AEP subsidiaries are "selling" assets to each other in another corporate shell game.  This article says that AEP-Ohio will be selling generation it owns in WV to fellow subsidiary Appalachian Power.  Meanwhile, they fired up their new gas-fired plant located in Ohio, which will be paid for, at least in part, by Appalachian Power customers in WV.  Confused yet?  AEP hopes so!

In this article, the reporter was treated to an explanation of AEP's "power pool" (probably because she asked tougher questions).

What's in neither article is the promised merging of AEP WV sudsidiaries Appalachian Power and Wheeling Power, which was promised to the WV-PSC in AEP's last rate case.

Why all this confusion?  Because Ohio is deregulating generation and AEP is trying to keep their costly generation behemoths in a regulated environment.  In a deregulated, or market-based, market, costly upgrades and other costs of running these plants are wrapped into the cost of the generation bid into market.  In a regulated state, these "extra" costs are covered by ratepayers of subsidiaries who "own" these assets.

Bottom line:  It's all about AEP making even MORE money at your expense!

If you've been wondering about the identity of the "mystery" administrator that has already been spending money that's being added to your electric bill, wonder no more.

Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line partners PSE&G and PPL announced in their comments on the National Park Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement earlier this week that they will "mitigate" for the permanent damage their new transmission line causes to the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area and the Appalachian Trail by way of a $30 - 40M "endowment" to "a not-for-profit organization with demonstrated expertise in land and resource conservation and successful collaboration with the Department of the Interior."  They also share that they "have engaged and provided funds to a nationally respected land conservation organization to begin acquiring interests in private properties of high value to the Department of the Interior’s conservation mission in the area around DEWA, MDSR, APPA and Cherry Valley National Wildlife Refuge."

It looks like PSE&G and PPL have quite a perverted definition of the word "respected".

According to this NPS document, Internal Scoping Meeting Report. Susquehanna to Roseland Transmission Line Proposal And Right-of-Way Request. Environmental Impact Statement from October 2009, one of the "Action" (as opposed to "No Action", or denial) alternatives to be considered was an "Alternative that outlines the proposal with a framework for mitigation based on a conservation plan being developed in conjunction with The Nature Conservancy."

Despite PSE&G & PPL's attempts to be coy, it's obvious that their purported "respected land conservation organization" is the infamous corporate greenwasher, The Nature Conservancy.

Who is The Nature Conservancy, other than one of America's most prolific junk mailers?  (Thanks for all those free address labels your contributors pay for -- I like to write nasty comments about The Nature Conservancy next to their logo before use.)

The Nature Conservancy describes themselves as "sleeping with the enemy" (well, someone is certainly getting screwed here, and it's not The Nature Conservancy), or as practicing "Development by Design".  Others opine that, "Perhaps TNC should turn itself into a for-profit, environmental mitigation company. Then again, perhaps it already has." 

The Nature Conservancy receives mediocre ratings from charity watchdog groups, with 14% of annual income spent on "administrative costs".  Let's see, 14% of $40M is $5.6M of additional costs you will pay in your electric bill to fund The Nature Conservancy's fat cats like CEO Mark Tercek, who pulled in $493,993 in compensation in 2009.  You'll also be supporting the other 22 officers, directors, trustees and key employees who make up their highest compensated employees.  On this list are 3 individuals making between $400 - 500K, 6 making between $300 - 400K, 12 making between $200 - 300K and 2 bringing home between $100 - 200K. See The Nature Conservancy's 2009 IRS Form 990 here.

But that's chump change in comparison to the real swindle going on here.  What The Nature Conservancy does is buy up private land "for conservation" at a reasonable price, then resell it at a much higher price to the federal, state or local government for use as a park, nature preserve, recreation area, etc.  That's where they make their real money.  So, if we look at the Susquehanna-Roseland bribe through this lens, it is also the taxpaying citizens of the United States who get screwed in this deal because The Nature Conservancy is playing the part of the well-heeled front man, or real estate broker, for the power companies and the National Park Service, who will eventually buy this land from The Nature Conservancy to complete the "mitigation."  How much will the federal government eventually spend as the ultimate purchaser of the $40M of "mitigation" land from The Nature Conservancy, in order to complete the deal to expand the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area?  Or will this land, paid for in your electric bill, be "donated" to the NPS by The Nature Conservancy?  That part isn't clear, but my guess is that The Nature Conservancy doesn't do anything for free.  But, of course, PSE&G and PPL are still keeping the details of this "deal" under wraps.  If it was such a great deal for the public, they'd be so proud of it that they'd be anxious to show it off, don't you think?

As a comparison, a truly "nationally respected" conservation organization would be The Sierra Club, but then again, The Sierra Club would never accept corporate blood money.  Although some have told me my opinion is "wrong," I have yet to be persuaded to change it.  However, in an effort to provide for the free flow of different opinions, here's a link to a Time magazine blog post about the recent brouhaha regarding Sierra Club's past acceptance of millions from Chesapeake.  Further, I'm really not a fan of how this is being spun to portray the WV Coal Association as a poor, downtrodden victim. If this outs me as "not a true environmentalist," so be it.  As well, I am opposed to fracking, but this isn't a fracking blog, so let's get back on topic.  If you want to continue this off-topic conversation, you're free to email me.

The National Park Service employees are being turned into stooges and their EIS process is being utilized as cover for a big money swindle of electric consumers taking place between the politically appointed Director of the Interior, Ken Salazar, and Susquehanna-Roseland project sponsors PSE&G and PPL, with the assistance of corporate greenwasher, The Nature Conservancy.  The Nature Conservancy's part in this charade involves "administration" of PSE&G and PPL's "mitigation" purchase of inferior quality parcels of land on the fringes of the current parks as a consolation prize to the citizens of the United States, who will lose the most scenic vistas of their park to an unnecessary electric transmission line.  For 61 million of these citizens in the PJM Region, insult will be added to injury by having the cost of the $40M bribe (plus 12.93% interest) added to their electric bill for the next 50 years.  This is outrageous!

Almost 10 years ago, The Washington Post did an expose of the corruption going on at The Nature Conservancy, which triggered a Senate investigation and caused them to pretend to clean up their act for a short time.

Range magazine also did a piece about The Nature Conservancy, with the opinion, "Unless we as a people are willing to accept the continued loss of not only private property and individual rights, but of large portions of our national culture and customs as well, the Nature Conservancy must be brought to heel. Right now, it is a well-fed and generally admired beast leading us in a wild run that is as destructive in its seemingly friendly character as it is in its seldom-seen attacks. This is no errant clumsy puppy we can finally calm. It is a runaway predator that will turn on us in defense of its territory. The Nature Conservancy is the wolf we raised ourselves, the grizzly we fed from the table. The monster we made with indifference. If it is left to go on growing, it will be the master and we the obedient slaves."  And again, I'm told I'm "wrong" for including this link.  I do realize there is an agenda at work in this article, however, it does a nice job of unmasking The Nature Conservancy's scam and their continued attack on private property rights.  I am a fierce defender of private property rights, but if you believe in the taking of private property to serve some other party's idea of a higher purpose, you're certainly entitled to that opinion.  Just don't try taking my property on that basis, because you'll have a fight on your hands.

The excellent Range piece talks about The Nature Conservancy's board and trustees, comprised of corporate bigwigs, like Anne E. Hoskins, PSE&G's federal and state governmental affairs director (i.e., political schmoozer).

The Nature Conservancy is like a toilet:  Every now and then it needs to be thoroughly scrubbed and flushed.

Grab your brush!

Despite their recent public posturing, Susquehanna-Roseland project owner PPL has absolutely no respect for the National Park Service or the federal Environmental Impact Statement process.  A December 2011 school project prepared by a Lehigh University student who spent some time at PPL with program director Patrick McMackin contains this quote:  "The park service has responded by filibustering the request by apportioning a 42-month period where they will accept and analyze public comments. Afterwards, public sentiment will factor into the creation of a preferred alternate route and a finalized EIS."

Filibustering?  Is that what PPL calls the NEPA process?  Just an unnecessary obstruction to their get rich quick scheme?  It seems to me that many hardworking, dedicated, ethical NPS personnel have put many, many hours into doing their jobs conscientiously.  Filibustering?

I'm sure PPL will be quick to point fingers at the student and accuse him of taking liberties or making this stuff up, but the truest way to see your own self is always through the eyes of an innocent.  This report is the impression PPL project managers left on this kid.  I guess they mixed a little too much reality into the koolaid they gave him to drink.

Here's a couple of other gems from the report:

1. "The subject was covered in the North American Electric Reliability report, which concluded a major investment in electric transmission would be essential to “keep pace” with the expected 18% growth in demand."  How old were the statistics they fed this kid anyhow?
2. "Because the situation will become increasingly
   volatile the longer the delays hold, PPL has stressed the perfection of its Preparedness, Prevention and Contingency (PPC) plan.  Although PPL is responsible for all aspects of permitting, the company cannot ensure total compliance once the instructions reach the contractor.  However, the existence of a well-defined plan covers any responsibility PPL shares in case of litigation."  What does that mean?  The company cannot ensure total compliance?  It means that any violations will be blamed on the contractor and responsible individuals at the contractor level will be "reprimanded," but PPL avoids legal responsibility.  This is exactly how these power companies operate.  We've seen this same behavior with their land agent contractors, who violate all laws and codes of conduct in the interest of getting the job done and the purchase and option agreements signed.  When a violation is reported, the power company pretends to slap the contractor on the wrist, *wink* and avoids all responsibility for the bad behavior, although this same bad behavior has been ordered by the power company.  They put a legal separation between themselves and the contractor in order to avoid responsibility for their own orders to take certain actions.  For its part in this charade, the contractor is paid well.  Is this the kind of for-profit corporation the NPS should allow to perform construction in one of our national parks? 
   
3. "Having a well-organized permitting portfolio that is readily accessible lubricates the project and keeps compliance agencies at bay."  So, it's all about showing those rabid compliance agencies that you have all the instructions (not that you necessarily follow them).  It's not about following the rules, but about not getting caught and held responsible for breaking them.
4. "The biggest concern the SRTP faces (outside of obtaining the overhead construction contract) is people. NIMBY protesters, environmentalists and politicians alike have rallied against the project.  Some have accused PPL and PSEG of being motivated to expand infrastructure and increase transfer capacity in order to increase their market values.  Organizations such as the Sierra Club and Stop the Lines! warn of the health hazards associated with high EMF levels and remind the public of the grotesque size of the towers. The electric commission determines the minimum cable height based on voltage and possible interference. In some instances, the existing line is over 90 years old and does not meet present codes. The public is often unaware of these mandates, and naturally condemns any attempt to increase the tower height. Ironically, all of the pictures comparing
   the size of the proposed monopoles to existing lattice structures do not come from cited sources, and are generally homemade.  The common theme throughout these opinions and complaints is their failure to acknowledge the work PPL has put in to see that the chosen route has a minimal impact on the environment and the community. Route B was chosen because 90% of the route was covered by existing easements. The snowstorm of October 2011 devastated the northeast, leading to 1.6 million power outages.  It took some utility companies over a week to return power to customers. If these blackouts were to become commonplace due to electrical overloading, I would expect the opinions of many of these protesters to reverse."  Those "homemade pictures comparing the size of the proposed towers to the existing" is illustrated by a piece of Sierra Club literature that looks like it was taken from a project Line Routing Evaluation.  Sierra Club didn't make this stuff up!  Kid, spit out that koolaid they gave you to drink, it's poison!
5. "The industry knew this project was coming for fifteen years. Now one organization (NPS) holds the SRTP back from success. If PPL’s project  management team succeeds in obtaining a
   construction and ROW permit, construction will begin in August 2012. Too much time and money has been consumed to acknowledge any other option."  Fifteen years?  Gee... we've only been able to trace it back to the 2005 Project Mountaineer scam.  The NPS is not "an organization," it's a federal governmental agency tasked with stewarding publicly owned resources and protecting parks from profiteering pirates like PPL.  They aren't "holding PPL back from success," they are doing their jobs under federal law!  And don't bet on that "too big to fail" thing, that's so last decade.

These are the things that PPL told a college student who spent some time with them.  The student didn't make all this stuff up, or "misunderstand" what he was told.  This is the TRUE face of PPL.  Pretty revolting, don't you think?

And... PPL had better NOT take this out on the student or it's going to get worse for them.  Students are like sponges, and this report is what this particular student absorbed at PPL.  The truth hurts!