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

Praying for Profits

4/29/2018

1 Comment

 
"Living on a prayer" is how AEP CEO Nick Akins describes his company's Wind Catcher project.  I will allow you a moment to wallow in 1986 now, when your pimply garage band may have created meaning for the rest of your teenage life.
So, this has been a normal quarter financially, but an outstanding quarter overall from an execution standpoint that sets the tone for 2018 and beyond with several rate case outcomes and settlements regarding Wind Catcher behind us, as Rush's classic rock song, Red Barchetta, which – Red Barchetta is a car, it's a two-seater Italian car – would say it's time to strip away the old debris, fire up the shiny Red Barchetta and respond with a roar. That's what I see in the excitement, the energy of our teams of employees at this company working on projects such as Wind Catcher and other technology advancements that will change the face of AEP's interaction with our customers.
To paraphrase one of the latest Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees, Bon Jovi, and I know this phrase will stick with you the rest of the day, we're halfway there, living on a prayer, take our hand and we'll make it, we swear. So, enjoy the ride with American Electric Power. Brian?
Oh, yes, please, Brian, save us from this glory days gibberish, won't you?

Corporate earnings calls are always amusing, but more so for regulated investor owned utilities, where the big executives sing and dance for analysts that they probably wouldn't waste their spit on if they saw them on fire and lying alongside a deserted road in a different scenario.  The executives pretend they're profitable, and the analysts pretend they believe them.  And the ordinary utility ratepayer sees a whole different side of their utility, who ordinarily likes to pretend it's working hard to provide value for customers in a tough regulated context; meanwhile behind customer and regulator backs the utility is bragging to analysts about how profitable it is and how regulators sit up and beg on utility leashes.  The result is pure hilarity.

How about a little reality here, AEP?  The vast majority of questions lobbed by analysts on last week's call were related to Wind Catcher.  I'm sort of left with the thought that the analysts don't expect the project to actually happen.  But no matter the question, Akins had a glorious and positive spin for it.  But what was he really saying?
Greg Gordon - Evercore ISI
Good morning, guys. Several questions for you. I'll try to make them brief. First is congrats on the Wind Catcher settlement in Oklahoma. You have a couple parties on board, but you have many more that have not officially signed on. But can you give us some color around the negotiations there? And what, on the margin, you have conceded to give up in this settlement to give customer protections versus the prior deal? And what it might take to get more parties on board?
Nicholas K. Akins - American Electric Power Co., Inc.
Yeah, Greg. Obviously, a great question. We continue to try to get other parties on board. But as we said from the beginning, it was extremely important to get the industrials on board in Oklahoma. And I think by getting them on board, it certainly sets the predicate for the opportunity for the commissioners themselves to look at this and say, okay, we've got both the industrial customers and Walmart, and the customers have spoken.
Now, there are other parties, as you mentioned. And certainly, we're trying to get the Oklahoma staff engaged in this process and, certainly, the Attorney General – probably not likely to get the Attorney General on board. But others will continue to be open to that, including the Attorney General.
But at this point, though, I think it's framed up pretty well, because a lot of work's been done in the background. Our people have been working tirelessly with all these parties around the various jurisdictions to try to drive some consistency around what the risks were being taken. And a lot of it centered on the 10-year look-backs, the performance guarantees, certainly the force majeure-related provisions as well.
And it really – as we looked at it, and as I mentioned early on in our discussion, you have to – if you're going to do regulated renewables, then certainly we'll have to meet the market on what risks are being taken relative to regulated renewable investments. And we looked at it, looked at it in a lot of detail. We have a lot of, like – as I mentioned earlier, engineering and construction. We looked that in detail, the operational characteristics of particularly the generation tie (22:16), and we've come a long way in terms of the evaluation of those risks.
We were willing to take it, and the industrials were ultimately supportive. So, I think it just sets the tone for continued discussions. But as far as I'm concerned, we've put it in a very good place, and you'll note that those provisions are pretty consistent with the settlements that have been done previously by SPS over in New Mexico and Texas. And we're having discussions with the Texas parties now. So, you're starting to see, in my opinion, a coalition around what risk parameters, what the framework of a deal looks like, and I see that momentum gaining.
The analyst wants to know how AEP plans to get other parties in Oklahoma on board with its quasi-settlement with only two of the numerous parties to the case.  What is AEP giving up to get the other parties to settle, and what are the chances of it actually happening?

Akins thinks having industrial customers on board "sets the predicate for the opportunity..."  In other words, only big corporate customers matter to the commission?  This is hogwash.  Industrial customer coalitions negotiate for their own self-interest, not yours.  Sometimes, industrials negotiate for rate perks that end up being paid by the other customers.  Because they buy so much electricity, they're always looking for sweetheart deals that cut a price break for their companies.  The utility oftentimes makes up the difference with rate increases for the other customers.  Big corporate customers also have big corporate lobbyists who may apply political pressure to get big questionable deals approved by state authorities.  Who's lobbying for all the residential and small business electric customers?  Maybe the Attorney General, who is "probably not likely" to agree.  Or perhaps the staff of the OCC, who maybe could be propped up to look like they represent the other customers.  And what about all this "work" that's been done "in the background?"  Does he mean "work" being done behind closed doors between lobbyists and government officials?  Sure sounds a bit suspicious doesn't it?  Don't bother looking for an answer about risk... it really is the mumbo jumbo nonsense it appears to be.

Bottom line:  We're still working on a settlement in Oklahoma, but we haven't been too successful so far.
Analysts's response:  "Well. Good luck with that."
Then he asks another question about AEP's flagging profits in Oklahoma.  Akins answer is quite revealing about the purpose of Wind Catcher.  If Wind Catcher gets approved, it will correct the Oklahoma rate problem and the profits will be secure for many years.  And who is going to pay for those increased profits?  Electric customers... and taxpayers nationwide who pay for those wind production tax credits AEP is using to supposedly lower electric rates.


Let's try another:
Steve Fleishman - Wolfe Research LLC
So, speaking of living on a prayer, I have a few Wind Catcher question. Sorry. I couldn't help. You asked for that one.
Yeah. Thank you for the Rush references, those are great. So just if I recall back last fall, you had talked about wanting decisions by April to make sure that you would have it online to get the full PTCs.
Is May-June going to be okay to be able to capture full PTCs? Like, what is the real deadline?
Nicholas K. Akins - American Electric Power Co., Inc.
Yeah, we'll be fine. Really, we have to get to a point of getting these orders in place, and then we'll cover it with our board, obviously, in our July meeting. And then once they approve it, we're off and running. So if we get it in that June timeframe, we get the orders in the May to June timeframe, we'll be in good shape.
Last time, Akins claimed he needed approvals in all states by April.  Now, because that hasn't happened, he says May or June would be fine.  If May or June is fine, why wasn't that the original deadline?  If May or June doesn't happen, will a new deadline appear?  Is there even a deadline at all?

And then the analyst again attempts to get a straight answer about risk.  The risk is that AEP will dump too much money into trying to get this project done and be left with nothing but bills if it doesn't get approval, or perhaps AEP will give too much away in settlement and then the project won't be profitable.  Where's the tipping point when AEP will put this project on a shelf?  According to Akin's mumbo jumbo, there is no tipping point.  The rewards will outweigh the risk, because AEP can "adjust."  Oh, I see.  "Adjustment" causes money to fall from the sky... or at least from ratepayer pockets.

Next....
Julien Dumoulin-Smith - Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Got it. Excellent. And then turning back to Wind Catcher real quickly, obviously, you're working every state front. To the extent to which, let's say, Texas and those negotiations aren't necessarily as fruitful here on the prescribed timeline that you just talked about, how confident are you about signing up alternatives like munis and co-ops just to be able to continue working on the project, notwithstanding clarity in Texas, shall we say?
Nicholas K. Akins - American Electric Power Co., Inc.
Julien, I really think we are going to get a result in Texas. And I think it'd be problematic during the pendency of something that's working to go sell somewhere else. So, we're feeling pretty good about the direction this all is taking and the timing of it.
The analyst poses the question of what could happen if AEP can't come up with a settlement in Texas.  Instead of going for approval from the Public Utility Commission to involuntarily charge the cost of Wind Catcher to ratepayers, might AEP instead try to sell Wind Catcher's generation and transmission voluntarily to Texas cities and electric co-ops?  This would use a merchant model in one of the states, something AEP has not considered.  In fact, if AEP were doing this project on a merchant basis, state approvals would be a whole lot easier.  What wouldn't be easier would be coercing electric distributors to shoulder the risk that this project would be cost effective.  That's been a non-starter with other transmission/generation projects and it is unlikely that AEP could sell its project to voluntary customers.  So, of course Akins doesn't want to even talk about that.  He's so sure he'll get approval in Texas he doesn't want to muck up his chances by taking the merchant route.  The reality is that a merchant route in Texas would probably knock the bottom out of rate settlements in the other jurisdictions as well.  Why should ratepayers take a risk when it can be left on AEP's doorstep?  If it can't pawn the risk off onto ratepayers, AEP doesn't want to play this game anymore.
Paul T. Ridzon - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.
Two questions. Is there a statutory deadline in any of the Wind Catcher states, when this has to be done by?
Nicholas K. Akins - American Electric Power Co., Inc.
I don't think there's a statutory deadline, but certainly there's a business deadline. I mean, we've been very transparent about the timing necessary and the procedural schedules have been set up consistent with getting a decision on time. So, I think it's really more driven by, I guess, one of the previous questions sort of brought out, when is our drop-dead date and that kind of thing. But I can just tell you that May and June fits.
The analyst is probing to see if there is a drop dead date on this project, and when AEP is going to cut its losses and give up.  Now it's May and June.  Still no answer to the real question.
Paul T. Ridzon - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.
And then some of the concessions you've made are around cost caps. Who's wearing that risk? Is it you or the contractors?
Nicholas K. Akins - American Electric Power Co., Inc.
Yeah. It's both. We have fixed-price contracts with the appropriate contingencies. And I think that that risk is being shared. And actually, this tells you a little bit about the commitment of the suppliers that we're working with. I mean, these are established suppliers that do a lot of business that we do a lot of business with. And I can guarantee a lot of homework's been done on what these operational provisions will look like, what the construction side will look like, what the supply will look like, what risks are being borne. And also even if route changes were to occur on the generation tie (38:02) that those have been discussed and (38:05) as well. So, we feel very good about where our suppliers sit at this point.
This analyst wants to know who is covering the cost caps on the project if it goes over budget.  Is it the contractors?  Or is it AEP, in which case cost overruns will cut into profits?  The perfect mumbo jumbo answer is that it's both... and neither... and let's not even talk about cost overruns because those will never happen.  Right.

And then other questions started to get a little hard for ol' Nick.  But instead of answering them, he throws a delicious plum into the center of the room and reminds analysts that AEP will be looking for investors for its Wind Catcher project to the tune of $4.5B, and there's a lot of profit potential for good investors who stop asking so many hard questions. 
Nicholas K. Akins - American Electric Power Co., Inc.
Yeah. So, we are in the middle of what I would call an M&A transaction without a premium. It's called the Wind Catcher. And so when we look at the strength of the balance sheet, certainly we'll be looking at the financing needs for Wind Catcher and that's a $4.5 billion transaction. So, that's where our thoughts are at this point.
Nice touch.  But the questions come back...
Ali Agha - SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc.
Thank you. Good morning. Nick, to clarify, as you're looking at the four states for approval in Wind Catcher, is it fair to say just given where we are that Oklahoma probably is the most challenged of the four? And related to that, could you theoretically complete the project if the other three states say yes and Oklahoma was to say no?
Nicholas K. Akins - American Electric Power Co., Inc.
Yes. So, on the first point, I would agree with you. Oklahoma has been the most challenging. And really, with the ALJ order there, it made even more of a challenge for the commissioners to really take a look at it from a positive standpoint. But I really believe they will at the end of the day and – because they obviously look at much broader issues. And so, with that said, I think as far as Wind Catcher is concerned, we intend on this project being for those four states and certainly the FERC customers. There's some FERC customers too that are involved. And if one were to fall out, we're really – as I said, I mean, I think we're at a good place in terms of the transition of getting this thing across the finish line. And at this point, we really aren't entertaining the notion of going forward with the project without one of the jurisdictions. I really don't see that happening.
The analyst wants to know if Oklahoma is really going to be the problem it appears, and how is AEP going to fix that?  What's the plan if Oklahoma says no?  Is there a Plan B?

There is no Plan B.  If one of the states rejects AEP's plan, they're done.  Of course, AEP once said it needed to get this project approved by April.  Deadlines and decisions have a way of shifting because at some point they'll be too far down the pipe and must come up with a plan to recover their losses.

He sure seems confident that he can finagle this thing to get his way at four different regulatory commissions though, doesn't he?  It's almost like he has some other way to get approval that we're all not seeing.  Is it over confidence?  Or does Nick know something we don't?
Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC
Just sort of quickly follow up here on Wind Catcher. Why is it that the – what are the key issues, I guess, sort of maybe stopping the OCC staff and others from coming on board?
Nicholas K. Akins - American Electric Power Co., Inc.
Your guess is as good as mine. I think, obviously, the ALJ looked at it from a procedural basis it seemed like to me. But we're pretty convinced we did file under the right provisions under Oklahoma law. But obviously, we'll continue with discussions with certainly the Oklahoma staff. And I think – I really do believe we put provisions in place with the industrials that should benefit that discussion with them. Obviously, to have that kind of company of the customers certainly would help from a policy side and from a staff side to really take a hard look at this. So, the verdict's still out on that and we'll continue those discussions.
Oh yes, those folks in Oklahoma are just silly for not agreeing.  He seems to think that he can use the Oklahoma industrial customers as a stand-in for retail customers who disagree in order to get the OCC staff to acquiesce.  Because, remember, only big corporate customers matter in Oklahoma.  Nobody is fighting for the little guy... supposedly.

And what about the Oklahoma legislature's march toward ending state renewable energy credits?
Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC
Okay. And then, in Oklahoma, there's this tax issue on Wind. I guess we expect it's intertwined with school funding and there was something that passed the House yesterday. And I was just wondering how would that work with respect to the settlement or with respect to the project, or does it have any impact. Can you give us sort of a sense about that?
Nicholas K. Akins - American Electric Power Co., Inc.
Well, it won't have any impact on the project. And it got poured out of the legislature yesterday. So, we don't see that happening.
Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC
I mean, I thought it passed the House is what I just saw.
Nicholas K. Akins - American Electric Power Co., Inc.
No.
Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC
The provision for the tax credit, I thought it was removed. But we can talk about it later. But what you're saying is you don't see any activity on that whatsoever, is what you're...?
Nicholas K. Akins - American Electric Power Co., Inc.
No.
Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC
Okay. So if something like that did happen, though, since it's been sort of debated and what have you, and the school funding issue, in terms of the settlement, how would that – would that be something that you guys would absorb or would that be something that – how would that be treated if there was subsequently some sort of impact on wind generation in Oklahoma as a result of something that the state legislature may or may not do in the future?
Nicholas K. Akins - American Electric Power Co., Inc.
Yes. So, there is that risk, but not likely. And the state tax credit wasn't assumed in the Wind Catcher economics, to begin with. So if something were to occur, it wouldn't have any effect.
Can Akins be any more clueless?  Deny.  Deny.  Deny.  Oh, wait... that?  Tut, tut, tut, it doesn't affect us.  Is that just like AEP's fungible drop dead date?  AEP seriously would not take a state tax credit it was eligible for, and didn't use that in its desperate cost figures?  Sure, I believe you.

Let's sum this up:  Despite its earlier admission that it must have Wind Catcher approved in four states by April, AEP has now moved its deadline ahead by two months because it's having trouble getting it approved.  If approval isn't achieved by June, there is no Plan B, just perhaps new deadlines.  And maybe some swearing.  And praying.  Lots and lots of praying.
1 Comment

Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes - #2 Marketing to Mayberry

4/24/2018

2 Comments

 
Oh yes, they did!

That was the most disgusting display of condescending arrogance ever demonstrated by a transmission developer, or even a wanna be like Clean Line.

Electric Utility Consultants Inc. (EUCI) is a company that makes its money organizing and running "continuing education" seminars for utility employees.  Their seminars don't come cheap, often running more than $1500, plus travel, meals and expenses in some warm, touristy spot (especially in the winter).  I'm not sure they even pay their presenters, I think the presenters volunteer because it's a free trip to some place nice and it spit shines the ol' ego to get to be the utility clown at the front of the room telling your peers how great thou art.  It's just one big utility party where the participants endlessly congratulate each other for being jerks.

EUCI has long been a source of personal amusement.  No better place to find goofy bits of utility arrogance.  What DO the utility guys say about you when they're not pretending you matter during local open house dog & pony shows?  It's not very flattering, or even very truthful.  But this... this conference hosted by Clean Line Energy Partners has to be the epitome of utility vainglory.  So, I shared it with my friends in Mayberry.  They were not impressed.

In fact, they got really, really angry.

Nobody likes being talked about behind their back.  And when people are belittled and characterized as, well for lack of a better word, stupid, it's game over.

So, here was Clean Line, pretending it had devised a "market leading compensation package" that landowners loved.  It was pure fiction, of course, but EUCI glorified it and made Clean Line a member of its transmission developer stable.  Finally, Clean Line was allowed into the big boy's club!  And then things got a little carried away.  As a "host" for the conference, Clean Line was seen as responsible for its content.  What caused the cutsie-poo but insulting topic names?  Why was this conference so much more offensive to landowners than previous ones?  I guess nobody ever considered that the subjects of ridicule would ever see the conference brochure; or did they actually believe landowners would think the topics were as cute and funny as the conference organizers did?  What a colossal mistake!

Marketing to Mayberry: Communicating with Rural America

Communications and marketing outreach in small town America requires entirely different tactics than those used with larger more metropolitan communities. Join this conversation to learn some of the pitfalls to avoid and the strategies to deploy when reaching out to small communities. Attendees will learn to prepare for the challenges of engaging a rural setting, communicate in a conversational tone rather than corporate tone, identify and engage credible spokespersons in rural communities and understand which communications and marketing tactics to utilize.

Essentially, you're implying that rural America is just like a popular TV show and that the characters who populate it are silly, uneducated sheep who are easily manipulated by certain "tactics."  Whoever dreamed up this ridiculous description needs to do some severe binge watching because they completely missed the underlying theme of the show.  Rural America is far from stupid, and the show was a work of fiction based on an earlier era.
Regarding the tone of the show, Griffith said that despite a contemporary setting, the show evoked nostalgia, saying in a Today Show interview: "Well, though we never said it, and though it was shot in the '60s, it had a feeling of the '30s. It was, when we were doing it, of a time gone by."
It's no longer the 1930s -- or even the 1960s -- so why would a transmission developer base its "tactics" on its idea of rural America gleaned from an ancient sitcom?  Yes, Clean Line and its big boy peers are really that out of touch.  No wonder they failed miserably.  And then there was...

Going BANANAs with NIMBYs – Best Practices in Dealing with Community Based Opposition Groups

Increasingly, organizing public participation opportunities means having to handle disruptive influences from community-based opposition groups - BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere near Anything/Anyone) and NIMBys (Not In My Back Yard). This presentation will discuss experiences at Southern California Edison and how the company has adapted to this new business environment. Southern California Edison is currently experiencing one of the largest infrastructure capital investment programs in company history. Driving this are multiple factors, including California’s ambitious renewable energy goals and the need to replace aging infrastructure that was constructed during the post-World War II boom. As a result, the opportunity for community based opposition groups to develop has increased significantly. Recent advances in technology have made it easier for community-based opposition groups to organize and, more importantly, to strategize. With the opportunity cost of starting and participating in such groups constantly decreasing, it is important for public participation practitioners to have a healthy understanding of how such groups are motivated and how to manage them effectively.

The discussion will provide the audience with best practices on dealing with community- based opposition groups as well as tips on how to prepare internal, technical subject matter experts to effectively handle emotionally charged situations. These best practices are based upon the experiences of Southern California Edison’s local public affairs department.

Here transmission opponents are grouped, given derogatory names and false motivations.  It is insinuated these groups are "managed" by transmission developers.  News Flash!  It is the groups who "manage" transmission developers!  We know all your "secrets" and because you do the same thing every time, we know how to effectively manage YOU.  It's no longer us reacting to your "tactics," it's you reacting to our tactics and struggling to keep up.  And then you lose.

In the wake of public anger following the exposure of Clean Line's little conference, company nimrods tried to back away from the stinking mess.
Lawlor confirmed that these sessions did happen at the Electronic Utility Consultants, Inc. (EUCI) Eighth Annual Public Participation for Transmission Siting conference, held in Houston, Texas in January, but it was not organized by CLE. Lawlor said that his group did not participate in the classes after learning of the class titles. “The folks that came up with the titles were from other states,” he said. “Marketing to Mayberry was by somebody from Washington. We asked to participate and… as soon as we found out about those names we withdrew from the conference and withdrew from participation in the organization going forward.”
Oh, please.  Clean Line was the conference host.  You expect "Mayberry" to believe you had absolutely no idea about the conference content?  I don't believe you.  And furthermore, your claim that Clean Line had withdrawn from participating in EUCI conferences going forward was hogwash.  A recent crawl through upcoming EUCI conferences shows multiple presentations by Clean Line employees.   Here's just one example. 

As conference host, Clean Line got to be the keynote speaker.  And what did Clean Line intend to say to kick off the derogatory festivities?

Keynote Presentation: Lessons Learned - Clean Line Energy discusses challenges during Public outreach Process
Clean Line energy will discuss the public engagement challenges that are inherent when developing and building new large infrastructure projects. How do we overcome these challenges and work to ensure that our stakeholders feel they are informed and part of the process, each step of the way? He will discuss the lessons learned and some of the challenges faced in his career developing transmission projects across multiple states.
- Jimmy Glotfelty, Executive Vice President, Clean Line Energy
Something they had not managed to actually accomplish.  Clean Line never "overcame" the challenges it faced from public opposition groups.  In fact, those challenges effectively tanked all Clean Line's projects.  Perhaps this is because Jimmy's "career developing transmission projects across multiple states" never actually happened.  If that was a "career," Jimmy needs to find a new one because he never successfully developed any transmission project.

And then there was:

Case Studies: Understanding ins-and-outs of utilizing social media for Public engagement

In a time where social media is one of the most common forms of communication, it is important to understand when it is appropriate to utilize it to engage the public and stakeholders during the transmission siting process. It is crucial to understand when to use it as a main form of communication or as a supplementary form of communication - and who you can expect to reach, and how. This presentation will use and demonstrate how social media is currently being used as an integral portion of a public outreach and communications plan.
- Louisa Kinoshi, Associate, Clean Line Energy


Social media -- another "tactic" Clean Line never seemed to be able to manage.  I know I've been long blocked from posting on Clean Line Energy's facebook page for speaking truth to power, but what is up with your facebook page, Clean Line?  It seems it no longer exists.  I guess that makes it officially a "supplementary form of communication" and you no longer have a "public outreach communications plan."  You're really not fooling anyone any longer, Clean Line.  You're history!

Gladly stepping up to "host" the Marketing to Mayberry conference (either with or without knowledge of the content of said conference) was a huge blunder on Clean Line's part.  Marketing to Mayberry created a lot of enemies for Clean Line, often people who had tried to give the company the benefit of the doubt, or sit on the fence.  Marketing to Mayberry removed all doubt about the morals and character of a company proposing to condemn land for their own financial gain... and then laugh at and mock the victims of their scheme.

Now Clean Line is "marketing to" no one.  No one at all.
2 Comments

Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes - #3 People Love Transmission for Renewables

4/17/2018

2 Comments

 
Starting a company based on a public opinion survey of 1,239 adults -- who does that?

At the American Wind Energy Association's big convention in the spring of 2009, a couple of guys from a "consulting" firm made a presentation of the results of a survey it conducted of a "demographically representative sample of 1,239 American adults (18+) based on U.S. Census data for age, ethnicity, gender, region and income."  The survey determined, "A majority of Americans oppose new high-voltage transmission lines in their community, but that opposition drops precipitously to 17% if those lines are delivering clean, renewable energy from wind. Support for new transmission lines leaps from just 46% to 83% when respondents are asked specifically about high-voltage transmission lines delivering wind power."  It must have been one hell of a presentation.

Now I can't say for certain whether Michael Skelly personally flew into WindPower 2009 (or maybe he took a train, I'm sure he doesn't remember), or whether he attended this amazing presentation.  But it is certain that later that same year Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC, registered its business in several states.  Clean Line's business was to "develop" transmission lines delivering wind power across private property in multiple states.  Did Michael Skelly actually develop a business plan based on a public opinion survey of 1,239 people?  Maybe some day a reporter will ask him that question.

More than $200M has been wagered on this public opinion survey of 1,239 people.  Maybe Clean Line told its investors...

...the new results are a clear sign that Americans support cleaner, renewable power and that it has carried over to the distribution of that power through their own backyard.

High-voltage transmission lines generate some of the most adamant NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) opposition in the country. That such a large percentage of people are willing to allow green lines in their community says a lot about the awareness and importance of renewable energy and climate change issues in addition to the education efforts undertaken by the renewable energy industry.
It sure looks like Clean Line believed it.  They actually thought impacted landowners would love them and jump at their "market-leading compensation package."  How many bottles of expensive scotch did it take for some out-of-work wind farm executives to meld the royalties paid to wind farm hosts with the market value compensation paid for right-of-way taken through eminent domain, and call their bastard child a "market-leading compensation package."  What market?  There's no "market" for transmission rights-of-way.  Rights-of-way are taken when not offered willingly.  That's not a "market."  Leave it to Clean Line to "lead" a "market" that doesn't exist.

Was that survey really supposed to be taken literally to mean that landowners would jump at a chance to have a renewable energy transmission line in their own backyard?  I'm thinking not.  A less myopic view of the survey/presentation says the point being made here was not that landowners would support renewable transmission lines, but highlighted the "awareness and importance of renewable energy and climate change issues in addition to the education efforts undertaken by the renewable energy industry."  This was more about the wind energy industry congratulating itself on the greenwashing of America, and making renewable energy the darling of political dreams.  It wasn't really about renewable energy at all, but the mere idea of it used to score political brownie points.  People love the idea of renewable energy!

Well, until it shows up in their own backyard.  And then they hate it.  And they really hate it when eminent domain becomes a tool to advance renewable energy.

Just a week after the press party on the release of its amazing survey, even the presenters backtracked to say that their survey wasn't to be taken literally.

Polling indicates the public’s feelings about a number of various topics on any given day. But it can also be misleading if viewed out of context — especially when it comes to land use issues.

How is it, for example, that most Americans support wind energy in general, but emotive opponents can block transmission lines delivery wind energy or wind farms in some local communities?

So, the jury’s in, right? Everyone loves renewable energy projects. But wait.

But the emotional opposition appears to fly in the face of surveys and polls showing national support for clean energy generation and transmission. What’s going on? Do these polls and surveys lack credibility? No. In fact, they are spot-on in terms of reflecting how Americans feel about renewable generation and distribution projects and how they may positively impact our communities given the perceived global threats of climate change, greenhouse gases and negative impact to wildlife over time. Today, based on a solid campaign by climate change advocates, the renewable energy industry, the current Obama administration and constant media pounding, the threat to our economy and the environment posed by carbon-emitting generation sources is very real and frankly easy to grasp. The arguments have been made and, let’s face it, many Americans are buying in.

But it’s easy to support a wind energy project without a real wind turbine or transmission line literally staring you in the face. That’s where rational thinking ends and passionate “defense of the community” (or defense of the children for that matter) campaigns begin.

...shop for a home in a community of interest and share the rumor of a new 765 kV transmission line going across the property down the road, in front of the view of the mountain range. What’s the survey say then? Chances are you may not find majority support, even from residents who responded in the poll you fielded yesterday.

Perhaps at best, polling identifies the size of the silent majority you have on your side when they are under no local threat of changing their daily lives. Winning hearts and minds in a poll won’t necessarily win you a permit at town hall.

Renewable energy is great in our public opinion, just not when it gets in the way of our personal point of view.
Too bad Clean Line didn't seem to get that memo.

What a colossal mistake.  With more than 2,000 miles of new electric transmission "under development" Clean Line invaded the personal spaces of thousands of affected landowners.  And then they used the threat of eminent domain in an attempt to coerce landowners to agree to make a willing sacrifice in the name of "renewable energy" (and investor profit).  It ticked off "a bunch of farmers."  "A bunch of farmers" aka "some landowners" are the biggest reason Clean Line failed.  Without their fierce opposition, determination, and hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own personal funds, Clean Line could be fully permitted.  But it's not.

Lesson:  Never tick off a farmer.

Secondary Lesson:  Public opinion surveys are notoriously wrong.  Just ask Hillary Clinton...
2 Comments

Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes - #4 Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005

4/13/2018

3 Comments

 
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was created by the National Energy Policy Development Group, aka "Cheney's Secret Energy Task Force."  Without getting all political here, this government group met with industry bigwigs to create new energy policy that helped the industry make money.

This group's "report" recommended that Congress:
Grant authority to obtain rights-of­ way for electricity transmission lines with the goal of creating a reliable na­tional transmission grid. Similar au­thority already exists for natural gas pipelines and highways.
That didn't fly with Congress, who were protective of state rights to site and permit new electric transmission.  So the lobbyists came up with what they thought were several "work around" provisions on the Act that would allow the federal government to step in when states resisted new transmission. 

One was Section 1221 of the EPAct, which allowed FERC to site and permit transmission if a state withheld approval for more than one year.  It also authorized the Department of Energy to do transmission congestion studies and designate "National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors" to facilitate a federal role in permitting and siting new transmission.  Several federal court battles later, Section 1221 ended up completely useless to the industry.  But yet the federal government is still required to waste our tax money on triennial "congestion studies" that do absolutely nothing.

Another work around was Section 1222 of the EPAct.  This section allows two federal power marketers (WAPA & SWPA) to accept and use third-party, private money, to build new transmission.  It grants authority to the Secretary of Energy to decide whether the power marketers may "participate" in new transmission projects.  On its face, it appears that the purpose of this section was to allow the feds to use private money to build new transmission, instead of taxpayer funds (although those funds are paid back by the PMAs).  Most importantly, it allowed private investors to front up money and get their finger in the federal transmission pie in exchange for generous returns, which increases costs to consumers.  It was an unnecessary way for industry to increase their profits, which pretty much sums up the entire purpose for the Energy Policy Act.

The industry focused all its greedy energy on Section 1221 for many years, and Section 1222 sat around untested.  But with the ultimate legal failure of Section 1221, the DOE decided to begin testing Section 1222.  And wouldn't you know it, one of the federal DOE employees who had a hand in the Energy Policy Act had subsequently left the department and invested in a transmission scheme that could serve as the test case for Section 1222 authority.  That scheme was Clean Line Energy Partners, who wanted to build more than 2,000 miles of new transmission crossing some of the federal power marketing territory covered by Section 1222.

Early in its history, Clean Line was the first (and only) company to apply for Section 1222 authority under a conveniently issued DOE Request for Proposals.  Perhaps Clean Line expected "fly over" states that would receive no benefits from its proposed projects to reject them.  Or maybe Clean Line was just too eager to use Section 1222 authority.  We may never know what actually took place behind closed doors.  But we do know that Clean Line applied for Section 1222 well before its projects were rejected by any state public utility commission. 

The first rejection came from Arkansas in 2011, who said it did not have authority to approve the project because it did not intend to serve any customers in that state.  The obvious remedy for that was creation of an interconnection in Arkansas and re-application at the Arkansas PSC.  But that's not what Clean Line did.  Instead, it waved around its rejection and doubled down on acquiring Section 1222 authority from the DOE.  It's almost like Clean Line wanted that rejection to use as a tool in its Section 1222 application, because the company did quickly add an Arkansas connection to its Plains & Eastern project.  However, Clean Line never re-applied at the Arkansas PSC and instead concentrated its money and energy on a Section 1222 designation.  How much differently would Plains & Eastern have turned out if Clean Line had re-applied instead of setting its sights on the long and expensive Section 1222 process?

Section 1222 cost Clean Line millions.  Like double digit millions.  It also cost them multiple years, because the wheels in Washington turn with excruciating slowness.  But Clean Line was so intent on using the Section 1222 toy that they eschewed the quicker, cheaper, more obvious solution right in front of them.  I believe that was a huge mistake.

Section 1222 required a hugely expensive multi-year federal Environmental Impact Statement process, paid for by Clean Line.  And then the DOE needed to make up some other reviews before coming to its foregone conclusion that it would "participate" in the project for the express purpose of using the condemnation powers of the federal government to acquire new transmission rights-of-way for its project.  Federal eminent domain is not mentioned in Section 1222, and furthermore, DOE never did a proper rulemaking to regulate its use of Section 1222.  A rulemaking is necessary for a government agency to make use of a statute.  The law merely states what can happen, not specifically how the agency can get there.  An agency must review the law and then make sure that it designs a regulatory process that carries out the law while maintaining a fair process that protects other rights.  A rulemaking process is public, and all may participate to make sure the agency gets its rules right.  But DOE didn't waste its time with a rulemaking.  Instead, it made up its rules as it went through the process.  This provided no consideration for the due process rights of affected landowners, nor any fairness in the process.  Rules were made up to suit the conclusion DOE and Clean Line wanted.  What a horror show!

Surprise, surprise, the Secretary of Energy decided to participate in the Plains & Eastern project 6 years after the initial RFP was issued.  Clean Line got what it wanted, but it cost them dearly.  Not only was it a huge money suck for investor funds, but it came with conditions that must be satisfied before the DOE would take any action to condemn properties.  One of the conditions required Clean Line to have hard contracts with customers before proceeding.  Of course, that condition would have asserted itself even without the requirement of the DOE because as a merchant project, Clean Line must secure a revenue stream before it can finance the construction of its project.  No bank is going to loan money to a company to build something that produces no revenue with which to repay the loan.  But there was a timing issue here... DOE required a revenue stream before it took action to condemn land, to make sure the project was commercially viable before it paved a road to nowhere.  Why condemn land for a transmission project that won't be built?  Why spend the time and money before a project is viable? 

That ended up being Clean Line's albatross... build it and they will come doesn't work if you can't build it in the first place.  Need (and revenue) must come before a transmission project is built, and without need and revenue there's no point in dumping money into an idea that may or may not happen.  Clean Line never had a viable idea in the first place, but somehow the company managed to sucker a bunch of investors into pouring money into its harebrained scheme.

With its 1222 authorization in hand, Clean Line redoubled its efforts to find customers.  Proof that the project was "approved" and would be built failed to convince anyone that the project was viable.  At this point, Clean Line was trying to convince a bunch of experienced and knowledgeable utility companies to put the cart before the horse, instead of a bunch of rube investors who didn't understand electric transmission.  Utilities weren't buying Clean Line's rainbow farts about how wonderful service on a Clean Line would be.

And after two years of efforts that yielded no results, the DOE finally bowed out.  The Section 1222 experiment had failed.

And how lucky are the DOE and Clean Line that they ended this farce before the legal process examining this partnership from hell had barely even begun?  Thinking that the first court decision on the legality of Section 1222 prevented future challenge is a fool's paradise.  Any faith in the decision of the U.S. District Court in Arkansas should be dashed once the decision is read.  It's crap!  I've read a whole bunch of court opinions over the years and this one had to be the worst.  None of the conclusions were supported by evidence or law -- it's just like the judge made his decisions unconnected to any reality.  Chances of that decision standing upon further judicial review?  Slim to none.

Clean Line reached a fork in the road early in its saga -- to take the long and winding Section 1222 path that must surely have a pot of gold and cover multiple states; or to take the obvious and well worn path to the Arkansas PSC which dead ends there.
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
It sure has.  Nice work, knuckleheads!
3 Comments

Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes - #5 Open Houses

4/9/2018

2 Comments

 
Where were we when we were so rudely interrupted by Clean Line's failure?  Back to the countdown with Clean Line Mistake #5 - Open Houses.

Transmission line siting "Open Houses" are a mistake for any transmission line company, so Clean Line isn't alone here.  Their mistake was trying to mimic real transmission line companies in their public presentation, and then dialing up the hubris and deception to maximum levels. 

Is there a "good" way to present a transmission line proposal to the public?  Not if you're approaching the communities with a fully-formed idea of what you're going to build and where you're going to put it.  The only good way to involve a community in a transmission proposal is to approach them with a need before making decisions about what to build and where.  Presenting a community with a problem to be solved and allowing meaningful input into the solution selected is the only way a transmission company can get community buy-in and support for the proposal.  Everything else is nothing more than a battle to push a bad idea the community doesn't want off onto someone else.  And frankly, transmission folks, pitting neighbor against neighbor in a siting battle is becoming increasingly hard to pull off.  You see, people realize that fighting each other only distracts from fighting the real enemy... YOU!  Communities are increasingly coming together to fight transmission proposals altogether and refusing to participate in your siting game.  So, whether it's the fiction of "Open Houses" or the even more contentious "town hall" style meetings, where every member of the audience hears every comment and response of the company sitting in the hot seat, a fully formed transmission proposal will inspire entrenched and stubborn opposition.

"Open Houses" are supposed to diffuse the charged, torches-n-pitchforks atmosphere that comes with a handful of company representatives vs. a room full of Mayberrians by separating the crowd to present a more "one on one" presentation that humanizes the presenters.  Its as if the transmission company believes that by separating attendees into small groups and shuttling them around to different stations that the community can never form the mass that derails transmission proposals.  Transmission "Open Houses" are fertile breeding grounds for the formation of opposition.  Members of the community who may have never met before are gathered together for this glorious meet and greet and are free to form their own little discussion groups, whether inside the venue or outside on the sidewalks and in the parking lots.  Contact info. is exchanged, and rough plans for community action against the project are discussed.  It's a certainty that these folks will meet again, sooner rather than later.  Opposition is born!  After that first "Open House" it's easy for opponents to attend subsequent ones and gather new opponents to their group.  It's also possible for transmission opponents from a different project to show up at that first "Open House" and begin the organizing process for a new group.  Knowledgeable opponents are much more appealing to community members and they provide the key ingredient needed for successful opposition -- hope!

Clean Line got away with very few "Open Houses" that didn't attract traveling opponents from other projects.  As this article notes, Susan Sack from Northern Illinois traveled to Southern Illinois to gather petition signatures and sow seeds of hope for communities devastated by Clean Line's Grain Belt Express proposal.  And this wasn't Sack's first traveling road show!  Opposition groups from numerous communities affected by Clean Line proposals joined forces to fight the company on all fronts. 

Stuffed shirt transmission employees posing as "engineers" bearing food and cheap trinkets just didn't appeal to the communities when they were making claims that just didn't add up or make sense.  The only ones who seemed to benefit from that were the affected feline population.
"One landowner came with a plastic sack and took about a two-inch width of slices of ham. I looked at him and he said, 'I've got cats,'" Nelson said. "Everybody else was saying, 'We might as well eat. That might be all we get.'
That might be all they did get, because they certainly didn't get a transmission line in the ham-bribed community.

Clean Line is dead.


2 Comments

When's The Sale Going To Happen, Clean Line?

4/4/2018

5 Comments

 
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop, Mr. Kottler?
He obviously didn't get to the center of whatever it was that he was smacking on before the end of his radio interview.  The world may never know.

Clean Line and its grandstanding "attorney" have made an absolute media circus out of what was supposed to be a respectful, serious, court proceeding.  And you know what happens when the circus comes to town... there will be clowns.

Like these two clowns.  I'm not sure which one is funnier... the wide-eyed, breathless twit of a reporter, or the condescending anchorwoman.  Neither one of these clowns has the first clue what their story is really about, or even who the characters in their story actually are.
Or maybe this clown, who "...said the company could purchase something like a transmission line or substation in Illinois and reapply for approval."
Do they have those for sale on e-bay?  Where do they sell "something like" a transmission line or a substation?  Here ya go, Waldo... think this will work?
Don't waste your time on the clowns, but check out what Mr. Smacky Smackerson had to say on "Houston Matters" (and you don't).  I'm really sorry that you'll have to listen to the whole thing to get to the good parts.  Like where he says that if Clean Line gets a "favorable outcome" in Missouri that they will build the project from Kansas to Missouri and potentially on into Illinois and Indiana.  Or potentially there's a way for Kansas to benefit from the project if they only build in Kansas.

So, wait a tick, you're trying to get an HVDC project from Kansas to Indiana approved, but then you're going to build something else entirely?  And you think that would automatically be approved?  Where are the customers, Clean Line?  You're not going to be building anything without any customers!

Or maybe you're just trying to sell the Kansas portion of GBE to some silly rube like NextEra?  Got a buyer in mind?  Is this why there's a media circus?  Or is it just required to stroke Nixon's ego?  Or both?  Whatever you're up to, what you're actually saying makes no sense and can never happen.  You're never going to build Grain Belt Express, so I will assume you're hoping for a buyer who wants to use it for something else, and is fooled by your media circus.

I gotta ask, was it crowded in the studio with that elephant in there with you?  When you said you were "a developer at heart" and that you would find a way to make it work I thought that elephant was going to crush you.  But when you said Clean Line would find ways to make sure all communities that host the project would get benefits, I surely felt the rumble of an impending elephant stampede.

Why are you even at the Missouri Supreme Court, Clean Line?  Is it because the counties wouldn't give you assent to cross their roadways under Sec. 229.100?  That is the ONLY reason you're at the Missouri Supreme Court!  Wouldn't it have been faster (and a hell of a lot cheaper) to actually make sure the communities hosting your project felt they were receiving some benefit before assenting?  Why did you take this long, winding, expensive, risky road through the courts instead of trying to work things out with the counties?  After all, with county assent the PSC would have approved your project.  You would have no reason to be in court.  You would not have any reason to try to slice and dice Missouri law and split hairs.  So, when you said Clean Line will do whatever it takes to make their project something the communities feel benefits them, I guess you weren't talking about Missouri counties?  Why don't the communities deserve benefits?  You don't walk your talk.

So, what makes Clean Line think that even if it prevails at the Supreme Court, that the counties will suddenly change their minds, recognize benefits, and provide their assent?  They're not, of course.  The counties are standing firm and there's nothing you can do about Section 229.100.  That's not even part of your court case.

There's no reason for the media circus, unless it's simply to produce choking clouds of smoke that may blind a potential buyer.

When's the sale of Grain Belt Express going to happen?
5 Comments

First in Failure!

4/2/2018

1 Comment

 
Oh, so your merchant generation affiliate went bankrupt, First Energy?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa!
1 Comment

Clean Line's April Fools' Prank

4/2/2018

2 Comments

 
Pretending Jay Nixon and the Missouri Supreme Court matter to Clean Line is a prank, right?  This article is just an elaborate hoax.  It has to be.  Anyone who would believe it is a fool.

Any decision from the Missouri Supreme Court won't make a damned bit of difference for Clean Line.  It's not about whether or not Clean Line must get approval by local county governments, but when.  Even if the Supreme Court rules that the PSC can issue a conditional permit to Grain Belt Express prior to county assent, GBE must still acquire county assent before its permit is valid.  Section 229.100 of Missouri code requires:
No person or persons, association, companies or corporations shall erect poles for the suspension of electric light, or power wires, or lay and maintain pipes, conductors, mains and conduits for any purpose whatever, through, on, under or across the public roads or highways of any county of this state, without first having obtained the assent of the county commission of such county therefor
This statute is not a part of the current case before the Supreme Court.  As well, it's a perfectly clear statute that a court would have a very hard time trying to interpret to mean a company like GBE doesn't need county assent. 

Even if the Supreme Court finds for Clean Line, the company must STILL acquire county assent.

And then there's the issue of Illinois.  Grain Belt Express doesn't have a permit in Illinois.  It can't be built without a permit in Illinois.

Why are they even bothering at this point?  Must be an April Fools' joke.
2 Comments

    About the Author

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

    About
    StopPATH Blog

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

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


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

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

    RSS Feed

    Archives

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

    Categories

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

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.