit from a robust network that provides reliable and affordable electricity across the region.
Aggressive AEP mouthpiece Toad Burns also had a version of this for reporters at yesterday's hearings in Franklin County.  Todd was quoted somewhere as saying he came to the hearings to listen.  I gotta call B.S. on that one... Todd had no interest in "listening" at hearings in Franklin County earlier this year.  I suspect that maybe he only came yesterday to perform for the press and utter this nonsensical statement about regional benefits.

The idea of new transmission in one part of PJM benefiting the entire region is one that has a long and tortured history in the courts.  Circa 2005, in order to set up a way to spread cost recovery for big projects over as many people as possible in order to make everyone's share less noticeable, PJM began using a "postage stamp" method of cost allocation for a suite of big projects code named "Project Mountaineer."  These four projects were intended to increase the export of coal-fired electricity from the Ohio Valley to eastern PJM cities by 5,000 MW.  Under the postage stamp method, every utility in PJM was assigned a portion of the costs based on its percentage of load for the prior year.  PJM and FERC reasoned that every part of the system received some benefit from these new projects in eastern PJM, although they could not quantify these benefits.  Some utilities in the western part of the region, who were paying a large percentage of the costs due to their load, believed they were not receiving a corresponding amount of benefit.  The case ended up before the 7th Circuit, who remanded it back to FERC (twice!) requiring FERC to quantify the benefits, at least roughly.  It never happened.  Instead, FERC and PJM devised a new cost allocation scheme where ultra high voltage projects (double-circuit 345kV, 500kV and 765kV) would be allocated 50% postage stamp and 50% DFAX, where cost causers and beneficiaries are assigned costs commensurate with their use of the project.  In one memorable analogy from the 7th Circuit's opinion, it was said:
The incidental‐benefits tail mustn’t be allowed to wag the primary‐benefits dog.
And this analogy holds true today in response to PJM's and Transource's bogus argument that citizens in York and Franklin counties benefited from some unnamed transmission project in Indiana several years ago.  Which project was that, exactly?  Or are you both just speaking in generalities in a doublespeak attempt to confuse people?  There's a whole new debate we can have over who benefits from certain projects, if you want to open that can of worms.  But, I don't think you do.  That debate has happened enough times already to give a judge nightmares, and the outcome does not support your new, bogus argument.

The fact of the matter is that York County does not benefit at all from the IEC.  Not one penny!  And it probably didn't benefit from a project in Indiana either.  Whether or not Franklin County benefits from the IEC is debatable.  Have PJM's cost allocations changed in relation to the IEC's cost/benefit analysis?  No, they haven't.  And they won't.  The cost responsibility analysis is locked in time, although if updated today it may have very different results.  And here's the ultimate bottom line... Franklin County does not benefit anywhere near commensurate with the sacrifice it is being asked to make.

Mr. Herling says stakeholders need to "understand" the project's purpose and benefits.  As if maybe they finally "understood," then opposition would subside?  Fat chance, Mr. Herling.  Your attempt at the Information Deficit technique doesn't work.  It is precisely because the "stakeholders" DO understand the rhetoric and hubris of PJM, and the profit-seeking motives of Transource, that they oppose this project.  And these stakeholders aren't going away.  They're going to be in your face until you do the right thing.

About the only thing in Mr. Herling's opinion I can agree with is that applications for the Transource project are now under consideration by the Maryland Public Service Commission and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.  And I believe the commissions also fully "understand" what this project is about.  Ultimately, the states have the final say here, and you're not helping yourself out by saying one thing and doing another, and ignoring a recent PA-PUC Order for Transource to update its costs before your recent analysis.  That was a pretty bold move.  Don't think the regulators are buying your doublespeak.

And, ultimately, because of PJM's refusal to acknowledge that the IEC isn't going to happen, it's enabling Transource to run up our tab unnecessarily.  The one thing missing from Mr. Herling's Op Ed is the fact that PJM serves consumers, not member utilities.  Guess Mr. Herling needs to "understand" that.

*For discussion of FSA's see recent RTO Insider article.  We'll tentatively believe their reporting on this issue, although they somehow missed the elephant stampeding through the meeting room trumpeting about there being no update of Transource's costs for the project.  It wasn't even mentioned.  Maybe RTO Insider's perspective is a bit off here, judging from the text it included on its Facebook post touting the article yesterday.  "In a rare occurrence, half a dozen residents opposed to PJM's largest-ever congestion-reducing transmission project attended last week's Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee..." -- complete with photo of the creatures in action.  Sort of reminds me of the hushed narrative you hear on nature films about creatures doing their thing while unaware they're being observed and talked about by superior creatures.  Perhaps like the infamous honey badger footage...  *warning, strong language*
0 Comments

The End of Clean Line Energy Partners

7/18/2018

14 Comments

 
Something just seemed "off" about Clean Line's response to the Missouri Supreme Court decision yesterday.  Where was everyone?  Took an awfully long time to respond, but that might be because Michael Skelly no longer has a company phone.  Or a desk.  Or a computer.

And then there's this.  Why is David Berry writing and signing legal documents on behalf of Clean Line Energy Partners?  What happened to Clean Line's counsel of record in Tennessee?  Where's Cary Kottler, or the other "B" team lawyers from Clean Line?

Where is everybody?

I guess they went out with the non-transmission assets.  What "non-transmission assets" does Clean Line own anyhow?  The wind farm got sold to Pattern a while ago.  I guess that leaves a whole bunch of ugly orange furniture, phones, computers, maybe a Staples Easy Button or two.

This says that Clean Line Energy Partners sold all its non-transmission assets to a company named ConnectGen LLC.
A Locke Lord team led by Mitch Tiras (Houston) represented a management team at ConnectGen, LLC in the acquisition of all the non-transmission assets of Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC, which received a commitment of $100 million from Quantum Energy Partners Fund VII and will develop renewable energy projects across North America. Additional assistance was provided by Sara Longtain and Rachel Fitzgerald (both of Houston).
It's not dated, and it's very poorly written.  But I think it happened quite recently because ConnectGen seems to be a brand new company (err... companies?) that was just registered in Texas this month, and in Delaware last month.  Four different but related companies:  ConnectGen LLC, ConnectGen Management Holdings, LLC, ConnectGen Management LLC, and ConnectGen Operating, LLC.  Sound familiar?

It should, considering the President of all of these new companies is no other than Jayshree Desai, former COO of Clean Line Energy Partners.  Recent information about Jayshree:
Ms. Desai is the President of ConnectGen LLC, a company focused on the development of wind, solar and storage projects. Prior to joining ConnnectGen LLC, Ms. Desai served as the Chief Operating Officer of Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC a developer of transmission line infrastructure projects that deliver wind energy to communities and cities that lack access to low cost renewable energy resources. Prior to that, Ms. Desai was CFO of Horizon Wind Energy, a developer, owner and operator of wind farms. Prior to that, Ms. Desai was a Director at Enron responsible for Mergers & Acquisitions. Ms. Desai began her career as a business analyst at McKinsey & Company. Ms. Desai currently serves on the Executive Board of KIPP Houston and as the Chairperson of the Board of the Wind Energy Foundation. Ms. Desai holds a Master of Business Administration from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and a Bachelor of Business Administration from the University of Texas at Austin.
Oh, I see.  Prior.  She worked for Clean Line Energy Partners in a prior job.  And when she left, she took everything "non-transmission" with her.

I'm quite sorry that the Locke Lord blurb is so poorly written.  It kind of looks like maybe Clean Line Energy Partners received a commitment of $100 million from Quantum Energy Partners Fund VII and will develop renewable energy projects across North America, but that isn't true.  It's just someone who doesn't know how  to use a period.  It is ConnectGen that received $100M from Quantum and will develop renewable energy projects.  Looks like it will be wind, solar and storage projects, not transmission.  The only thing Clean Line got is relieved of its non-transmission assets for an undisclosed price.

So, Jayshree went out the door (and took the door with her for good measure) and left Skelly gasping in the dirt.  Does ANYONE work at Clean Line Energy Partners any longer?  I don't know how they could, since all the company's non-transmission assets have been sold to Jayshree's new company.  If she's nice, maybe she'll let him come and play "office" a couple days a week, do make believe with his toy transmission tower.

Who were you trying to kid yesterday, Michael Skelly?  With all your grandiose claims and plans to continue the regulatory process for Grain Belt Express.  It looks like Clean Line Energy Partners no longer has a pot to piss in, nor a window to throw it out of.

Would you please just go away now?  The cat is out of the bag.  We all know.

14 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    About the Author

    Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.
    In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history.

    About
    StopPATH Blog

    StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project.  The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

    StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view.  If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty.  People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself.  If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

    Got something to say?  Submit your own opinion for publication.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories

    All
    $$$$$$
    2023 PJM Transmission
    Aep Vs Firstenergy
    Arkansas
    Best Practices
    Best Practices
    Big Winds Big Lie
    Can Of Worms
    Carolinas
    Citizen Action
    Colorado
    Corporate Propaganda
    Data Centers
    Democracy Failures
    DOE Failure
    Emf
    Eminent Domain
    Events
    Ferc Action
    FERC Incentives Part Deux
    Ferc Transmission Noi
    Firstenergy Failure
    Good Ideas
    Illinois
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Land Agents
    Legislative Action
    Marketing To Mayberry
    MARL
    Missouri
    Mtstorm Doubs Rebuild
    Mtstormdoubs Rebuild
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    Newslinks
    NIETC
    Opinion
    Path Alternatives
    Path Failures
    Path Intimidation Attempts
    Pay To Play
    Potomac Edison Investigation
    Power Company Propaganda
    Psc Failure
    Rates
    Regulatory Capture
    Skelly Fail
    The Pjm Cartel
    Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes
    Transource
    Valley Link Transmission
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.