Category:

DOE Releases Preliminary List of NIETCs

5/11/2024

This week, the U.S. Department of Energy released its list of preliminary NIETCs.

You can read their list here.

There is also a larger map of each preliminary NIETC, and DOE's initial reasoning for including it on the list.

There are 10 potential corridors across the nation ranging in size up to 100 miles wide and 780 miles long.

I'm just going to concentrate on a couple for this blog.

The Mid-Atlantic corridor. This corridor follows the path of the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link (MARL) project that PJM ordered to be built to act as a giant extension cord from West Virginia coal-fired power plants to Northern Virginia's data centers. But this corridor isn't just for that project... it also includes corridors for the other two large 500kV transmission lines that ship power to the east.

It's a virtual spiderweb of coal-fired extension cords to No. Va. Each corridor line on this map is 2 miles wide. TWO MILES! That means that anything within that 2-mile corridor would be turned into a sacrifice zone for new transmission lines.

Another is the Midwest Plains corridor. This NIETC is 5 miles wide and 780 miles long and roughly follows the proposed path of Grain Belt Express.

Since the purpose of an NIETC is to bump permitting to a federal level if a state denies a project, or to "unlock" government financing of a transmission project in a corridor, your guess is as good as mine why GBE applied for this corridor. Do they expect that the Illinois Appeals Court will remand their Illinois permit back to the ICC for denial? Or is this designation necessary to get government financing for GBE? If it's the latter, maybe that explains why GBE's Environmental Impact Statement already in process for its government guaranteed loan seems to have stalled out. A NIETC also requires a full environmental impact statement, and the NIETC corridor is much wider than what GBE originally proposed. Perhaps it has to be re-done.

The last corridor I'm going to focus on is the Delta Plains. This corridor begins in the Oklahoma panhandle and proceeds east across the state and on into Arkansas, where it forks north and south. This corridor is 4-18 miles wide and 645 miles long. It roughly follows the routes for the dearly departed Clean Line Plains and Eastern project and the WindCatcher project. Although both of these projects were cancelled long ago, it seems that someone wants to bring the zombies back.

These three corridors alone will impact millions of landowners. When you add in the other 7 corridors the amount of people impacted by DOE's corridors is astounding!

DOE has opened a 45-day comment period on these corridors before it will further narrow them down and select some or all of them to proceed to its next phase of the process. That phase will open environmental impact reviews, provide public notice, and issue a draft designation report that you can comment on. Of course, by the time these corridors get that far, DOE will have already made its decision. It is imperative that we all get involved and comment now.

I will be publishing more guidance for impacted landowners to help them make timely and effective comment, so stay tuned!

4 Comments

The Big Transmission Lie

1/16/2024

1 Comment

As part of the "energy transition" big green, big government, and the electric industry have been promoting an overwhelming need for new high-voltage electric transmission. The message goes like this: we need more transmission to move electricity from new renewable energy generators (solar and wind) to big cities that "demand" more renewable energy.

That message is pure propaganda.

The "energy transition" is squeezing existing fossil fuel generators financially and many are shutting down. This phenomenon is caused by federal taxpayer-funded subsidies for renewable generators and state/local energy policy that requires your electric company to cut its carbon to zero by a certain date. Government policy has finally been successful in forcing the closure of fossil fuel electric generators. Perhaps this is a good idea, environmentally, but it absolutely doesn't work to keep the lights on.

One of the biggest problems is that new renewable generators are not coming online in time to replace closing fossil fuel generators. Instead, we just have less generation. The liars point to regional interconnection queues to demonstrate that thousands of megawatts of wind and solar are waiting patiently to connect to the grid, and blame grid operators and utilities for holding up their connection. Except this is just another lie. Generators in the queue have not yet been built and may never be. Vast numbers of generators drop out of the queue before constructing anything, even more now that the government has completely hosed up the supply chain.

When big, baseload fossil fuel generators close, there is often nothing in the state or locality to replace them. Regional grid operator PJM Interconnection is struggling to replace over 11,000 MW of closing generation. The continuing closures keep pushing our electric grid further and further to the edge. Closure of the last of Maryland's coal-fired electric generators causes widespread grid impacts that can destabilize the grid and cause power outages. But does Maryland care? Not really. Maryland leaves replacing the retiring generation to PJM and other states. Maryland is an energy parasite. Maryland's energy policies are causing unreliable electricity for everyone in the region.

PJM is also struggling with a 40% increase in electric demand caused by Virginia's out-of-control approval of new data centers. Data centers use incredible amounts of electricity that cannot be satisfied with variable forms of renewable energy like wind and solar. Data centers need 24/7 on-demand electricity, even after dark and on calm days. The capacity factors for renewables are much lower than fossil fuels. While fossil fuel generators can stockpile fuel and be prepared to run when needed, renewable generators only run when nature makes their fuel available. Therefore, you'd need many more renewables than fossil fuel generators to maintain reliable power. The big lie pretends that if we only build transmission to connect everything then some renewable generator, somewhere, will be producing electricity. But it won't be producing enough to replace everything else that isn't producing. Pretending that is so is an unproven fantasy, and one we engage in at our own peril. The cost of new generation and new transmission to connect it all is also going to make electric bills skyrocket. The liars say that renewable generation is cheaper than fossil fuel generation, but they don't tell you that's because of government subsidies, and they also don't add in the cost of all that new transmission needed to connect all the renewables. Unsubsidized remote renewables plus transmission is more expensive than existing fossil fuel generation that relies on existing transmission. Fact.

This whole lie has been spoon fed to a trusting public for years. But what happens when the largest grid planner in the country approves a new transmission expansion plan? Is it connecting renewables to load using new transmission?

NO.

PJM's recently approved transmission plan replaces closing fossil fuel generators, and increases electric supply for new data centers, by connecting these areas with existing fossil fuel generators in other states. This isn't about the "energy transition"; it's going backwards to increase the use of coal and other fossil fuels from states without impossible clean energy goals.

PJM's MidAtlantic Resiliency Link, or MARL, directly connects the data centers in Northern Virginia to over 10,000 MW of coal-fired generation. The MARL will enable the export of electricity produced at Ft. Martin (1,100MW), Harrison (2,000MW), Long View (860 MW), Mitchell (1,600 MW), Cardinal (1,800 MW), Sammis (1,700 MW) and Mt. Storm (1,700 MW). Wind, solar, biomass and hydro in this area add up to less than 10 MW. It is indisputable that the electricity carried by MARL will be overwhelmingly created by burning coal.

When will the environmental groups and people who will use this new supply of dirty power wake up and object? Transmission divorced from its source of power is a giant lie.

While Maryland sits around playing "victim" of its dwindling power supply, Virginia is planning a slew of new legislation supposed to make its data center problem "better." However, none of Virginia's legislation addresses the REAL problem -- the generation of electricity. Virginia's legislators try to pretend that electricity comes from new transmission lines.

It would also require the SCC to evaluate current rate structures to see if transmission project costs linked to data centers are being fairly applied or are being spread too widely among the broader customer base.
“One of the benefits of data centers is how much money it brings to a locality,” Subramanyam said. “And we like that, but I also want to make sure that the infrastructure needed to power those data centers, that those costs are reasonable to ratepayers and are not essentially defeating that purpose of the data centers, which is to be an economic boon for a locality.”

Transmission lines are nothing but giant extension cords that are not plugged in. It is only when the transmission line is connected to the generator that it supplies electricity. Looking at transmission while ignoring where the line plugs in is also a giant lie based on denial. Of course, it is a convenient lie for Virginians who want it all... they want the tax money data centers bring, but they don't want to host the infrastructure necessary for those data centers to operate. Attempting to shift the cost of new interstate transmission is a tricky puzzle because interstate transmission rates are a federal issue. While Virginia could direct its electric companies to allocate more costs of Virginia's portion of new transmission to certain rate classes, it cannot do a thing about all the transmission costs being allocated to the 13 other states in the PJM region. As well, data centers most likely don't have their own rate class, so any shifting of costs would also impact other industries in Virginia. This whole cost shifting thing is not solvable at the state level. Virginia needs to stop lying to everyone and trying to have it all.

If Virginia really wanted to take responsibility for its data center problem, it would deny any new data centers that did not have a firm power supply from a Virginia generator. Building new generation near the data center load is not only more reliable, but it's also cheaper than building hundreds of miles of new transmission to existing coal-fired power plants. Does Virginia think those coal plants in other states are going to operate forever? At some point, those aging plants are also going to close, and then what good is Virginia's extension cord when it's not plugged into anything? Are we all being forced to sacrifice for a new transmission line that may only be useful for 10 years or so? It's going to take more than 10 years to get it permitted and built!

Solution: Require Virginia localities that want to approve new data centers to also approve new power generation to support that load in the same locality. If that happened, data center building in Virginia would come to a screeching halt. Virginia doesn't want to shoulder the burden of providing electricity to the data centers that are increasing its tax base. Citizens of other states, such as West Virginia, want to carry your burdens even less. Stop being a parasite, Virginia!

When you hear the word "transmission" remember that it is NOT for the "energy transition" and that it cannot be divorced from the power it transmits. Virginia needs to own the fact that is is profiting off the misery of other states and increasing carbon emissions. And it's not just the data centers that will be using coal power... everyone in Virginia will now be using a lot more coal power from West Virginia, courtesy of the new MARL transmission line. Own it!

1 Comment

Transmission Leftovers

7/16/2023

2 Comments

Some things are better the second time around, like lasagna and chili. Transmission projects, however, are not good leftovers. Once a transmission idea is proposed to the public, vehemently contested, and eventually shelved as unneeded and impossible, it can never come back from the dead.

Or can it?

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act have created a new transmission feeding frenzy from coast to coast. Now that the government is giving away your tax dollars to provide incentive to build new transmission "for renewables," utilities and transmission developers are falling all over themselves to belly up to the buffet. There is no actual plan for what transmission needs to be built, any transmission will do. It's about quantity, not quality. They just can't propose transmission fast enough. And apparently some utilities are simply recycling old transmission projects from the last decade that were never built.

Remember the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway, or MAPP, project? Proposed around 2007, this hotly opposed transmission project across Maryland's eastern shore was finally abandoned several years later, citing lack of need. The utilities behind this horrible idea were fully reimbursed for their sunk costs by ratepayers who would have "benefited" from the project. If my memory serves, it was something like $80M that we paid for a transmission project that was never constructed.

The MAPP project is back, one of dozens of new transmission proposals currently being evaluated by grid planner PJM. They even recycled the name... once again calling it MAPP.

Project title: Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP)

Project description: Exelon is proposing a 230 mile, 500 kV AC / 400 kV DC high-voltage transmission line originating in Northern Virginia, crossing Maryland, traveling up the Delmarva Peninsula and terminating in southern New Jersey.

Do they think the folks who fought MAPP have forgotten? It's only been 15 years. They remember, and many are still around, with all the knowledge they gained fighting MAPP the first time.

Transmission fatigue is a thing. Communities who have fought a transmission line are instantly opposed to another proposed for the same area, and they know what to do because they've ridden in this rodeo before. A recent transmission proposal through New Hampshire is giving communities that fought the scrapped Northern Pass project PTSD.

When four representatives of National Grid came before Concord City Council on Monday to start the long process of expanding a power line through the state bringing electricity from HydroQuebec, they soon encountered a ghost.

“Our community still suffers from PTSD with regard to Northern Pass,” Councilor Jennifer Kretovic told them. “When you mention the words HydroQuebec, that will automatically raise concern.”

The four representatives nodded glumly.

And stupidly, I might add. Transmission is bad enough without ghost projects adding to the hatred.

It seems that every contested and vanquished transmission project from the past 15-20 years has been resurrected.

Remember PATH, the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline? It's back. But instead of just the revised, re-routed project that PATH finally settled on, former PATH partner FirstEnergy has proposed BOTH the original PATH route through Morgan, Berkeley and Jefferson Counties AND the revised PATH route through Frederick County, VA, southern Jefferson County, WV, Loudoun County, VA and Frederick County Maryland. This is FirstEnergy's recent proposal for PJM's competitive transmission window. On a map, it looks like this:

The northern line on the map is described like this:

Component title: Fort Martin - Doubs 500 kV #1 Line

Project description: Construct ~158 miles of new 500 kV line from Fort Martin Substation to Doubs Substation.Terminate the new transmission line and revise relay settings at Doubs and Fort Martin substations.Install fiber OPGW along the new line route. The construction of this new line will require the acquisition of 158 miles of new right-of-way, forestry clearing, permitting, and access road construction. Re-terminate the Bismark 500 kV Line at Doubs Substation. Aerial LiDAR will be required. This new transmission line will require Proposal Components 1 (Doubs Substation - Install500 kV Breaker), 2 (Doubs Substation - Expand 500 kV), and 4 (Fort Martin Substation - Install 500kV Breaker) to be completed.

This new 500 kV line will be constructed in West Virginia, Virginia, and Maryland. Full Applications will be required in each state. - It is assumed that the new 500 kV line will parallel existing ROW for approximately (85.6) miles and require (74.4) miles of new ROW not adjacent to existing ROW. It is assumed that no existing lines will be overbuilt with double circuit structures, but existing line rebuilds will be considered where applicable. - Approximately (695) parcels will be affected by the line route. Assumed 5% condemnation (35 parcels).

The right-of-way width is assumed to be 200 ft. This width is based on the widest ROW needed for 500 kV and does not account for structure configuration or span lengths. Widths needed may vary upon final design.

The new Fort Martin-Doubs #1 500 kV Line will be constructed on double circuit 500 kV tubular steel monopole and two-Pole structures. The second 500 kV circuit is to be left vacant and installed at a future date. - The average span length is 1200 ft. - It is assumed that the new double circuit monopole structures will have an average height of 180 ft. Final structure heights will need to be determined during project development. FAA filing and application may be required. - The new structures will utilize custom 500 kV V-string and double I-string suspension and dead-end insulator assemblies.

This new 500 kV line provides a direct connection from the west side of the system to the east side. - This new line provides the ability to install a second Fort Martin - Doubs 500 kV Line on the same structures, without additional right-of-way acquisition. - This new line route will provide the opportunity to loop the Fort Martin - Doubs 500 kV Line into Bedington and/or Black Oak substations in the future, if necessary for reliability or resiliency. - Greenfield construction is assumed due to outage constraints, but existing rights-of-way and corridors to rebuild lower voltage lines will be considered where applicable.

A portion of the southern line on the map from Meadow Brook to Doubs is described like this:

Component title: Meadow Brook - Doubs 500 kV Line

Project description: Construct 55.3 miles of new 500 kV line from Meadow Brook Substation to Doubs Substation.Terminate the new transmission line and revise relay settings at Doubs and Meadow Brook substations. Install fiber along the new line route. The construction of this new line will require the acquisition of 55.3 miles of new right-of-way, forestry clearing, permitting, and access road construction. Re-terminate the Meadow Brook - Loudon & Meadow Brook - Front Royal 500 kV lines at Meadow Brook Substation. Aerial LiDAR will be required. This new transmission line wil lrequire Proposal Components 1 (Doubs Substation - Install 500 kV Breaker), Component 2 (Doubs Substation - Expand 500 kV), and Component 3 (Meadow Brook Substation - Expand 500 kV) to be completed.

This new 500 kV line will be constructed in Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland. Full Applications will be required in each state. - It is assumed that the new line will parallel existing ROW for approximately (22.8) miles and require (32.5) miles of new ROW not adjacent to existing ROW. It is assumed that no existing lines will be overbuilt with double circuit structures, but existing line rebuilds will be considered where applicable. - Approximately (146) parcels will be affected by thel ine route. Assumed 5% condemnation (7 parcels).

The right-of-way width is assumed to be 200 ft. This width is based on the widest ROW needed for 500 kV and does not account for structure configuration or span lengths. Widths needed can vary upon final design.

This new line will be constructed on single circuit 500 kV tubular steel monopole structures with an average span length of 1200 ft. - The new structures will utilize custom 500 kV V-string and double I-string suspension and dead-end insulator assemblies. - New single circuit structures will have an average height of 150 ft.

This new 500 kV Line will provide an additional and much shorter electrical path between Meadow Brook and Doubs linking the Black Oak-Bedington corridor with the 'AP South' corridor. - Greenfield construction is assumed due to outage constraints, but existing rights-of-way and corridors to rebuild lower voltage lines will be considered where applicable.

In addition, FirstEnergy proposed building a new 50 mile greenfield transmission line from Pruntytown to Meadow Brook.

It's not an "either/or" proposition. FirstEnergy wants to build BOTH old PATH ideas this time.

Here we go again!

Is this new transmission required to expand renewable power? Look at the map, it's self-explanatory. PJM is soliciting proposals to move more coal-fired electric generation from plants at Ft. Martin and Pruntytown into the Washington, D.C. suburbs. New generation is needed there because these areas have closed a whole bunch of the "dirty" coal and gas fired generation that used to keep their lights on. Instead of replacing what they closed with local renewables, they're burying their heads in the sand and pretending they don't need any new generation. However, they're also building new data centers that use an enormous amount of power and leaving it up to grid planner PJM to find a way to keep the lights on and the data centers humming. The new PATH is one proposal for PJM to do just that. Hardly "clean and green" is it? It's a step back 20 years in time, when PATH was proposed to move 5,000 MW of coal-fired electricity from southern West Virginia to the D.C. metro area.

So, what happens next? PJM says it will select projects from its huge proposal list in September. Once selected, it proposes to have the favored projects approved by its Board in December of this year. See timeline here (these projects are in 2022 RTEP Window 3):

After being beaten into submission the first time, PATH abandoned its project and collected over $150M from electric customers like us for a project that was never built. How much will it cost us the second time around?

Keep your eyes on this one. PATH did not happen the first time due to widespread opposition. We're still here and we remember.

2 Comments

Ut-oh, Utility Rainmakers. UTT-OHHHH!

7/22/2020

2 Comments

Investor-owned utilities are all about the Benjamins. They're only interested in providing a public service because it's profitable. There is no honor among thieves.

In the past couple weeks, federal investigators have dropped the hammer on two of the biggest... two of the biggest criminal enterprises in the utility business. Are more coming? I'd say it's likely at this point. Be afraid, utility rainmakers, be very afraid!

Last week, Exelon subsidiary ComEd agreed to pay a $200M fine for its part in a years-long bribery scheme involving the Speaker of the Illinois House, and possibly the Illinois Commerce Commission. According to court documents, ComEd arranged no-work "jobs", contracts, and appointments to both the ICC and its own corporate Board of Directors in exchange for political favors from House Speaker Michael Madigan.

Here's a summary from the document:

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY,
defendant herein, corruptly gave, offered, and agreed to give things of value, namely, jobs, vendor subcontracts, and monetary payments associated with those jobs and subcontracts, for the benefit of Public Official A and Public
Official A's associates, with intent to influence and reward Public Official A, as an agent of the State of Illinois, a State government that during each of the twelve-month calendar years from 2011 to 2019, received federal benefits in excess of $10,000, in connection with any business, transaction, and series of transactions of $5,000 or more of the State of Illinois, namely, legislation affecting ComEd and its business;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a)(2).

I was particularly touched by this scheme.

Hiring of Public Official A's Associates as Vendor "Subcontractors" Who Performed Little or No Work for ComEd

ComEd employees and agents, including third-party consultants and lobbyists were subject to Exelon's Code of Conduct. Exelon's Code of Conduct, applicable beginning in 2015, required employees and agents to: (a) "(k]eep accurate and complete records so all payments are honestly detailed and company funds are not used for unlawful purposes"; (b) "[c]onduct due diligence on all potential agents, consultants or other business partners"; and (c) "[n]ever use a third party to make payments or offers that could be improper." Exelon's Code of Conduct also prohibited bribery and listed as an example of a prohibited bribe: "Providing something of value for the benefit of a public official in a position to make a decision that could benefit the company." Beginning no later than in or around 2011, Public Official A and Individual A
sought to obtain from ComEd jobs, vendor subcontracts, and monetary payments associated with those jobs and subcontracts for various associates of Public Official A, such as precinct captains who operated within Public Official A's legislative district. In or around 2011, Individual A and Lobbyist 1 developed a plan to direct money to two of Public Official A's associates ("Associate 1" and'' Associate 2") by having ComEd pay them indirectly as subcontractors to Consultant 1. Payments to Associate 1 and Associate 2, as well as later payments to other subcontracted associates of Public Official A. continued until in or around 2019, even though those associates did little to no work during that period.
Consultant 1 agreed in 2011 that Public Official A's associates would be identified as subcontractors under Consultant 1's contract and that ComEd's payments to Consultant 1 would be increased to cover payments to those subcontractors. Between in or around 2011 and 2019, Consultant 1 executed written contracts and submitted invoices to ComEd that made it falsely appear that the payments made to Company 1 were all in return for Consultant 1's advice on "legislative issues" and "legislative risk management activities," and other similar matters, when in fact a portion of the compensation paid to Company 1 was intended for ultimate payment to Public Official A's associates, who in fact did little to no work for ComEd. Consultant 1 and Company 1 did little, if anything, to direct or supervise the activities of Public Official A's associates, even though they were subcontracted under and received payments through Company 1. Moreover, because they were paid indirectly through Company 1, the payments to Public Official A's associates over the course of approximately eight years were not reflected in the vendor payment system used by ComEd, and as a result, despite that Public Official A's associates were subcontracted under and receiving payments through Company 1, no such payments were identifiable in ComEd's vendor payment system.

So, because ComEd wanted to make gravy payments to certain individuals it hid them as "subcontractors" within a legitimate contractor's contract. Why, it's almost like that time when PATH hired former Joe Manchin Chief of Staff Larry Puccio and decided that he would be paid through the company's contract with Charles Ryan Associates, although Larry wouldn't give speaking events like the other subcontractors. Even PATH's accountants got suspicious, however, when Larry's bills showed up in Charles Ryan's monthly detail without any statement of work performed. All of this made the FERC Administrative Law Judge question whether Larry had actually done any work at all...

I wonder if ComEd and PATH were comparing notes on hiding the gravy $$$?

And yesterday, the federal boogeyman showed up in Ohio to clean house in an alleged $60M bribery scheme involving a FirstEnergy subsidiary and Ohio's Speaker of the House Larry Householder. You can read those court documents here.

In this instance, the schemers were arrested and charged with conspiracy to participate in an enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. RICO. UT-OHHH FirstEnergy! Quick, NEO's to the basement bunker to use their bodies as human shields to to protect Chatty Chuck!

Bribery, extortion and efforts to defraud the government, FirstEnergy? Who woulda thunk it...

Oh, wait... I've read a whole bunch of their internal documents over the years. I guess I woulda thunk it. Schadenfreude!

Whew! That was fun, wasn't it?

I'm going to bet that all investor-owned utilities buy elected officials and regulators, either with cash, contracts, fake "jobs", maybe even hookers and blow, who knows? Looks like the utility will supply whatever it takes to make sure your elected official or regulator is working for the them, and not you. But our government has been watching... and now heads are rolling. It's about damned time.

UT-OH utility rainmakers.... who's going to be next?

2 Comments

FirstEnergy Failure

2/14/2018

2 Comments

FirstEnergy's attempt to transfer its risky, money-losing coal generating plant to West Virginia ratepayers has failed. Finally. It's just too bad all that time and money got wasted on an idea that had no real chance of succeeding. Only a corrupt regulatory system and galling arrogance made it seem like a good idea.

Because the WV Public Service Commission had approved a similar deal for a different company transfer several years ago, FirstEnergy thought it didn't have to try so hard. Its idea to transfer the Pleasants Power Station from its competitive generation company to its WV distribution affiliate was a bold joke, flimsily wrapped in "need" and bad economic projections, submitted with a wink and a nod. FirstEnergy knows that the WV PSC is more interested in the needs of the company than the needs of the ratepayers it was created to protect. Oh, sure, the WV PSC pretends its mission is to "balance" the needs of ratepayers with the needs of the community at large and the needs of the utility. However the utility is perfectly capable of advocating for its own needs, and the communities are so bought out by corporate profits that they act like yappy lap dogs, barking at corporate direction. It is the ratepayers who rely on the regulatory system to protect their interests. Indeed it is the very nature of a monopoly situation that requires regulation to protect ratepayer interests. FirstEnergy's WV affiliate has been granted a monopoly franchise to serve West Virginians. Because FirstEnergy has a monopoly, regulation serves to provide competition where none exists naturally. It is regulation that controls utility actions to ensure a monopoly does not exert market power over captive ratepayers. Therefore, the WV PSC exists first and foremost to protect the needs of WV ratepayers captive in a monopoly system. Perish the thought that FirstEnergy would have to perform and earn its right to own a monopoly franchise. That thought has probably never even crossed the minds of WV's PSC Commissioners. They seem to think they exist to make sure the utility is treated fairly. And that's what they did in the recent Pleasants transfer case.

Knowing that the WV PSC is a captured agency who dances at corporate will, it was much more productive for ratepayers to look beyond the first string of regulators who are supposed to protect them. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission isn't as wrapped up in the needs of West Virginia's economy or corporate profits, and is not captured in the same way as the WV PSC, whose commissioners are appointed as lobbied by state franchised utilities. The chances were better that an impartial decision would be made at the federal level. And it was. The FERC rejected FirstEnergy's proposal to transfer the plant between affiliates, finding that the transfer resulted in improper cross-subsidization. In plain speak, that means that it was not a fair arm's length transaction. But FirstEnergy, in its sheer arrogance, attempted to apply its West Virginia bag of tricks to influence the federal agency. That's right, FirstEnergy had its attorney call up a FERC Commissioner to try to influence the agency's decision. Somehow, FirstEnergy was aware "that the Commission would shortly issue an order adverse to the interests of Monongahela Power." How was it that a party to a FERC proceeding was aware of a decision of the agency before it was issued? Because FERC is as much a revolving door regulatory agency as any. It's a great landing spot for attorneys fresh out of law school with a mountain of student debt. With just a few years of effort at marginal pay, a FERC staff attorney can make himself marketable to private industry as an "insider." The regulated entities prize these FERC insiders and pay them handsomely. FERC is just a springboard to fat paychecks for some attorneys. That's not to say that all FERC attorneys are using the agency to pad their resumes, I found that there are plenty of staff who take their charge to protect public interests seriously and make a career out of it. Those public employees are treasures, but as you can see, it only takes a handful of bad ones to trash FERC's public service mission. I'm happy to realize, though, that one of FERC's Commissioners put a stop to this underhanded effort and reported the illegal contact from FirstEnergy's attorney. Bravo! But what happens to the attorney who attempted this improper influence? I'm thinking that FirstEnergy's attorney knew calling up the Commissioner like that was against the rules. But he did it anyhow. Why isn't he barred from practice before the agency in the future? The only thing he seems to have received is some exposure. No harm, no foul, he's free to repeat this behavior in the future, perhaps with a Commissioner who may not blow the whistle on him. It is only when improper behavior comes with significant consequences that it will end.

And why did FirstEnergy think improper influence on FERC would save their bacon? Probably because it works in other jurisdictions. I believe that if the same situation played itself out in West Virginia, for instance, that ending the contact and reporting the encounter would not occur. FirstEnergy only does this because it works.

So here we are again at regulation acting as safeguard in a monopoly situation. It's a lesson the WV PSC never seems to learn.

And what happened in West Virginia after FERC disapproved the transaction? The WV PSC approved the transfer, saying that the unfairness of affiliate transactions didn't matter. The WV PSC was totally unconcerned about the fairness of the transaction and whether it violated the concept of competition in an open market where a utility did not have a monopoly. The WV PSC tried to pretend it actually listened to public comment and considered it in its decision. That's a first, but it was contrived nonsense. The WV PSC's decision to approve the transfer was nothing short of a display of disgusting arrogance. Someone's fee-fees seemed pretty bruised that the company did not accept their offer to approve the transaction with a delay. Everyone got some backlash. The Consumer Advocate gets chastised for protecting consumers:

The CAD takes no prisoners in its attempt to “advise” the Commission of its responsibilities. In its Reply Brief, the CAD emphasizes the gravity of the situation by stating that, if this Transaction is approved, “the harm that redounds to West Virginia captive ratepayers will be a legacy of this Commission.”

Seriously? The CAD exists to protect ratepayer interests. Why shouldn't it be direct about the harm to ratepayers? Its job IS to advise the Commission, no quotation marks needed. If the CAD can place a little nugget of guilt into the mind of a compromised Commissioner, it's still not a fair trade for years of increased electric rates. And a Commissioner who resents this effort obviously doesn't have the best interests of ratepayers in mind. If he did, then the CAD's attempt to inspire guilt would have no effect. Think about that.

The WV PSC treats "risk" as a non-starter. The PSC thinks risk exists everywhere and assumption of risk should not be a primary concern in their decision. Except the company failed to accept the PSC's conditions on approval, stating:

Additionally,the Companies will not accept the conditions included in the Commission Order that would result in Mon Power assuming exposure and significant commodity risk, which is inconsistent with FirstEnergy’s announced corporate strategy.

So it is about the risk after all? While the ratepayers are supposed to be unconcerned about taking on additional risk from the transaction, the company can base its decision to abandon the transaction on its aversion to risk? FirstEnergy was trying to transfer its risk to WV consumers, but it was unsuccessful. And that's the bottom line.

FirstEnergy failed. Although it was a rough ride with some hairy, scary moments, ultimately the company ends up stuck with their own mess. We just get the bill.

2 Comments

No Thanks, FirstEnergy!

11/8/2017

1 Comment

You can keep your power plant.

That was the conclusion of the West Virginia Consumer Advocate in its reply brief in the matter of the sale of the Pleasants power station to regulated West Virginia affiliates Mon Power and Potomac Edison.

FirstEnergy has been engaged in a scheme to liquidate its failing competitive generation business. In states where generation is competitive, FirstEnergy is all about selling its money-losing assets. But in states where generation is regulated, FirstEnergy has been pursuing profitable "sales" of its failing assets into the regulated system, where it is guaranteed to recover all its costs to run the plant, plus a regulated profit. Several years ago, FirstEnergy was successful in selling one of its failing assets into the West Virginia regulatory system. Ratepayers have paid higher rates to operate "their" power station at a loss. ITYS. Now FirstEnergy has another failing asset for sale and it wants to double down on increased rates for West Virginia electric consumers. This hotly contested issue has been going on for the past year and is finally facing a decision by the West Virginia Public Service Commission.

Our Consumer Advocate, who represents the interests of West Virginia electric consumers, has done the math:

First, the rate benefit to residential ratepayers is a one year benefit of $11.52. The Companies provided no evidence of rate impacts beyond December 2018. The absence of this information is intentional.

As originally proposed by the Companies, if the acquisition of Pleasants is approved, there will be a $31,486,971 net decrease in rates for the 16-month period of September 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018, which is a 1.6% overall decrease. Residential customers would experience a decrease of about 0.9%. The decrease for a residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month would be $0.96 per month, which would result in a decrease to $111.52 from 112.48 per month. It is important to note that the decrease in customer rates is guaranteed only through December 2018.

And that "decrease" is an estimate subject to true up with actual costs. Realized "benefit" may be less. In fact, any "decrease" could disappear entirely and turn into an increase.

As well, all risk from the sale of energy from the plant into energy markets will transfer from FirstEnergy shareholders to West Virginia electric consumers. In addition, the risk of owning and operating the plant itself (and its filthy ash pond) will also transfer to ratepayers. On your behalf, the Consumer Advocate says, "No thank you."

West Virginia captive ratepayers are not hedge managers or virtual traders in the PJM markets. If the Commission approves this transaction that is what they will become: buyers of significant surplus capacity that Companies are betting (on their behalf) will provide benefits for years into the future. Pleasants was rejected by FirstEnergy as too risky. The overwhelming evidence in this case contradicts all Companies’ claims that there will be any benefits to captive ratepayers. Now FirstEnergy wants Companies to manage that risk for 500,000 ratepayers. As the legal representative of ratepayers, no thank you. The Pleasants acquisition should not be approved.

If it's too risky for FirstEnergy shareholders, it's too risky for me. This should be a non-starter.

But yet the PSC Chairman is toying with the idea of a
"conditional sale." I guess he must be feeling the pressure from coal companies who don't want to see one of their buyers disappear, plant workers who don't want to see their jobs disappear, and the community around Pleasants who don't want to see one of their employers and tax payers disappear. Why is it up to West Virginia electric customers to suddenly provide these benefits to suppliers, workers and the community? When Pleasants was profitable, FirstEnergy took all the profits, setting nothing aside to compensate these parties at the inevitable time that the plant was no longer profitable. Perhaps it is FirstEnergy who should be saddled with the costs of its own failure. Ordering West Virginians to pick up the burden of FirstEnergy's failure is a losing proposition. How long should we do this? At what point will closure of this old power station release West Virginians from this burden? Will we be forced to pay extra to support coal companies, workers and communities in perpetuity because no one has the foresight to plan for the inevitable? This has to end, and responsibility for the failure should be placed on the party who caused it... FirstEnergy.

A "conditional sale" won't work out any better than FirstEnergy's last "conditional sale" of Harrison. Despite the PSC attaching "conditions" to protect ratepayers from that disaster, we've paid millions in increased rates. A "conditional sale" is a coward's solution to try to please everyone. And guess where the blame is going to go if a "conditional sale" ends up costing ratepayers more money?

The CAD must begin by emphasizing that if this transaction is approved the harm that redounds to West Virginia captive ratepayers will be a legacy of this Commission.

Why does the WV PSC Chairman want to accept blame for FirstEnergy's failure? Probably because he doesn't have to pay for it. You do.

No thanks, FirstEnergy.

1 Comment

FirstEnergy's Cornucopia Runneth Over

10/4/2017

2 Comments

What happens when a company plants too many greed seeds and they all ripen at the same time? Dilemma!

FirstEnergy has been experiencing a serious issue with low market prices in PJM making its merchant coal-fired generators unprofitable over the past few years. FirstEnergy's merchant generation company is in serious trouble, with the word "bankruptcy" being mentioned more than once. These generators operate on a market basis -- that the cost to produce power (plus a profit) is recovered in the sales they make. If it costs more to produce power than can be recovered through sales, then these generators create a loss, not a profit.

Instead of simply selling these money-losers at a loss and shedding the liability though, FirstEnergy got greedy and has tried to turn them into a profit for the company. FirstEnergy has been busy trying to stash these plants into its affiliates' regulated rate base in fully regulated states like West Virginia. Once successful, the plant can earn "cost of service" rates at the state level, where FirstEnergy is fully compensated for the cost of operating the plant, plus a regulated profit, by captive ratepayers. Any excess generation produced not needed by affiliate load is sold in the unprofitable regional energy market. And affiliates don't need the generation from these plants when they can purchase cheap power in regional markets instead. Any loss from selling excess power at rates that don't cover the cost to produce it are covered by the affiliates' captive ratepayers. Such a scheme! Why it's positively brilliant to generate a profit from an asset that has been producing a loss!

And so that's what FirstEnergy did. It sold its money-losing Harrison Power Station to Mon Power and Potomac Edison, which has produced a $160M loss to ratepayers in just a few short years. And it is currently deep into the process of selling its Pleasants Power Station to Mon Power and Potomac Edison as well, which will produce additional losses for ratepayers in the future.

But then what happens if the energy markets recover and coal-fired plants are once again made profitable through new revenue streams meant to compensate them for "resilience" and other currently uncompensated benefits provided by baseload generators with on-site fuel supplies? Will new market rules make merchant generators profitable again? Will FirstEnergy suddenly want to own merchant baseload plants again? And, more importantly, will Mon Power and Potomac Edison suddenly want to "sell" these formerly merchant plants back to its merchant generation affiliate because they make more money as merchants than they can in a state regulated system?

What's a greedy company to do?

FirstEnergy, along with other merchant generators, has been pumping the political well for years trying to find some mechanism to make merchant plants profitable again by raising market prices. When that didn't happen quickly enough, FirstEnergy charted a course to dump its unprofitable merchant generators in the state regulated system.

But suddenly, the political seed has sprouted! Last week, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry lobbed a curve ball at FirstEnergy. Perry issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at FERC that requires:

Each Commission-approved independent system operator or regional transmission organization shall establish a tariff that provides a just and reasonable rate for the (A) purchase of electric energy from an eligible reliability and resiliency resource and (B) recovery of costs and a return on equity for such resource dispatched during grid operations. The just and reasonable rate shall include pricing to ensure that each eligible resource is fully compensated for the benefits and services it provides to grid operations, including reliability, resiliency, and on-site fuel assurance, and that each eligible resource recovers its fully allocated costs and a fair return on equity.

The Rulemaking also defined just which resources would not be subject to the new rule, such as those generators "subject to cost of service rate regulation by any state or local regulatory authority."

So, if FirstEnergy is successful in "selling" Pleasants to state regulated Mon Power and Potomac Edison, it cannot take advantage of any new rule to make its merchant plants profitable again.

FirstEnergy must now consider a gamble. Will the new rule happen, and if it does, will it make Pleasants more profitable than it might be in the state regulated system? Or should it continue on with its plans to sell Pleasants into the state regulated system and possibly lose future profits? Or might FirstEnergy have the best of both worlds by selling Pleasants into the state regulated system now, with the intent of buying it back at a later date if the new rule happens and it proves more profitable to operate the plant as a merchant generator? After all, the West Virginia Public Service Commission is just a patsy, standing by to assist while FirstEnergy buys and sells generators into and out of the state regulated system in order to squeak the most profit out of them.

Will West Virginia ratepayers be left holding the bag on FirstEnergy's losses from Pleasants forever more, unable to take advantage of any new rule? Or will FirstEnergy change its mind and decide to gamble that Pleasants will once again be profitable for them under any new rule and withdraw its request to sell Pleasants to Mon Power and Potomac Edison? Or will the WV PSC actually grow a set and deny FirstEnergy's request to sell Pleasants, forcing the company to rely on other new alternatives to bail itself out of bankruptcy, such as new rules?

2 Comments

FirstEnergy's Dog and Pony Show Tours Martinsburg

9/12/2017

0 Comments

FirstEnergy's dog showed up to listen to the local ponies whinny and chomp at the bit last night in Martinsburg. It was all so predictable. How many times have we done this in recent memory?

Utility proposes some scheme that will increase its profits. Regulators schedule the required public hearings and maybe one will show up in your locale. The regulator sits at the front of the room and "listens" to the public comments while trying not to look bored. Earnest public ponies put forth time and effort to attend and speak from the heart, hoping they can say something that gets through to the regulator. A court reporter transcribes the comments into a written record that can be read by the other commissioners, or perhaps used as evidence when a decision is issued. I seriously doubt that anyone at the WV PSC even reads the public hearing record, and I've never once seen anything from a West Virginia public hearing used as the basis for any decision. Why? Because the WV PSC is the utility's dog, captive and controlled like any good pet on a leash.

The WV PSC is a captured, reactive regulator who prefers to follow a utility's lead to set policy. The WV PSC isn't a leader, it's a follower. Without a clear vision of its own regarding how utility policy should work in the best interests of the state, the WV PSC allows utilities to chart our course by merely reacting to utility proposals. While other regulators have clear policy goals and demonstrate leadership to utilities by setting the standards that shape utility proposals, West Virginia prefers to let utilities shape the regulatory landscape.

It shouldn't come as any surprise, considering WV's regulatory leadership. C'mon, the WV PSC is lead by a former utility lawyer who took direction from utilities for his entire career. Why would anyone think he'd become a utility leader when sliding through the revolving door from regulated to regulator?

The WV PSC believes its mission is to "balance the interests of all parties." It shouldn't be. As a fully regulated state, the WV PSC should be a utility leader. Regulation is the price utilities pay for the privilege of operating a monopoly for a necessary public service. Regulation is supposed to serve as a substitute for competition where none exists. If a utility cannot perform in the public interest, then it should lose its franchise privilege, allowing others to compete for the privilege of serving the captive customer base.

Instead, the WV PSC behaves as if we must keep the utility happy and healthy, and puts the utility's interests first in any proposal before them. The captive customers the PSC is supposed to protect become nothing more than chattel, used to support utility profits. The WV PSC doesn't care what the customers want, nor what is truly best for the customers. The WV PSC has become completely detached from the public interest, only serving political interests that the utility purchases.

Commissioner Brooks McCabe presided over last night's public hearing in Martinsburg, looking like a brave little puppy, absorbing public scorn over FirstEnergy's proposal to sell a failing asset into West Virginia's regulated system in order to bail out the company. He began the meeting reading a description of the case and giving an overview of the proceedings thus far. He mentioned over 900 comments in opposition to the proposal, balanced by something like 35 comments in support. The audience laughed. If it were all about balancing the interests of all parties, this case would be over.

The few brave souls who made comments in support of FirstEnergy's proposal were all motivated by money, whether it was as a contractor whose income depended upon future operation of a failing power plant, or some political creature dependent on campaign contributions and quid pro quo. And then there were the unions, rightfully concerned about the future of the plant employees, however misguided they were in where funding for power plant jobs would come from in the future.

FirstEnergy has owned and operated Pleasants as a source of profit. The hardworking men and women who have kept this financial asset of FirstEnergy performing for many years have done an admirable job. FirstEnergy owes them a huge debt for their faithful service. But FirstEnergy doesn't care about them, FirstEnergy only cares about profits, and Pleasants is no longer profitable. FirstEnergy owes its workers a soft landing and transition into other jobs of equal pay and responsibility. But FirstEnergy wasn't squirreling away a tiny portion of its profits over the years into a soft landing fund for benefit of its workers. FirstEnergy spent every last penny of the profit these workers created on other important things, like naming rights to a football stadium, or a corporate jet and tax planning services for its over-compensated executives. Now that Pleasants is no longer profitable, FirstEnergy and the PSC believe captive ratepayers should pick up the burden of supporting Pleasants employees and the economic contribution it makes to its community. But the ratepayers never shared in the profits from the plant when times were good, it is only after the profits evaporate that FirstEnergy wants to pass the cost burden onto captive ratepayers. There's no "balance" here either.

A regulator who was a true utility leader might put an end to ratepayer-financed corporate welfare. It would make the utility responsible for the failure of its asset, including the economic impact to its workers and the surrounding community. A true utility leader would chart a clear course for a solid energy future in the public interest for our state, and require franchised utilities to adhere to it or forfeit their franchise privilege.

But we don't have a true utility leader. We have a corrupted and captive utility follower.

Thankfully, there are stronger, smarter, policy leaders in other regulatory venues who also have authority over FirstEnergy's proposal, because the WV PSC is a lost cause.

Neigh.

0 Comments

Abandoned PATH Properties, Get Your Abandoned PATH Properties Here!

8/8/2017

1 Comment

PATH is holding a fire sale this month on all those abandoned properties it purchased nearly 10 years ago. Need a gigantic farm property that's not zoned for an electric substation?

How about a nice vacation cabin in West Virginia that's been sitting vacant and rotting for years?

Or perhaps you're in the market for a big lot in a very exclusive Loudoun County, Virginia, subdivision and you don't mind having high voltage transmission lines running through the middle of your property?

Then don't miss these PATH absolute auctions on August 22 and August 23!

Finally, 5 years after the PATH 765-kV transmission line project was officially abandoned by PJM Interconnection and the PATH companies, the property PATH bought with your money is being auctioned off. PATH has been marketing some of these properties for years, with no takers. What kind of a property is marketed for 5 years with no offers? What's wrong with these properties? Buyer beware!

While actively seeking to build the project between 2008 and 2011, PATH purchased outright around $30M worth of real estate to be used as future substations and right of way for its transmission project. Each property has some story attached that serves as an excuse for purchasing it way above its market value at that point in time. Need an ending point for your project? Purchase a farm zoned agricultural and then set about battling the county about re-zoning it. Need to have a conservation easement lifted? Purchase a bunch of property near the easement and then hire lobbyists to influence the governmental entity that holds the easement to release it. See an opportunity property where the owners are struggling financially? Purchase it now and worry about how you may use it later. After all, it's not YOUR money, it's coming out of electric ratepayer wallets, and you're earning a big fat return on every dollar you spend.

How much return? Well, initially, 14.3%, later 12.9%, later still 10.9%, even later 10.4%, and finally, 8.11%. As long as you own those properties, you may collect the corresponding return on your investment from ratepayers.

But when you sell the properties, you must credit the sale price to your unpaid balance upon which the return is calculated. For example, if the balance of your investment is $100, and you sell a property that is included in that balance for $5, then your new balance is $95. An 10% return on $100 is $10. A 10% return on $95 is $9.50. So, by holding onto your properties as long as possible, you will collect the maximum amount of return. So it really wouldn't help your profit margin to sell these unneeded properties quickly. You must hold on to them until the rest of the ratepayer debt is paid and a regulator orders you to dispose of them, then auction them off at fire sale prices and make the ratepayers pay all the auction and commission expenses off the top of the credit they will realize from the sale of property. And then you can hope the ratepayers don't find out about it.

Whoopsie!!!

So, for all those PATH opponents who have been living in suspended animation for the past 5 years wondering if PATH was going to dream up another project to use those properties for a transmission line, you're released from your continuing torture. The PATH companies are finally going away and won't be using the properties for a future transmission project. Now you only have to worry about what a new owner may do with the properties. And how much you ultimately paid, of course. Creative accounting, and feigned uncertainty combined with a failure to effectively market vacant property, will squeeze the last possible penny out of your wallet.

PATH... the gift that keeps on taking.

How do these guys sleep at night?

1 Comment

Billionaires' Club Looks Out For Its Own Interests First

5/11/2017

0 Comments

Who's looking out for your interests, little electricity consumer? Is there some government agency taking an interest in ensuring that the rates you pay and the services you receive are fair? Or are privately-funded, self-anointed "consumer interest" groups the ones working in your best interests? And what's the difference, anyhow?

Public Citizen claims to be a public interest consumer organization. Public Citizen's energy program has engaged over the years in a series of protests and interventions that spend more time whining about its lack of public funding that hinders its participation than actually saving real dollars for energy consumers. Public Citizen's most recent whine was highlighted in an article in RTO Insider this week. Public Interest Groups Cry Foul over Technical Conference, RTO Transparency links to a letter sent to RTO/ISOs and FERC complaining about being denied an opportunity to speak at a Technical Conference. Public Citizen also launches into its tired arguments that it should be paid to participate in energy regulatory proceedings and should receive voting rights at RTO/ISOs.

State Consumer Advocates already participate in RTO/ISO processes, and also represent consumer interests before FERC. State advocates are government employees with the sole mission of protecting consumer interests. They don't accept outside funding, and in fact currently operate on shoestring state budgets. These hardworking, underfunded advocates truly have the best interests of consumers in mind. How do I know this? Because I shared a counsel table with them during a 15-day FERC proceeding. I saw and heard a lot. Consumers saved nearly $20M in that case.

Public Citizen, on the other hand, is a private organization funded with grant money. Public Citizen's interests are the interests of their funders. When I looked at who funds Public Citizen, I found a list of individuals and foundations who donated buckets of money to the organization. While Public Citizen claims to represent thousands of consumer members (who remain nameless) and "low-income" citizen interests, regular folks aren't the ones donating obscene sums of money to Public Citizen. Under the category of "Foundations" there's plenty of private interest money to be had, such as the Energy Foundation. The Energy Foundation seems to have an interest in environmentalism. And, wouldn't you know it, Public Citizen's "Climate and Energy" program seems dedicated to clean energy (not necessarily saving consumers money on their energy bills). The Energy Foundation seems to be a conduit for billionaire environmentalists to hide while funneling money to private organizations eager to do their bidding. The Energy Foundation seems to have its fingerprints on a lot of "clean energy" initiatives, such as America's Power Plan (APP). APP was concocted several years ago to blow some smoke over the issue of using eminent domain to site energy facilities on private property. The Energy Foundation's assembled "experts" (including Farmer Jimmy Glotfelty of Clean Line Energy Partners) tried really hard to purport to know what landowners wanted in exchange for hosting energy infrastructure on private property. Except no landowners participated in their project. As a result, APP got things horribly wrong, such as this gem:

I want to site a new transmission line, but I am struggling to find the best way to work with private landowners who will be affected. Any suggestions?

Look to successful examples from around the country—like Montana Dakota Utilities and Clean Line Energy Partners. And consider new options to bring landowners to the table in a positive way—like Special Purpose Development Corporations or annual payments.

The first principle is to engage landowners early and often. Many utilities have found that holding landowner meetings earlier and more often than required can dramatically improve project efficiency. Innovative ideas include compensating private landowners via Special Purpose Development Corporations (which offer equity in the project’s success) or annual payments (which give landowners a stake in the life of the project). For example, Clean Line Energy Partners is now offering annual payments to landowners who will host a new DC transmission line intended to deliver 3.5 GW of power from Iowa to Chicago.

Of course, eminent domain often becomes an option once a transmission developer demonstrates that a new project is needed and the siting authority confirms that the project will serve the public interest. But cross-state transmission lines and third-party (non-utility) developers cannot always count on eminent domain. Regardless of whether eminent domain is an option, it should always be considered a last resort as there are many options to bring private land-owners to the table in a more positive way that can minimize friction in siting new lines. For example, Montana Dakota Utilities has not had to use eminent domain since 1983, mainly because the utilities consider themselves a part of the community, and have formed positive, trusting relationships with landowners.

For a more detailed treatment of these issues and further options for compensating private landowners, see pages 18-21 of Siting: Finding a Home for Renewable Energy and Transmission.

Successful examples from around the country? Clean Line Energy Partners? Hahahahahaa! Clean Line Energy Partners has had no success, and landowner opposition groups continue to fight them every step of the way. If you really want to site a transmission line, Clean Line could only be a realistic example of what not to do.

Well, now, how did I get so off track? "Clean energy" is like peeling an onion... there are so many layers when you drill down into where they get their funding. The Koch brothers would be proud.

So, let's get back on track here. Dueling consumer advocates. The state Consumer Advocates we already have are doing a good job. "Public Interest Organization" consumer advocates are an unnecessary addition to the fray, and may not have the interests of actual consumers in mind. This was demonstrated quite clearly in a recent FERC proceeding that pitted Public Citizen against the West Virginia Consumer Advocate. The subject was a PJM Interconnection rate case. Public Citizen intervened and whined about PJM's costs and said that consumer advocates aren't allowed to participate at PJM. West Virginia Consumer Advocate Jackie Roberts intervened and filed a comment disagreeing with Public Citizen's contentions about Consumer Advocate participation in PJM's budget. In fact, consumer advocates do participate in PJM's budget process, as well as being voting stakeholders in all PJM's processes. Not to be outdone, Public Citizen filed an answer, claiming that state consumer advocates don't represent Public Citizen members, and therefore there was also room at the consumer advocate table for PIOs like Public Citizen. I don't think anyone is stopping Public Citizen from participating in any regulatory or RTO process, just like any other PIO, such as Sierra Club, or NRDC. What Public Citizen likes to whine about is the fact that there is no public funding for its participation.

Talk about trying to board the gravy train... since when are any PIOs publicly funded by ratepayers through the federal regulatory process? And if they were, how many PIOs would belly up to the bar? The bottom line is that PIOs do their own thing according to the wishes of the people and foundations that fund them. That is not "public" interest. That's a private interest masquerading as a public servant. Nobody is minding the store to ensure that PIOs truly serve public interests. Therefore, they don't deserve public funding, or special concessions to allow them to have the same rights and privileges as state consumer advocates.

Federal regulators should think twice about opening Pandora's box with a pile of public funding offered to anyone who wants to call themselves a "public interest organization." The queue to score some public funding to advance private interests would probably wrap around the National Mall several times.

Maybe Public Citizen should concentrate on actually delivering some documented savings to electric consumers before whining that it needs public funding to protect consumer interests. The proof is in the pudding.

0 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

DOE Releases Preliminary List of NIETCs

The Big Transmission Lie

Transmission Leftovers

Ut-oh, Utility Rainmakers. UTT-OHHHH!

FirstEnergy Failure

No Thanks, FirstEnergy!

FirstEnergy's Cornucopia Runneth Over

FirstEnergy's Dog and Pony Show Tours Martinsburg

Abandoned PATH Properties, Get Your Abandoned PATH Properties Here!

Billionaires' Club Looks Out For Its Own Interests First

About the Author

About
StopPATH Blog

Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
Email me

Archives

Categories

About the Author

AboutStopPATH Blog

Archives

Categories

About
StopPATH Blog