Legalectric

Today a big win for Stop the Poles!  The New Jersey Dept. of Transportation said a big resounding “NO!” to Atlantic City Electric’s request to use DOT Right-of-Way to stick it to the community!

New Jersey DOT Letter of Denial – August 2009

Atlantic City Electric is part of PEPCO Holdings Inc, a big electric conglomerate in the Mid-Atlantic. They (the big boys, not ACE, I’m sure) decided they wanted to build a 230kV loop around the area to reinforce the system, in expectation of massive power transfers up from Salem, right ACE?

So they just up and decided to build it.  Above are the transmission lines built on Bridgeton Road, one of those “elevator” construction jobs, where there’s no poles, and one day, someone “pushes the button” and there they are in all their ugliness.  No notice, no consultation, no fanfare, no nothing,one day they saw them being pounded into the ground, going over fields, roads, right across Bridgeton Road from homes that are up against the road on the other side, so close it’s disgusting and downright dangerous … there’s zero clear zone from the road, EMF right there and nowhere to go …  and then there’s the substation.

The substation is lit up like an inter-gallactic space station and hums so loudly that the neighbors are losing sleep.  It’s been a community point of contention with Atlantic City Electric ever since they appeared.

And Atlantic City Electric wanted to double the mess by doing the same thing along Highway 77.  Highway 77 already has some smaller wood poles, and along Bridgeton Road and along Highway 77, cars are regularly careening off the road and there’s wreck after wreck there.  Newer and bigger poles is not a good idea.

So the DOT told ACE where NOT to stick their poles!  Looks like it’s time for the Atlantic City Electric folks to head back to PEPCO for a little training in application procedures and public relations!  Not that PEPCO knows…

From WSJ article below, the chart says it all…

Another great Wall Street Journal article came out, again noting that demand is DOWN, DOWN, DOWN.  This is pretty important given the massive infrastructure rush by the utilities.  It’s showing what we’ve known all along, the 800 lb. gorilla in the corner that could/should stop any new infrastructure buildout.

Rebecca Smith, Wall Street Journal, wrote this piece, published last week:

Electricity Prices Plummet

Here’s the PJM Report it’s based on:

2009 Quarterly State of the Market (January – June)

There are some choice snippets in the WSJ article, such as:

On Friday, the nation’s largest wholesale power market serving parts of
13 states east of the Rockies is expected to report that electricity
demand fell 4.4% in the first half of the year. That helped to push
down spot market prices by 40% during the first half of this year.

… and…

The price declines in this market, which extends from Delaware to
Michigan, come on top of a 2.7% drop in energy use in 2008 over 2007.

… and…

Power demand in Texas is down 3.2% so far this year due to business
contraction and reductions in employment which are causing many
households to economize.

… and …

But the flagging economy has resulted in a slump in demand that has jolted some energy markets. American Electric Power Co. and Southern Co., for example, both reported double-digit drops in industrial electricity use for the past quarter.

… and…

“There’s more supply than demand and prices are really low so it
doesn’t make sense to build anything,” says John Shelk, president of
the Electric Power Supply Association in Washington, D.C., a group that
represents power generators.

Once more with feeling… SUSQUEHANNA-ROSELAND TRANSMISSION IS NOT NEEDED!

I was a big Posner fan in law school, mostly because he was so much fun to pick on, I so hate the “Chicago school.”  But here’s another Posner, doing good!  It’s a hilarious opinion, all the better because it so clearly tells FERC and PJM what to do with their rate shifting cost apportionment.  GO POSNER!

Here’s the decision:

Illinois Commerce Commission, et al. v. FERC

LISTEN TO THE ORAL ARGUMENT HERE!!!

Two issues in this case:

1) PJM/FERC pricing based on marginal cost v. pricing including sunk costs.  That one went for PJM/FERC, and American Electric and others lost in just a few paragraphs.

2) Where the action is — Ohio and Illinois Commissions objected to the 500+kV cost allocation on a pro rata basis, that “their rats should be raised by a uniform amount sufficient to defray the facilities’ costs.”

What’s particularly interesting to me is that this is all about “Project Mountaineer,” which PJM doesn’t even want to acknowledge exists!  the Susquehanna-Roseland line that I’m working against is the NE part of line 1, and the MAPP line through now “just” a part of Delaware is the NE part of the southern line, line 4.  Here’s the magnitude of Project Mountaineer – the Susquehanna-Roseland line is QUAD 500kV plus double circuiting the existing 230kV line, that’s one big project:

FYI, in the Cudahy dissent, he did some digging, and there is a Project Mountaineer tootnote quoting PJM stating that Project Mountaineer “would bring about substantial congestion relief and reliability improvements increasing Midwest-to-east transfers by 5,000 MW.”  See Ventyx, Major Transmission Constraints in PJM (2007).

A quick sidebar… FYI, from Delaware Electric Cooperative 2009 Energy Plan – “CONFIDENTIAL”, arguing for the MAPP transmission project…

… and they report that transmission congestion is down 75% to 275 hours ANNUALLY!  Really… so for that 275 hours we should build the $1.2 MAPP project?  HOW STUPID DO YOU THINK WE ARE?

OK, back to Posners 7th Circuit decision.  It was PJM’s idea, approved by FERC, to hit up all the utilities, and Illinois, a BIG example of the problem, would have had to pay out some $480 million while not receiving one dime of benefit.  PJM used the theory that, well, PJM used to do it this way all the time before in massive infrastructure buildouts, but as Posner reminded them, that was then and this is now, PJM is a lot different now, Illinois wasn’t even part of the picture.

Posner was pissed off that there was no data at all to support their desired allocation, no data, no specifics about difficulties in assessing benefits, no lawsuits about inequities, no particulars, “[n]ot even the roughest estimate of likely benefits to the objecting utilities… oh yes, he let them have it… for page after page… and notes that FERC “brief devotes only five pages to the 500kV pricing issue.”  FERC seems to presume a similar brainwashing in the courts that they and utilities presume of Commissions and legislatures, one that I see to often, that frantic claim of URGENT need, ‘WE’RE GOING TO FREEZE IN THE DARK IN AN INCUBATOR WITHOUT A JOB” theory, presented despite documented long term decrease in demand across the country.  Once more with feeling, HOW STUPID DO YOU THINK WE ARE?

Oh, these guys irritate me.  Anyway, check out this decision and consider the impact on all the 500kV and above projects applied for or waiting in the wings.

This is one of those things that’s been bugging me for a long time, and I’m finally getting around to looking it up.  There are a few twists and turns, and this is a long post, with a lot of links and a lot of audio listening for you to dig in if you’re interested.  If you’re a landowner, you sure better be!  If you’re a landowner affected by utility infrastructure, this is required reading and listening!

Here we go!

History of Minn. Stat. 117.189

Here’s the statute (the specific statutory cites below are linked):

117.189 PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION EXCEPTIONS.

Sections 117.031; 117.036; 117.055, subdivision 2, paragraph (b); 117.186; 117.187; 117.188; and 117.52, subdivisions 1a and 4, do not apply to public service corporations. For purposes of an award of appraisal fees under section 117.085, the fees awarded may not exceed $500 for all types of property.
History:

2006 c 214 s 14

Short version – this bill was a bipartisan sell-out that exempted CapX 2020 and any other public service corporation project from eminent domain that every other entity must comply with.  Why on earth would they do this… or rather, what innocent explaination is there for this 117.189 section of the bill?

So far that I’ve heard (only ~6 hours thus far), Sen. Scott Dibble is the only one asking “Why exempt public service corporations?”

The only Senators who voted against this were:

Anderson, Cohen, Dibble, Hottinger, Marko, Moua, Pappas, Ranum, Skoglund

The only Reps who voted against this were:

Davnie, Ellison, Goodwin, Hausman, Hornstein, Huntley, Johnson, S., Kahn, Lanning, Lenczewski, Mahoney, Mariani, Mullery, Paymar, Thao, Wagenius, Walker

Please take a few minutes and send them a thank you note!  Here’s a link to their emails:

House Members

Senate Members

*****************************************************

First, some more history, going back to my all time favorite bill:

2005 TRANSMISSION OMNIBUS BILL FROM HELL

Remember, this was the bill that grew from the deal the enviros did in 2003, incorporating the material terms of that deal into the 2005 Omnibus bill.

ME3, MCEA, Waltons, NAWO -TRANSLink deal

And… why… look, there’s language in the 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell mandating an “Eminent Domain Landowner Compensation — Landowner Payments Working Group!”

55.35                             ARTICLE 1155.36               EMINENT DOMAIN LANDOWNER COMPENSATION56.1      Section. 1.  [LANDOWNER PAYMENTS WORKING GROUP.]56.2      Subdivision 1.  [MEMBERSHIP.] By June 15, 2005, the56.3   Legislative Electric Energy Task Force shall convene a landowner56.4   payments working group consisting of up to 12 members, including56.5   representatives from each of the following groups:56.6   transmission-owning investor-owned utilities, electric56.7   cooperatives, municipal power agencies, Farm Bureau, Farmers56.8   Union, county commissioners, real estate appraisers and others56.9   with an interest and expertise in landowner rights and the56.10  market value of rural property.56.11     Subd. 2.  [APPOINTMENT.] The chairs of the Legislative56.12  Electric Energy Task Force and the chairs of the senate and56.13  house committees with primary jurisdiction over energy policy56.14  shall jointly appoint the working group members.56.15     Subd. 3.  [CHARGE.] (a) The landowner payments working56.16  group shall research alternative methods of remunerating56.17  landowners on whose land high voltage transmission lines have56.18  been constructed.56.19     (b) In developing its recommendations, the working group56.20  shall:56.21     (1) examine different methods of landowner payments that56.22  operate in other states and countries;56.23     (2) consider innovative alternatives to lump-sum payments56.24  that extend payments over the life of the transmission line and56.25  that run with the land if the land is conveyed to another owner;56.26     (3) consider alternative ways of structuring payments that56.27  are equitable to landowners and utilities.56.28     Subd. 4.  [EXPENSES.] Members of the working group shall be56.29  reimbursed for expenses as provided in Minnesota Statutes,56.30  section 15.059, subdivision 6.  Expenses of the landowner56.31  payments working group shall not exceed $10,000 without the56.32  approval of the chairs of the Legislative Electric Energy Task56.33  Force.56.34     Subd. 5.  [REPORT.] The landowner payments working group56.35  shall present its findings and recommendations, including56.36  legislative recommendations and model legislation, if any, in a57.1   report to the Legislative Electric Energy Task Force by January57.2   15, 2006.

Now, let’s take a look at who was on that Committee:

REPRESENTATIVE MEMBERS

1. Jim Musso (Xcel Energy) representing transmission owning investor-owned utilities
2. Bob Ambrose (Great River Energy) representing electric cooperatives
3. Mrg Simon (Missouri River Energy) representing municipal power agencies
4. Chris Radatz-representing the Minnesota Farm Bureau
5. Tim Henning (farmer) representing the Minnesota Farmers Union
6. Jack Keers (Pipestone County Commissioner) representing county commissioners
7. Robin Nesburg (Rural Appraisal Services) representing real estate appraisers

AT LARGE MEMBERS

8. Beth Soholt (Wind on the Wires)
9. John Nauerth III (farmer)
10. George Crocker (North American Water Office)
11. Bob Cupit (Public Utilities Commission)
12. Bill Blazar (Minnesota Chamber of Commerce)

Here’s the report of the Work Group:

LANDOWNERS’ PAYMENTS WORKING GROUP

REPORT TO THE LEGISLATIVE ELECTRIC ENERGY TASK FORCE  (LEETF)

Laws 2005, chapter 97, article 11, required the Legislative Electric Energy Task Force (LEETF) to create a landowners’ payments working group to study alternative methods of remunerating landowners on whose land high-voltage transmission lines have been constructed.

The group was created, met twice, and this is a report of its findings and recommendations.

LANDOWNER PAYMENTS GROUP FINDINGS

1.  Farm owners in southwestern Minnesota want compensation for high-voltage transmission line easements to be paid annually as a percentage of the current value of the land so that as land values rise or drop, the payments rise or drop accordingly.

2.  Easement acquiring utilities are not in favor of the proposal described in item #1 and do not want to fundamentally change the current method of payment for easements, which consists of a onetime payment based on a percentage value of the land over which the easement is acquired.

3.  The Legislature has the authority to mandate the payment system described in item #1.

4.  There are no jurisdictions that have the payment system described in item #1.

5.  The payment system described in item #1 would be more expensive than the current payment system, assuming the percentages proposed by the landowners with attendant upward pressure on rates.

6.  There is a social value to having a harmonious, nonadversarial process to acquire high-voltage transmission line easements that has an economic value that is hard to quantify.

7.  There is a sense that the process for negotiating an easement and/or contesting it by a landowner is too expensive and complicated and it may be helpful to search for legislative ways to ensure that all similarly situated landowners receive the same just compensation without being intimidated by the process or forced to great expense by the process.

8.  While this group was formed due to farm landowner concerns, the scope of the charge extends to all landowners.  Guidance from the task force is necessary as to the scope of the charge because the scale of the issue is altered if any easement over any land is the subject of the discussion.

9.  While the direct parties in interest–the landowners and utilities–are stalemated, the current push to acquire easements for new lines makes the issue one that should have a firm handle kept on it.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1.  If further work is to be done on this topic, the task force should provide the guidance described under finding #8.

2.  If the task force wants to continue work on this topic and wants more public input, it should consider utilizing the same persons who are on the current study group.

3.  The task force may wish to consider whether there are flaws in the current easement acquisition process related to its expense to landowners to contest and perceived intimidating qualities.

*****************************************************

Let’s look at the eminent domain bills the following session, Senate bill, SF 2750 and the House bill, HF 2846.

SF 2750

Senate Authors, none added after introduction:    Bakk ; Kiscaden ; Bachmann ; Chaudhary ; Kubly

Bill as introduced, had the Public Service Corporation exemption AND the appraisal fee limitation:

12.8        Sec. 14. [117.189] PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION EXCEPTIONS.
12.9    Sections 117.031; 117.036; 117.055, subdivision 2, paragraph (b); 117.186; 117.187;
12.10   117.188; and 117.52, subdivisions 1a and 4, do not apply to public service corporations.
12.11   For purposes of an award of appraisal fees under section 117.085, the fees awarded may
12.12   not exceed $500 for all types of property.

On the Senate side, there are some interesting statements in the first Committee hearing, Judiciary, discussion about limiting who can speak at county meetings about eminent domain (!!!), limitations of attorneys’ fees… and there’s a discussion that I’m trying to transcribe … will post soon…

Senate Judiciary – March 9, 2006 – PART I

Senate Judiciary – March 9, 2006 – PART II

Senate State and Local Government Operations – March 13, 2006 – Part I

Senate State and Local Government Operations – March 13, 2006 – Part II

Here’s Sen. Dibble questioning, in State and Local Government Operations – March 13, 2006 Part I (linked):

MARCH 13, 2009

Senate State and Local Operations Committee

Sen. Dibble: I guess I have a larger policy question, why we think that utilities should be exempted from the provisions of this bill when we think that eminent domain is such a problem that we need to address.

Chair: We’ll ask Senator Bakk to address this question.

Sen. Bakk:    I think  You can have that question, as far as this amendment is concerned, it wouldn’t change anything in the bill other than just referencing the statutes, that statutory definition of utility. So, so, if you don’t like what’s in the bill, that’s fine, but this amendment doesn’t change anything.

Dibble:  I think it is a subject of interest that we should have as a policy committee, and as a larger public discussion.

Sen. Bakk:  Well, Madam Chair, Mike Ahern was, this question was asked at the judiciary committee and Mike Ahern came to the table and gave a pretty good explanation to the Committee of why utilities aren’t included.  This isn’t new that utilities are not included, this bill has been floating around, I think this is its third session, they’ve always not been included for a number of reasons.  One, they’re regulated by the Public Utilities Commission already.  And there is the Energy Task Force that’s looking at all of these energy issues, so, there are also provisions in law where, for instance, when they’re siting transmission lines, that there is a special provision in law, that if you’re gonna go over a farm, in addition to buying the easement for the powerline, the property owner has the right to ask that the entire farm be bought, I believe it’s called the Buy the Farm provision, but there are a number provisions in law, and maybe a little later when Mr. Ahern gets here, oh, he is here, Madam Chair, if you’d like, maybe he can respond to Senator Dibble’s question.

Chair: Mr. Ahern?

Mike Ahern: Yes, good morning Madam Chair, members of the committee, I’m Michael Ahern, and I represent a variety of utilities, pipeline, telecommunications
The question is the reason for exclusion of public service corporations. … I got in a little late.  Senator Bakk did touch on a number of the reasons. The reasons are, frankly, that the, substantively, most of the law governing public service corporations are dealt with in other sections of the statute, for example, Chapter 116C, governs powerlines, and not only does it deal with the grants of eminent domain, it sets up quite elaborate processes for, which this legislation addresses, quite elaborate public input processes, such as sets up EQB staff as facilitator for how and why a pipeline or powerline gets established.  There are things, again, that also conflict, such as the going concern provision, which is a major issue in this bill.  Public utilities are subject to language that entitles a farmer or business owner to take the entire farm or business at their option, since 1977.  I could go on and there are a lot of distinctions between, and reasons why at least traditionally, the legislature has dealt with utilities separately.

Chair:  Any other questions?  Sen. Dibble?

Sen. Dibble:  Thank you.   I’m not prepared yet to have a huge debate on this, but I think the same arguments could be made for local governments that are subject to elaborate processes in state law, and we can certainly look to examples that, driving motive and intent behind this statute, similarly we see places where people complain bitterly about abuses at the hands of public utilities, you can drive down Hwy. 52 and stills see the signs in people’s front yards about how they felt they were treated when a large powerline was being rammed along that corridor.  So it’s interesting that we’re making a special exception essentially for private entities that have been identified as culprits of abuse of eminent domain authority.

*****************************************************

HF 2846

Introduced with these authors: House Authors    Johnson, J. ; Thissen ; Smith ; Davids ; Dill ; Paulsen
By the end, here is who signed on to this:
House Authors        Johnson, J. ; Thissen ; Smith ; Davids ; Dill ; Paulsen ; Penas ; Moe ; Garofalo ; Nelson, P. ; Wardlow ; Magnus ; Cybart ; Olson ; Westrom ; Erickson ; Klinzing ; Charron

As introduced it had the Public Service Corporation exemption:

5.25         Sec. 9. [117.189] PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION EXCEPTION.
5.26     Sections 117.031, 117.186, 117.187, and 117.188 do not apply to public service
5.27     corporations.

*** The sentence about appraisals did not appear in it as introduced or in the 5 engrossments online.

Here’s the House Research explanation of that paragraph:

12      Public service corporation exception. Provides that the provisions for attorneys’ fees (section 4 ), compensation for loss of going concern (section 8 ), minimum compensation (section 10 ), and limitations (section 11 ), do not apply to public service corporations.

*****************************************************

Conference Committee

04/12/2006      Senate conferees       Bakk, Murphy, Betzold, Higgins, Ortman
04/12/2006      House conferees       Johnson, J.; Abrams; Davids; Anderson, B.; Thissen

*****************************************************

Here are the reports of House and Senate adoption of Conference Committee Report, including votes:

Senate Adopted Conference Committee Report, bill repassed

House Adopted Conference Committee Report, bill repassed

Let’s hear it for California!

They’re getting the message — transmission is not needed and transmission is not wanted.  If they try to push it through on the landowners across the state, well, they’re in trouble.  And so they did a study of what’s necessary to accomplish their Renewable Energy Standard and here it is.

33% RPS Implementation Analysis – Executive Summary

Here’s a statement from p. 10 of the Executive Summary that leads me to think they’re on the right path — just the simple recognition of this point:

California IOUs are currently on a procurement path that in effect prioritizes long-term market transformation over other policy objectives.

Here’s the full report:

33% RPS Implementation Analysis — Interim Report

And here’s a Power Point that hits the highlights:

Power Point – 33% RPS Implementation Analysis