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

Missouri PSC Speculates On GBE

10/15/2023

0 Comments

 
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride!
The Missouri PSC issued an Order last week speculating on the Grain Belt Express transmission project.  I don't know when I've seen an Order so full of mistakes and baloney before.  This is apparently what happens when a utility regulator is turned into an avenue to award political favors.  None of the current Commissioners have any knowledge or experience with the electric utility industry... and it shows!  I felt stupider after reading the Order.  Much of it was copied and pasted from the PSC's last Order approving GBE, such as:
Agricultural impacts will also be reduced because no more than nine acres of land in Missouri will be taken out of agricultural production as a result of Project structures.
The Order also says:
The Project is designed to have a minimal impact to land.  In Phase I for the HVDC Main Line approximately 9 acres will be taken out of agricultural production. For Phase I Tiger Connector approximately 0.2 acres will be taken out of agricultural production. And for the Phase II HVDC Main Line, approximately 7 acres will be taken out of agricultural production. 
How much land will be taken out of production?  A 200 foot wide strip across more than 200 miles of Missouri, that's how much.  The PSC obviously has no clue!

And then there's this ridiculous quote taken out of the original GBE Order that's like biting on something rotten.
There can be no debate that our energy future will require more diversity in energy resources, particularly renewable resources. We are witnessing a worldwide, long-term and comprehensive movement toward renewable energy. The energy on the Project provides great promise as a source for affordable, reliable, safe, and environmentally-friendly energy that will increase resiliency of the grid. The Project will facilitate this movement in Missouri, will thereby benefit Missouri citizens, and is, with the conditions set out below, in the public interest. 
There can be no debate?  Of course there is debate!  There is debate about everything, especially the failure of "clean energy" to keep the lights on despite trillions of our tax dollars being poured into this empty well.  Anyone who states that "there can be no debate" is a totalitarian lunatic!

And here's the non-debatable and speculative part...
Grain Belt has a viable plan for raising the capital necessary to finance the cost of constructing the Project on a project financing basis. Specifically, after advancing development and permitting activities to a status at which developers of wind and solar generation facilities and other potential customers of the transmission line are willing to enter into commercial agreements for an undivided interest (purchase or lease) or long-term contracts for transmission capacity on the Project, Grain Belt will enter such contracts with interested parties that satisfy necessary creditworthiness requirements. Grain Belt will then raise debt capital using the aforementioned contracts as security for the debt.


Grain Belt anticipates utilizing a combination of commercial and governmental sources of financing, and, at this time, is still evaluating all potential options for financing. Options for governmental sources of financing include the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) Transmission Infrastructure Program (TIP); and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Transmission Facilitation Program; Department of Energy loans to non-federal borrowers for transmission facilities pursuant to the Inflation Reduction Act and potentially other government funding options. Additional equity capital may also be raised to help finance construction of the Project, or Grain Belt’s existing investors may make additional equity investments in the Project.
Grain Belt Express has only one customer for just 5% of its project capacity.  It also does not have approval to finance its project on the backs of American taxpayers.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.  It's going to be a long journey to having GBE fully subscribed, especially since GBE does NOT even have FERC's approval to negotiate rates with potential customers.  After being asleep at the switch since it bought the project from Clean Line Energy Partners in 2019, Invenergy has suddenly become inspired to "amend" the negotiated rate authority FERC granted to Clean Line Energy Partners in 2014.  Just like GBE "amended" its permit from the Missouri PSC when what it really did was create a totally new project that wasn't sufficiently reviewed.  Just because the uneducated PSC Commissioners in Missouri fell for that ruse doesn't mean FERC will as well.

Perhaps the best part of GBE's FERC "amendment" is this claim made by Invenergy:
Consistent with the Commission’s requirements for obtaining and maintaining negotiated rate authority, Grain Belt Express’s negotiated rates will continue to be just and reasonable. In the context of negotiated rates, the Commission considers whether the merchant transmission developer has assumed the full market risk for the cost of constructing its proposed project, and is not building within the footprint of the developer’s (or an affiliate’s) traditionally regulated transmission system. The Commission also considers whether the merchant transmission owner (or an affiliate) owns transmission facilities in the same region as the project, what alternatives customers have, and whether the merchant transmission owner is capable of erecting any barriers to entry among competitors, and whether the owner would have any incentive to withhold capacity.
Here, Grain Belt Express has assumed, and will continue to assume, the full market risk for the cost of constructing the Project. Grain Belt Express has no captive pool of customers from which it could recoup the cost of the Project. ​
No customers.... just captive American taxpayers who would foot the bill if GBE defaulted on a government loan, and who would pay GBE for its capacity under DOE's Transmission Facilitation Program.

There's also the matter of GBE's pending Environmental Impact Statement that won't even be in draft form until sometime later this winter.  Only after that document is finalized will DOE make a decision on whether to grant a taxpayer-backed loan.  What's a taxpayer-backed loan?  It's the same as any loan with a co-signer who is responsible for repayment if the borrower defaults.  In this case, the co-signer would be every taxpayer in the country.  GBE has applied to shift all risk for its project onto captive taxpayers.

So, the Missouri PSC approved GBE?  Big Flipping Deal.  Grain Belt Express is going nowhere without customers that will pay to build it.  There can be no debate that GBE's financing plan is a house of cards.
0 Comments

How the Community Consultation Sausage is Made

8/23/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
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

Are You Ready To Rumble, Missouri?

6/4/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
The Missouri Public Service Commission's evidentiary hearing for the Grain Belt Express Tiger Connector (and other big changes to GBE's permit) begins at 9 a.m. Monday morning.  You can either show up at the PSC in person, or watch the festivities online.  If you show up in person, be aware that this is a formal court-like proceeding.  The audience must use their court room manners (no shouting, clapping, or disruptions of any kind.)  Also, there is no opportunity for the audience to participate, they are silent observers.  Have all the stare down contests you like, but keep your lips zipped.  If you watch online, like I do (either live or on replay), it's a lot less stressful because you can shout the most appropriate insults at the biggest idiots you encounter with absolutely no harm done.  If I was more industrious, I'd make a video out of it, similar to those folks who draw huge audiences making videos while they play video games.  Who wants to watch a video of me ad libbing insulting tunes at PSC witnesses?  Insults are so much nicer when you sing them.

All the parties have filed their position statements.  It's a short listing of what the party believes the evidence will show to the Commission, and how the party believes the Commission should decide.  Rather than plow through the mountains of filings at this point, this is where you should start.

Missouri Landowners Alliance says the project should be rejected because it is not economically feasible and there is no proven need for it.  GBE has not even sold the full 500 MW it first offered in Missouri, so why would it need to increase the capacity to 2500 MW?  In its Order approving the project several years ago, the PSC said GBE was economically feasible only because it could sell capacity at a higher price to utilities on the east coast.   Now GBE wants permission to build just the Kansas and Missouri portions of the project, with the portion that goes to the east coast coming later, maybe.  Also, GBE has filed a complaint against regional grid operator MISO at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission contending that MISO did not include a completed GBE in its future planning scenario, even though the rules say MISO should not.  To summarize this problem, GBE is mad that MISO's future transmission plan competes with GBE, therefore GBE seeks to stop MISO from planning and ordering other transmission lines.  Being made obsolete is a natural development for a merchant transmission line that stalls for more than 10 years.  MISO cannot depend on GBE being built because GBE can always cancel its project at its own initiative, even today.  MISO needs to plan a reliable transmission system.  It cannot plan around speculative projects.  MISO is going to build its new projects anyhow, and all ratepayers will be responsible for the cost of those reliability projects.  It's undeniable that GBE has jumped the shark -- other options have become available, and they are not carrying GBE's huge debt baggage that has accumulated over the last decade so they are certainly going to be cheaper.  As the MLA said, "If Grain Belt is attempting to eliminate competition from MISO, there is reason to question Grain Belt’s financial viability."  The MLA is opposing the separation of GBE into two "phases", where it builds the Kansas-Missouri section independently from the Illinois section.  The MLA says, "Several Grain Belt witnesses contend that its proposed phasing plan would expedite the benefits of Phase 1 for Missouri.  Yet not one of their witnesses mention that the plan would also expedite the collection of Grain Belt’s profits."  BINGO!  MLA opposes changes to the landowner compensation for the Tiger Connector.  GBE wants to change 110% fair market value (FMV) plus a big payment for each structure on your land to 150% FMV without structure payments.  This simply does not work out to higher compensation for every landowner, as GBE contends.  It depends on the value of your property and the number of structures.  It could mean a decrease for certain large landowners.  MLA says landowners should be given their choice of which compensation package is more beneficial to them.

The Missouri Agricultural Associations have a different take on things.  Maybe they're still trying to make up for that disasterous eminent domain legislation they negotiated on behalf of landowners last year.  That whole thing reminded me of former Gov. Jay Nixon "negotiating" a landowner protocol with GBE on behalf of landowners that he never actually consulted.  Personally, I have had enough of unaffected groups negotiating on behalf of disenfranchised landowners.  At any rate, the Ag groups say not only should the original permit not have been issued, it should not be amended now.  "Relocation from Ralls County
and/or constructing the project in two phases will not change the fact that this project will only be viable by selling power at a price that no one is willing to pay."  The Ag groups say GBE should comply with the legislation it negotiated with GBE, and it wants to give away something else on behalf of landowners now.  I haven't even heard a landowner mention this, and nobody seems to know about it.  Came right out of left field, like most of the giveaways in last year's legislation.  "The Agricultural Associations would also support modifications that require Grain Belt Express to offer landowners ongoing shares of ownership in Grain Belt Expressand/or Invenergy as an alternative to cash compensation to give landowners an opportunity to share in the profit stream generated from land taken by Grain Belt Express."  WHAT???  INSTEAD OF cash compensation?  Sorry... no.  It should be IN ADDITION TO cash compensation.  Why would any landowner give his property away for a share in a company that he hates?  This is what happens when you don't consult the people you supposedly "represent."

The Staff of the PSC is another party with a position.  Although the Staff is part of the Commission, it is the professional part.  It is the engineering and legal staff that evaluate applications that are filed and make recommendations for the appointed Commissioners.  The Staff are the people with actual education and experience regulating utilities.  The appointed Commissioners often don't have any experience at all with utilities and often are nothing more than political creatures rewarded with a cushy job and high salary.  It's not what you know, it's who you know.  Commissioners are not obligated to listen to the wisdom of their professional staff, who try diligently to keep the Commissioners from making huge mistakes.  But the call of politics often overwhelms common sense and the Staff is batted aside as an inconvenience.  What a thankless job they have!  The Staff's main position is that the phasing of the project should be denied.  It's either the whole project from Kansas to Indiana, or no project at all.  Staff also wants GBE to either follow the Eminent Domain legislation negotiated by the Ag Associations last year, or not.  GBE cannot pick and choose whether to follow it or not based on what's beneficial to GBE.

Grain Belt Express wants everything... it wants Tiger Connector approved so it can take land from new landowners in Audrain and Callaway Counties.  It wants to build only part of the project before committing fully to the whole thing.  It wants to pick and choose how it treats landowners to be most beneficial to GBE.

The Missouri Energy Commission (formerly MJMEUC, and not to be confused with the Public Service Commission) believes GBE's permit modifications should be approved.  It mentions that in it's sweet deal for "up to" 200 MW of transmission service on GBE and a separate contract with a wind farm in Kansas for actual energy, that it has managed to re-sell 136 MW of service to Missouri cities.  It forgets to mention that that 136 MW number has not changed since 2015/16.  Even though MEC can resell another 64 MW of GBE service, there have been no takers in 6-8 years.  I'm pretty sure there are no other takers.  Contemplate, PSC, contemplate.

The position of the "Clean Grid Alliance" (formerly American Wind Energy Association but then they got chummy with big solar so they created a big alliance for all their big subsidies) sort of gives away the secret we've been wondering about for a while.  CGA says Tiger should be approved because, "The r
equested amendments and potential for more solar resources using the project provide more benefits to Missouri; increasing the Certificated Project’s public interest benefits."  Wait... more solar using the project because of Tiger Connector?  I don't remember that being anywhere in GBE's testimony.  So, Tiger Connector is being built for the express purpose of exporting new solar generation from Callaway County to the east coast?  Tiger is not for the purpose of importing energy from Kansas?  Or Tiger is for importing renewable energy from Kansas while simultaneously exporting renewable energy generated right there in Callaway?  Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper for Callaway (and Missouri as a whole) to actually use what they produce, instead of paying a bunch of transmission fees to supposedly move the energy around?  Isn't that what is actually going to happen?  If GBE injects 2500 MW of electricity in Callaway and withdraws 2500 MW of electricity in Callaway, who's to say any energy actually went anywhere?  Plenty of dollar bills will go in Invenergy's pocket, but the electricity is a complete wash.  Electrons are all the same.  You can't tell one from another.  There aren't any tiny license plates that say "Kansas" or "Missouri" on the back of them.  P.T. Barnum would be so proud!

Sierra Club's and Renew Missouri's positions are nothing more than boring cheerleading and unsubstantiated claims that GBE is the second coming of their clean energy god.  What is annoying though is where they may take a position that GBE's landowner compensation is reasonable.  Stay in your lane, bloviating turbine huggers.  Your opinion about landowner compensation means absolutely NOTHING.

Same could be said for Associated Industries of Missouri (aka the unions).  The unions took the same position on each separate issue. "The
evidence supports each of the amendments to the CCN currently held by Grain Belt Express and such amendments are in the best interest of the public and necessary and convenient for the public service. The Commission should approve the amendments."  What do the unions know about any of this?  Nothing.  They just support the project because they think it will provide jobs for their members.  But, is that speculation or actuality?  I don't remember a project labor agreement being announced.  What guarantee is there that Missouri union members would be given jobs building GBE?  And, even if they were, is a temporary job for a union member a good reason to take private property from another citizen?   The unions even attempt the same position on GBE's landowner compensation package.  Again... stay in your lane, union workers!

So, what happens now?  A judge will preside over a court-like proceeding where opening statements will be made, witnesses will be cross examined, evidence will be introduced, and briefs will be written.  The judge will make a recommendation to the appointed Commissioners.

Then the Commissioners do whatever they want and pay back their own political favors.  Although supposedly "independent" after being sworn in, they still owe a debt to the one who appointed them and who may reappoint them after their term is up.

You might be interested to find out just how hard Invenergy is lobbying for transmission at the federal level.  It had a hand in both the "Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill" and the "Inflation Reduction Act" that have usurped state authority to permit transmission and supercharged federal authority over transmission.  There's probably a Missouri Elections Commission counterpart that shows how much Invenergy has been spreading around to Missouri politicians.  All that money will be working hard for Invenergy next week in Missouri.  Another lesson in sausage making!

0 Comments

The Cost of Questioning Absolute Authority

4/14/2022

1 Comment

 
Stunning story out of Wisconsin.  Former PSC Commissioner Mike Huebsch has racked up over $800K in legal bills defending himself against accusations of bias in his approval of the Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission project.  The story tells us that the PSC has paid Huebsch's outside counsel to defend him, even after state attorneys bowed out of the case when it was revealed that Huebsch was trading encrypted messages with employees of the utilities proposing the project.  The PSC says it could have a conflict of interest and therefore cannot defend Huebsch in-house.
PSC spokesperson Matthew Sweeney said the commission “has unique obligations and could have different interests and duties relating to transparency than former Commissioner Huebsch would have in his capacity as a private citizen,” which could have created a conflict of interest for PSC attorneys.
It would be logical, then, that Huebsch is on his own to defend his actions as a private citizen.  But yet the PSC thinks it should cover his expenses under state law.  The state law covers the actions of state employees "acting within the scope of employment."  Is trading personal messages with utility employees a required or recommended job function of a PSC Commissioner?  Regardless of whether communicating with utilities is a job function, Huebsch says the messages were of a personal nature.
Huebsch, a former state legislator who served in Gov. Scott Walker’s cabinet before joining the PSC in 2015, says the messages were purely personal exchanges with old friends and that he never discussed PSC business outside of official proceedings.
Therefore the messages were not within Huebsch's scope of employment and defending him should not be the state's financial responsibility.  The law is clear.
Regardless of the results of the litigation the governmental unit, if it does not provide legal counsel to the defendant officer or employee, shall pay reasonable attorney fees and costs of defending the action, unless it is found by the court or jury that the defendant officer or employee did not act within the scope of employment.
But what does the PSC care?  It thinks that it can simply shift the costs of Huebsch's legal bills onto the utilities it regulates under a different state law. 
The public service commission is authorized by s. 196.85, Stats., to charge any public utility, power district, or sewerage system the expenses attributable to the performance of the commission's duties.
If the messages were personal and not part of Huebsch's job function, then the cost of defending them may not be passed to the utilities.

Huebsch makes a giant leap in logic to presume that these costs wrongly paid by the PSC and wrongly charged to the utilities would be passed through to electric ratepayers in their electric bills.
Through his attorney, Huebsch blamed the plaintiffs for running up the tab on utility customers who will ultimately absorb the costs of defending the PSC’s decisions.
The news article says, "Under state law, legal expenses are assessed to the utilities involved, in this case American Transmission Company, ITC Midwest and Dairyland Power Cooperative, which don’t serve retail customers but charge transmission rates that ultimately affect electricity costs."

And who has jurisdiction over transmission rates?  It's not the Wisconsin PSC, it's the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  Wisconsin has no authority to determine that these legal fees should be a ratepayer responsibility.  Indeed, the case could be made that Huebsch's legal expenses to defend his personal actions while serving as PSC Commissioner do not belong in an account that is passed through to ratepayers through the utilities' formula rates.  FERC administrates an accounting classification system known as the Uniform System of Accounts, which sorts utility expenditures into categories, or accounts, based on their nature and purpose.  Where does Huebsch think his legal expenses belong under the USoA?  Do they belong under Regulatory Commission Expenses (Account 928) or do they more properly belong in the 426 account series as a non-operating expense?  An argument could be made that they are a non-operating expense.  Do the utilities involved bear any responsibility for communicating with Huebsch in a secretive manner while he was considering their permit application?  If the messages were not entirely personal, then they could be seen as "for the purpose of influencing the decisions of public officials", which belongs in Account 426.4.  If the messages cannot be produced for judicial review, how could anyone ever know what they said?  The utility could never PROVE that the messages were harmless, routine operating expenses that should be recovered from ratepayers, and the utilities have the burden of proof.  They won't have enough proof to recover these expenses from electric ratepayers.

Unbelievably, Huebsch whines that nobody should be allowed to question whether his decision was biased because it's just too expensive for ratepayers.

“The best outcome for ratepayers in Wisconsin and across the country would be for this unfounded ‘bias’ claim to be dismissed as soon as possible,” Huebsch said. “Every dime they have had to pay until now — including for the co-owners’ numerous law firms and PSC legal staff — is because of the plaintiffs and their choices.”

Huebsch said if the Supreme Court doesn’t throw out the bias claim, ratepayers will end up paying to litigate an “untold number of copycat ‘bias’ lawsuits.”
Can we talk about "choices" here?  Huebsch CHOSE to carry on personal conversations with employees of utilities that he regulates.  That's the "choice" that has caused these costs, not the filing of lawsuits that resulted from Huebsch's "choice." 

The idea that anyone affected by regulatory decisions should be prohibited from challenging those decisions in court is a non-starter, no matter who is paying. 

If Huebsch was really worried about electric rates, perhaps he should have considered the cost of the project itself?  It's out of his hands now, of course, but the utilities behind it continue to spend money knowing that they can apply at FERC to collect their sunk investment, plus generous double digit return, even if the project is never built (which looks like a real possibility lately).

Is this really about the ratepayers?  Or is that just an excuse to shift attention away from Huebsch's personal choices?
1 Comment

Maine Citizens Bring Unwanted Transmission Line to a Vote

9/5/2019

0 Comments

 
This just in from Maine:
CMP Corridor Opponents Launch Citizens Initiative
Opponents of Central Maine Power's transmission corridor have filed an application with the Secretary of State to launch a statewide ballot initiative to stop the controversial project.
Tom Saviello , the citizen initiator of the effort, turned in bill language that would revoke the project's deeply unpopular permit approval from Maine's top energy regulator, the Public Utilities Commission. Revoking this permit, called a certificate of public convenience and necessity, would reflect the clear wishes of the majority of Mainers, who do not want the corridor to be built.
"CMP's corridor has drawn strong opposition from most Mainers," Saviello said. "Allowing Mainers to vote to block this project is only fair. We have to consider that nearly 25 towns have already voted to oppose the project, polling shows overwhelming opposition to the project, and CMP's awful scandals continue to get worse. Add to that the fact that Augusta has failed to listen to the clear voice of the people, and it's time for Mainers to take this matter into their own hands. We began the citizen's initiative process so this project will
get stopped in its tracks. Western Maine is too valuable to destroy."
Saviello is a former state representative and state senator from Franklin County, an area that would be heavily affected by CMP's corridor.
Sandi Howard, the director of Say NO to NECEC, will join Saviello in heading up the effort. Say NO to NECEC is a large grassroots organization that formed in opposition to the corridor.
"This corridor is bad for just about everyone," Howard said. "It's only good for a very select few. Augusta politicians and the state agencies who are supposed to protect Maine have failed, so we have to take this effort into our own hands. The citizen's initiative process is an enormous undertaking, but we have more than 20 thousand motivated Mainers who have signed up to help. They've called legislators, lobbied their elected officials, shown up at town meetings, and have even weighed in with Maine's energy and environmental regulators. The work they've done so far is already the broadest and most impressive exercise in direct democracy this state has seen in the modern era, and we know that Mainers are ready to get to work on this next step. We also know that CMP will use every legal trick, every lobbyist they can buy, and all of their influence in Augusta to push for their billion-dollar project, all while neglecting and overcharging their customers. This corridor is bad for Maine, and we don't trust CMP to build it."
The draft language will be considered by the Secretary of State's office in the coming days. Once the Secretary of State clears the language, corridor opponents will use their volunteer network to begin collecting petition signatures from Mainers. See draft language below.
An Act to Reject the New England Clean Energy Connect Transmission Project
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:
Sec. 1. Amend Order. Within 30 days of the effective date of this legislation and pursuant to its authority under the Maine Revised Statutes, Title 35-A, section 1321, the Public Utilities Commission shall amend the “Order Granting Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and Approving Stipulation” entered by the Public Utilities Commission on May 3, 2019 in Docket No. 2017‑00232 for the New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) transmission project. The amended order shall find that the construction and operation of the NECEC transmission project is not in the public interest that there is not a public need for the NECEC transmission project. There not being a public need, the amended order shall deny the request for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the NECEC.
Maybe Governor Janet Mills shouldn't have vetoed the legislation passed earlier this year.  Now she's got a bigger problem on her hands.

Best of luck to the citizens of Maine in taking back their government from a foreign corporation!  This is what democracy looks like!
0 Comments

The Wisconsin PSC Has Never Met A Transmission Project It Didn't Love

8/21/2019

0 Comments

 
Over the years, I've worked with lots of different transmission opposition groups.  Each one claims its own state government is the most corrupt.  But I've never found a clear winner of The Most Corrupt State Government Award... until now.  I think we've finally crossed that line with a clear winner.  It's Wisconsin.

Watching the PSC Commissioners discuss Cardinal Hickory Creek yesterday, I smelled it coming.  Such platitudes for citizens who gave it their all to demonstrate the project is neither needed nor economic.  The more Commissioners loved the citizens, the tighter they were winding up to stab them in the back.  Then there was the announcement that no audience participation or outbursts would be tolerated during the discussion.  Clues, clues... someone call Sherlock Holmes!

Good ol' Sherlock probably would have deduced that it was all a farce.  Did the Commissioners really read the entire evidentiary record?  Or did they make a snap political decision completely outside the record?

I'm going to guess it was the latter.  Opponents expressed shock and disgust at the Commission's decision.  The evidence proved the project was not needed or economic.  They had been feeling rather confident.

But is it really ever about the evidence?  State utility commissions want you to believe their stilted court-like process is fair.  For the most part, it is, while it is underway.  Judges have to follow the law.  The evidentiary record is built from all sorts of contradictory evidence.  But it's often not for the judge to decide, or even make a recommendation.  Such is the case in Wisconsin, where the Commissioners hold court long after the administrative hearing process concludes, pretend they have studied the evidence in depth, and then make a decision on the project.  Then it's up to the judge and/or staff to construct an order using evidence from the record to back up the decision the Commissioners have made.

It's completely ass backwards.  It's not that the Commissioners carefully weigh the evidence in order to reach their decision.  They reach their decision and then expects the "facts" to back it up to be teased out of the record by the staff writing the Order.

How would just such a system work in a civil or criminal court?  What if someone else who didn't even attend your trial made a decision unrelated to the evidence?  Would that be due process?

Stories about the PSCW's Cardinal Hickory Creek approval yesterday stated:
According to PSC records dating back to the 1970s, the commission has never rejected a utility application to build a transmission line.
Never rejected an application.  Never.  Ya got a problem, Wisconsin.  Your PSC is broken.  Your PSC is broken because your political system is broken.  Cardinal Hickory Creek was approved because of politics.

But did these earnest, hard working citizens waste their time?  Absolutely not.  They stand ready to continue the fight, and they will be more determined and better prepared for the next time.
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead

0 Comments

The Transmission Tower Rodeo

6/11/2019

0 Comments

 
Transmission companies are terrible copycats.  When one of them comes up with some really stupid argument to support their proposed transmission project, others soon follow.  Mostly, this is just entertainment. 

Except for this... this one is just plain dangerous, both to the humans forced to live with transmission lines built across their farms using eminent domain, and to the rest of us who like reliable electricity and pay the costs of transmission in our electric bills.

The stupid argument goes like this... hypothetical U$ele$$ Transmission project will only take 12 acres out of agricultural production, if built!  (Or 9 acres, or even less than 1 acre).  This is calculated using the area of all proposed tower bases.  This assumes that farmers can farm right up to the base of the tower.  I'm talking snugly right up to the base, without any gap between the tower and the crop whatsoever.

Not only is this a lie, it risks safety and reliability of the transmission line. 

This happened last week.
Picture
A farmer tried to farm right up to the base of this transmission tower.  Slight miscalculation, and down it came, trapping the farmer in his tractor.  Luckily no one was hurt.  But who owns liability?  Who is going to pay to repair the tower and lines?  What if the resulting power outage caused damage to some other third party?  Is it the transmission company's fault because they made public statements urging the farmer to work right up to the base of the tower?  Or is it the farmer's fault because he actually tried to do so?

And this isn't a one-time event.  These kinds of collisions between farm equipment and transmission towers happen all the time.  In some instances, farmers have been sued for damages.  It's probably NOT a good idea to try to keep land in production right up to the base of the transmission tower.  A cautious farmer will give that thing a wide berth, causing a much bigger loss of productive farm ground than that bandied about during regulatory hearings.

The claim that the 500-mile Rock Island Clean Line would only take 12 acres out of production was ridiculous, and thankfully that project has been abandoned without being built.  But then the Grain Belt Express transmission line owned by Invenergy claimed that only 9 acres would be removed from production.  And the Missouri PSC repeated that same stupidity in its order approving the project.  Now American Electric Power's Transource IEC project is making similar claims, testifying to PSC Commissioners in Maryland last week that less than an acre will be taken out of production if the project is built.  It's not some silly public relations hogwash anymore.  Now it's documented, on the record.  If these projects are built (and that's a big IF), the transmission owner (and the Missouri PSC) should be held liable for any future transmission tower crashes.  Their stupid contentions that farmers can work right up to the base of a tower shift liability in a big way.

I'm still waiting for the transmission tower/farm equipment rodeo to happen, where transmission company executives and PSC Commissioners stand in the middle of a field and pretend to be transmission towers.  Farmers will compete with their equipment (some as big as the houses these people towers live in) to see how close they can come to the people towers without the people towers flinching, screaming, wetting their pants, and making a run for it.  When transmission developer big mouths and PSC Commissioners are willing to participate in such a rodeo, then they can make all the claims about loss of productive land that they want.

But I'm guessing they won't want to.

This stupid lie needs to be retired.  It's only repeated by stupid people.
0 Comments

Ye Canna Change The Laws Of Physics, MO PSC!

3/29/2019

1 Comment

 
What would you rather write about on a dreary Friday afternoon?  FERC's transmission incentives or the MO PSC Grain Belt Express Order?  Choices, choices.  Need coffee.

The MO PSC Order was bad.  Not so much in the decision they made, but in the way they tried to get there.  They could have just said "we like wind energy for political reasons" or "we approve this project because the company offered to sell service to Missouri municipalities at rates so low the project wouldn't be economic if those same rates were offered to all customers."  So much subjective reasoning, when objectivity was called for.  Therefore, here's a summary of the dumbest things written in the order.
The Missouri converter station will have bi-directional functionality, allowing Missouri utilities an additional means to earn revenue from off-system sales of up to 500 MW of excess power into the PJM energy markets.
This is one of the great lies about the environmental "benefits" for Missouri.  Presuming the power on the line when it gets to Missouri is "clean," 500 MW is offloaded for Missouri's use, then 500 MW of "dirty" coal power produced in Missouri is going to be loaded onto the line for the ultimate destination of PJM.  C'mon, I think P.T. Barnum had better lines!  This is virtual hogwash.  The same 500 MW of power that was fed into the line in Kansas (or wherever this thing terminates on the west end) will be offloaded in PJM, on the east end.  The only thing that happens in Missouri is that customers make payments.  The old dirty coal power will still be used in Missouri.  You can't segregate dirty and clean electrons on the grid.  Electricity is source neutral.  So how stupid would it be to divert 500 MW off the line and then divert 500 MW onto the line, when it's all the same 500 MW?  And if we want to talk about "environmental benefits" in Missouri, cranking up the coal plants to produce an additional 500 MW of excess power for sale to PJM only increases emissions in Missouri.  Sorry, GBE is going to do nothing to clear the air in Missouri. 
Picture
The HVDC technology of the Project is the most cost-effective and efficient way to move large amounts of electric power over long distances and can transfer significantly more power with lower line losses over longer distances than comparable AV lines.
What's an AV line?  And, btw, what's efficient or cost-effective about moving large amounts of power over long distances?  The cheapest, most reliable system is the one where source and sink are close.  See Scotty above.
The Project is a participant-funded, “shipper pays” transmission line. Grain Belt would recover its capital costs by entering into voluntary, market-driven contracts with entities that want to become transmission customers of the Project.
Picture
Under FERC requirements, Grain Belt must broadly solicit interest in the Project, the rates negotiated must be just and reasonable and without undue discrimination or preference, and the service must not impair regional reliability and operational efficiency.
FERC has specifically found Grain Belt’s process to select customers and allocate capacity to be “not unduly discriminatory”.
But that was before Grain Belt Express was purchased by a generation owner.  What approved procedures are in place to prevent self dealing by Invenergy, where it "negotiates" with itself to pay a price much lower than it negotiates with other customers?  Exactly none.  Trouble ahead...
The easement agreement limits the landowner’s legal rights and use of the easement property, including prohibiting any landowner activity that would interfere with Grain Belt’s use of the easement.
And this is one of the facts supporting approval in the public interest?
In 2021, MoPEP’s contract with Illinois Power Marketing Company providing 100 MW of coal energy and capacity to MoPEP will expire. MJMEUC’s agreements with Grain Belt and Iron Star would help MoPEP to replace the energy from Illinois Power Marketing Company with more affordable renewable energy.
Oh, so now in addition to changing the laws of physics, we're also instituting a time warp.  There's absolutely NO WAY GBE will be operational in 2021.  So I guess MoPEP is going to turn off the lights in 2021 and not turn them back on until GBE is in service?  Time to open a candle store, Missouri entrepreneurs!
The annual cost savings to MJMEUC member cities that participate in the Project will be dollar for dollar and will likely be passed through to their residential and industrial customers in the form of rate relief or invested in deferred maintenance to their electrical distribution systems.
Likely?  So you mean that MJMEUC members could actually use the "savings" for other things and the actual "public" customers may not see a dime of savings?
Grain Belt has a transmission service agreement with an Illinois load-serving entity called Realgy, which has agreed to buy 25 MW of transmission service for delivery to Missouri and 25 MW to PJM.
See what I mean?  The only thing Realgy is going to do is collect cash from the price differential between Kansas and PJM.  At least they're not pretending to offload "clean" power and upload "dirty" power.  This is all just one huge money making scheme.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. has established aggressive and significant renewable energy goals, including: (1) to be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy, and (2) by 2025, to be supplied by 50 percent renewable energy. Additionally, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. has set a science-based target to reduce emissions in its operations by 18 percent by 2025 through the deployment of energy efficiency and consumption of renewable energy.
What?  (1) and (2) are conflicting goals.  Is it 100% or is it 50% by 2025?  Just stop shopping here.  This store is part of the problem.
Grain Belt currently has no employees.

Grain Belt has cash on hand, but not enough to complete either the development phase or construction of the Project.

Invenergy is not obligated to close on the Purchase Agreement unless (1) this Commission has approved the transaction proposed in the Purchase Agreement and has granted Grain Belt a certificate of convenience and necessity for the Project, and (2) the Kansas Corporation Commission has granted at least a 5 year extension of its certificate to Grain Belt and approved the change in ownership in the Purchase Agreement.

And this is the reason for granting a permit to Grain Belt Express?  Is this permit void if Kansas doesn't approve an extension?  I don't see that anywhere.
An interregional transmission line allows for low cost energy to be imported from a region with an excess of generation resources to a region with higher demand. The Grain Belt Project provides this benefit by moving wind power from Kansas (where there is an abundance of wind) into Missouri, MISO, and PJM, which will increase the supply of low- cost power in those markets.

Power prices in PJM are generally $10.00/MWh higher than prices that would be paid for the 500 MW of energy sold over the Project into the MISO market in Missouri. There is a very strong corporate demand for renewable energy in PJM, which contributes to Grain Belt being able to charge higher prices for that energy in PJM.

Where's the "demand" in PJM?  Grain Belt Express has no customers in PJM!
The wind industry will not need the federal production tax credit after 2023 because of continuing technology improvements.
Well, this is my personal favorite, bogus, unsupported statement in the whole Order.  It's footnoted to stuff Skelly said at hearing, which was nothing but his opinion and a whole bunch of malarkey.  Since when does Michael Skelly speak for the entire wind industry?  He hasn't worked in the wind industry in more than a decade.  And, obviously, his incorrect assumptions about the wind industry cost his investors $197M over the past decade.  Whoopsie!  The wind industry feeds off tax credits.  My opinion (just as good as Skelly's btw) is that once the tax credits sunset, the wind industry will blow out of town so fast it's going to make everyone's head spin.  When there's not a pot of taxpayer-financed gold to be had, the wind industry will no longer be interested in building wind.
The generation of electricity from wind energy results in no emissions, in contrast to traditional fossil fuel-fired generation. Grain Belt’s Project will provide an additional option for utilities to reduce their emissions of criteria air pollutants (e.g., sulfur dioxide), hazardous air pollutants (e.g., mercury), and carbon dioxide by purchasing cleaner renewable power for delivery on the transmission line in lieu of using existing or constructing new fossil fuel-fired generation assets.

The renewable energy delivered by the Project will reduce emissions in the Eastern Interconnection by displacing thermal generation, which emits sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide, and will decrease water usage, all to the benefit Missouri’s environmental and public health.

Except when they fire up the coal plants to generate off system sales to PJM.  In fact, they may do more of that than using "clean" power from Kansas, since coal plants run when called and wind power runs when it wants to.  This is garbage.
The Project would have a substantial and favorable effect on the reliability of electric service in Missouri.
How so?  Did MISO order it for reliability purposes?  No?  Well then what use is additional "reliability" to a system that is already reliable?  And, really, how much reliability can be had from a transmission line that can only deliver 500 MW (while simultaneously exporting 500 MW from the same substation)?  HVDC is not compatible with AC, so there's only one possible interconnection.  Garbage, again.
Approximately $14.97 million in easement payments will be made in the first year of Project operation.
So, wait, you're telling me that easement payments to landowners won't occur until the first year of operation?  How many years could GBE be using people's land for free during construction before making any payments?  What if construction never gets completed, but land has been taken?  Does the landowner never get paid for what is taken from him?
Grain Belt developed the Missouri Landowner Protocol as part of its approach to right-of-way acquisition for the Project.
That's right!  The fox designed the security system for the hen house.  What protection is that to the chickens?
Grain Belt’s compensation package is superior to that of most utility companies.
I don't seem to remember any evidence of other utility company compensation packages being in the record.  What is this based on?  Someone's opinion again?
If Grain Belt obtains an easement from a landowner, the property will still belong to the landowner and can be utilized for activities such as farming, recreation, and other activities that do not interfere with the operation of the transmission line. After construction of the facilities, the landowner will retain the ability to continue agricultural production on the entirety of the easement area except for the relatively small footprint of the structures, which typically occupy less than 1% of the total easement area.
Except for that mega tower in the middle of the field that the farmer has to continually work around for eternity.  And except for anything Grain Belt says he can't do.  Seems more like Grain Belt would be in control of the ENTIRE easement, although the landowner would still pay taxes on it.
If Grain Belt and a landowner have reached agreement on the form of easement but are unable to reach agreement on the appropriate compensation, then at the landowner’s request, Grain Belt will submit the issue of landowner compensation to binding arbitration under Missouri law. The option of binding arbitration typically costs less, has more simplified procedures, and results in a final decision more quickly than circuit court litigation.
Quicker and costs less, you say?  Who would benefit from this?  Not the landowner.  Who pays for eminent domain suits?  Not the landowner.
Out of the 206 miles that the Project will traverse in Missouri, no more than nine acres of land would be taken out of agricultural production as a result of the structures installed for the Project in cultivated lands.
Who did your math here?  Certainly not a farmer.  I'd bet your math included merely the footprint of the towers, as if farming could occur right up to the structure without any safety margin.  This is just absurd.
Grain Belt has created the Missouri Agricultural Impact Mitigation Protocol, which establishes standards and policies to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any negative agricultural impacts that may result due to transmission line and converter facilities construction and operation.
Again, fox designing the security system for the hen house.  What does Grain Belt know about agriculture?  Does it fit in a thimble?
Grain Belt witness Richard J. Roddewig testified credibly that based on published research and Mr. Roddewig’s own research, transmission lines do not have a significant adverse impact on farmland prices and values.

The scientific weight of evidence does not support the conclusion that electric and magnetic fields cause any long-term adverse health effects, and the levels of electric and magnetic fields associated with the Project do not pose any known risk to human health.
And the scientific weight of evidence doesn't rule it out, either.  Both of these statements are industry propaganda.  Nobody in their right mind believes this.
Missouri courts have stated that for a company to qualify as a public utility, the company must be devoted to a public use for the general public. The evidence showed that when the Project is constructed and begins operation, it will transmit energy from wind farms in Kansas to wholesale customers in Missouri. In the case of MJMEUC, those customers are Missouri cities and towns that serve as electric providers to approximately 347,000 Missouri citizens. The hallmark of a public utility is the offering of utility service to the public without discrimination. Grain Belt will offer indiscriminate transmission service through an open access transmission tariff that will be filed and subject to the jurisdiction of FERC. While the Commission only has authority over facilities that are devoted to public use, an entity that constructs and operates a transmission line bringing electrical energy from electrical power generators to public utilities that serve consumers is a necessary and important link in the distribution of electricity and qualifies as a public utility. The Commission concludes that Grain Belt’s Project will serve the public use, and Grain Belt qualifies as a public utility.
Well, would you look at that?  The PSC has created new precedent!  If a private utility sells its product to a public entity, that automatically makes them a public utility?  I don't think so.  I don't think that is part of any existing precedent, so the PSC has nicely set this up for appeal like a set of bowling pins.  Great job!

I've long been of the opinion that regulatory decisions are not the product of careful evaluation of competing facts that lead to a conclusion.  Instead, it happens backwards, with the conclusion shaped by political factors, and then supported by a sifting of the evidence to find only the facts that support the previously reached conclusion.  This decision by the MO PSC is a prime example of this kind of political regulation.  How very disappointing.
1 Comment

Debate About Grain Belt Express Is Alive and Well

3/21/2019

2 Comments

 
The Missouri PSC issued an order granting a CCN to Grain Belt Express yesterday.  What does that mean for the viability of the project?  In the grand scheme of things... not much.  Grain Belt Express, as presented to the MO PSC as a 780-mile transmission line from southwestern Kansas to Indiana, is still never going to happen, IMO.  The reasons are myriad, and hopefully I'll get to most of them over time.  More garbage has been generated than fits in one trash truck, ya know.

Let's start here.  Permitting whack-a-mole.  This is an old one, but still very much appropriate.  Grain Belt Express just can't whack all the moles and win this game.  The biggest, baddest mole standing in its currently proposed way is Illinois.  Based on prior court decisions in that state, GBE just can't be permitted.  Pretending it can is unrealistic.  Is GBE lying to us, or is it lying to itself?

And then there's the ridiculous garbage the PSC generated yesterday.  We'll get to the actual Order later.  First, let's look at the press release the PSC issued.

The PSC is a regulator, not a politician, not a public relations agency.  It's supposed to deal in facts.  Its decisions are legal opinions.  It should not have to "sell" them to the public.
Mission Statement
We will:
  • ensure that Missourians receive safe and reliable utility services at just, reasonable and affordable rates;
  • support economic development through either traditional rate of return regulation or competition, as required by law;
  • establish standards so that competition will maintain or improve the quality of services provided to Missourians;
  • provide the public the information they need to make educated utility choices;
  • provide an efficient regulatory process that is responsive to all parties, and perform our duties ethically and professionally.
You failed, MO PSC.  Any respect I used to have for the MO PSC is now gone.  No, it's not that they issued a decision I don't agree with.  That happens a lot from all kinds of regulators.  It's the way they went about it.  Even a regulatory decision you don't agree with contains facts and logic, sometimes a bit of opinion, but there's usually a sufficient amount of legal reasoning that forms a platform upon which the decision was made.  You may not agree with the decision, but you can clearly see how it was created.  The MO PSC's decision happened inside a black box.  And it reeks of politics.

First thing to come out of the box is the press release.
The Commission granted a CCN to Grain Belt determining: 1) there is a need for the service; 2) Grain Belt is qualified to provide the proposed service; 3) Grain Belt has the financial ability to provide the proposed service; 4) Grain Belt’s proposal is economically feasible; and 5) the service promotes the public interest.
The Commission says it issued a CCN to Grain Belt, but it really issued one to Invenergy.  Invenergy has the financial ability and is qualified to provide the service -- Grain Belt has no employees and no money.  Neither Grain Belt nor Invenergy has a proposal that is economically feasible.  There's only 2 customers, one of which was documented to be paying below cost rates.  These customers cannot financially support the proposal.  There are no other customers.  Potential customers don't pay the bills.  Supplying below cost service to one customer is Missouri does not promote the interests of the entire public.
The Commission stated the evidence in the case demonstrated that the Grain Belt project will create both short-term and long-term benefits to ratepayers and citizens of the state. In addition, the project would have a substantial and favorable effect on the reliability of electric service in Missouri.
Benefits to citizens?  Where?  What citizens?  What benefits?  This statement is created out of thin air.  As far as "reliability" goes... a transmission line contracted to serve only select customers with unreliable wind power is not "reliable."  Wind cannot be called to produce when needed.  It's not an open access transmission line that will serve all customers equally, and Missouri may only receive 500 MW, although contracted amounts are much, much less.  This is not a "reliability" transmission asset.  It's a private driveway for select customers to receive special, supplemental wind power so they can pretend to be clean and green and all sorts of peripheral things.  As if electrons can be segregated by color.
There can be no debate that our energy future will require more diversity in energy resources, particularly renewable resources,” said the Commission. “We are witnessing a worldwide, long-term and comprehensive movement towards renewable energy in general and wind energy specifically. Wind energy provides great promise as a source for affordable, reliable, safe and environmentally-friendly energy. The Grain Belt Project will facilitate this movement in Missouri, will thereby benefit Missouri citizens, and is, therefore, in the public interest.”
Whaddya mean there can be no debate?  Of course there's debate.  There's a HUGE debate going on in this country and around the globe.  Wind energy is not the solution to our energy woes.  It's just a gluttonous industry that has been greenwashing America for years, and stuffing its pockets with our tax dollars.  It's not affordable, it's not sustainable.  It's not safe for the people who have to live around its generation plants.  And it's certainly not reliable.  Wind is not a baseload source of power.  It cannot be controlled to ramp up and down to meet need.  Wind does what it wants, and those who depend upon it for a source of electricity are the ones whose electric use ramps up and down to follow the wind.  Who wrote this garbage?  Was it the wind industry?
The Commission noted that any negative impacts of the project on the land and landowners will be mitigated by: 1) a landowner protocol to protect landowners; 2) superior compensation payments; 3) a binding arbitration option for easement negotiations; 4) a decommissioning fund-a fund for this type of project would be the first of its kind in the country; and 5) an agricultural impact mitigation protocol to avoid or minimize negative agricultural impacts. Agricultural impacts will also be reduced because no more than nine acres of land in Missouri will be taken out of agricultural production as a result of project structures, and the proposed route does not directly impact the operation of any existing center pivot irrigation systems.

“Many of the landowners’ concerns will be addressed through carefully considered conditions placed on the CCN,” said the Commission.
Landowner concerns have NOT been addressed.  Landowners are still extremely concerned.  The PSC's conditions did nothing to ameliorate them.  The "landowner protocol" and "agricultural impact mitigation protocol" were created by Grain Belt, not the landowners, therefore landowners concerns are not addressed.  These documents address only the company's concerns.  Landowners were not consulted in the creation of these documents.  It's nothing more than the fox designing a security system for the hen house.  It's worthless and does nothing to satisfy landowners.  The decommissioning fund is also so much nonsense.  It has no substance, no rules, and is completely unworkable.  It's just more glittering make believe.

Superior compensation payments?  Superior to what?  Receiving nothing?  Since the PSC's land is not subject to eminent domain, and the PSC has never been subject to condemnation and eminent domain taking, it's opinion that the compensation payments are "superior" is just so much hubris.  In fact, it's completely insulting to landowners.  It's disrespectful.

And speaking of disrespectful, here's the pinnacle of propaganda:  only 9 acres of land will be taken out of agricultural production.  Just 9 acres!  Across 206 miles of 200-foot wide linear right of way.  The PSC has deemed every square inch of the proposed right of way to be agriculturally workable right up to the base of the tower.  I guess none of these folks have ever tried to drive a huge piece of farm equipment right up to a transmission line pole.  And they've never had to fly around a transmission pole to apply pesticide or fertilizer.  And they've never had to try to grow something along a strip of land that no longer has top soil.  And they're certainly not going to accept liability for any farmer who tries to farm right up to the base of the transmission tower and has an accident.  This is absolutely absurd.  And, ya know, it's something Hans Detweiler used to tell farmers in Illinois... that only 12 acres of land would be taken out of use for the entire Rock Island Clean Line project.

Gotta wonder, who wrote that stunningly bad press release?  I hope that person's food and farm goods will be supplied solely by that compromised 9 acres in the future.

We're only getting warmed up here... more to come...
2 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
<<Previous

    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

    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
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.