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

Taxpayer Funded Astroturf

11/17/2022

1 Comment

 
Picture
No, I'm not talking about fake grass.  I'm talking about the other kind of astroturf.
Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants. It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection. The term astroturfing is derived from AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to resemble natural grass, as a play on the word "grassroots". The implication behind the use of the term is that instead of a "true" or "natural" grassroots effort behind the activity in question, there is a "fake" or "artificial" appearance of support.
Astroturfing has been used for decades to create artificial support for unpopular proposals or projects.  The energy industry loves it.  In the context of new electric transmission projects, utilities have deployed astroturfing to create "coalitions" of project supporters.  In exchange for labor and supply contracts, "donations" and other quid pro arrangements, unions, chambers of commerce, social and civic organizations, local businesses and others will sing the praises of the project in the media and at regulatory and other project meetings and hearings.  A group's enthusiastic participation in astroturfing is closely correlated to their proximity to the project.  The less impact the project has on the group/individual, the more likely they are to accept utility gifts to participate in astroturfing.

And now the federal government wants to get into the act and use your tax dollars to buy unaffected, fake "advocates" that are supposed to outweigh, outshout, and outrule your objections to the project on your land.

This rather long article says that up to 39 million acres are needed for new generation and transmission infrastructure in just 11 western states.  Just 11 states, out of 50!  It goes on to opine about how our government will attempt to take control of that much privately-owned land. 
“Local community opposition is real and will likely continue to make siting and permitting a challenge,” but might be addressable, said University of Notre Dame Associate Professor of Sustainable Energy Policy Emily Grubert, who has worked with federal agencies on related issues.

To earn a community’s trust, development proposals “should explain why a project is needed, why the community’s resources are needed, and how the community can benefit,” Grubert said. They should also “assure the community its concerns have been heard and it will be protected,” she added.

DOE’s formal Community Benefits Agreements, which are used for new infrastructure development and stipulate the benefits a developer will deliver for the community, “could also have a powerful impact on streamlining siting and permitting,” Grubert said.

“No project should go ahead without a Community Benefit Agreement to assure real benefits for the host community,” agreed NRDC’s Greene. But in many places, “political polarization has turned reasonable project development questions into obstructive, misinformation campaigns,” Greene said. “Overcoming that will take a lot of work,” he added.
Community Benefit Agreement?  What's that?  Little did you know that your federal government has been busy adapting tired, old utility astroturfing tactics as a new plan to silence you so it can build infrastructure on your land and tell the world that you "benefited" from it.

According to the DOE's Community Benefit Agreement (CBA) Toolkit, the federal government is getting involved in spreading propaganda and paying off certain "community" groups in exchange for their support of a project that only tangentially affects them but is hotly opposed in a community.  What groups does DOE propose could negotiate these agreements?
neighborhood associations, faith-based organizations, unions, environmental groups and others representing the interests of a community that will be impacted by development(s).
I don't see landowners on this list, although the landowners whose land is taken from them using eminent domain are the only group that is sacrificing something tangible to enable new energy projects.  Landowners are also the force behind transmission opposition groups.

Instead, DOE advises that communities should consider any threatening infrastructure project as an opportunity that requires the formation of an organization to take advantage of CBA payouts.  There are no requirements that the signatories to CBAs actually have to sacrifice anything at all.  Just be willing to advocate for an infrastructure project that is impacting another group or individual.
A CBA is an agreement signed by community benefit groups and a developer, identifying the community benefits a developer agrees to deliver, in return for community support of the project.
Here's a list of the things the opportunistic community "groups" should do to attract a CBA
1.  Research development proposals in their region to identify any that have the potential to offer benefits to the residents they will be operating near;
2. 
Organize a broad-based coalition of community interests and recruit stakeholder organizations;
3. 
Hold public meetings and maximize turnout with help from local leaders; and
4. 
Engage the developer with sustainable community objectives, via open dialogue as well as transparency.
But how do these unaffected community opportunists guarantee the "support" of the entire community?  They can't!  And the more eager they are to cooperate with developers, the less support they are going to get from the community at large. 

Transmission developer astroturf groups have been spectacular flops over the years.  At best, astroturf groups have amused intervenors and regulators alike with their clueless comments about how much we "need" this (or sometimes the wrong) project.  At worst, astroturf groups have visited public scorn, boycotts, and flooded phone lines on community businesses who turn on their neighbors to become project advocates.  Deployment of utility astroturf destroys trust and hurts communities, instead of helping them.  Going back to that wordy Utility Dive article:
“People, especially in smaller communities, can get very passionate, and even exchange death threats, which shows how important and undervalued trust is,” Grubert agreed.
I really hope the death threats part is exaggerated.  I've never seen that happen before, however I've also never seen the federal government get involved in what can only be called astroturfing before.  If someone is injured because the federal government has been chumming for sharks in your community, who is liable? 

The bottom line is that this plan has never worked for utilities.  It is quickly outed as a fake and the ones participating back slowly away in the face of community anger over their mutiny.  Let's think for a moment about the kinds of entities who shall act at the "groups" that sign CBAs.  Neighborhood associations have enough to do without spending time looking for "opportunities" to throw their neighbors under the bus.  Faith-based organizations (aka churches, even if saying it is no longer politically correct for some reason) are not going to get involved in such a divisive community issue.  Love thy neighbor, not stab him in the back.  Unions don't live in the community.  My experience with union advocates is that they ship in busloads of members from distant cities, hardly convincing for people who actually live there.  Environmental groups... they're always looking for a free lunch, but again, not from your community.

This plan will never work.  The ones actually impacted by the project aren't going to be distracted by a handful of colorful beads, and they aren't going to be intimidated by opportunistic sellouts.

Here's how the federal government *thinks* it's going to work:
[community] support would raise the probability of state or local government approvals for zoning variances, state permits, and other regulatory approvals.
That's the same reason transmission developers have used astroturf in the past, although it has rarely worked out to their advantage.

Our federal government is engaging in taxpayer funded astroturf.  Be on the lookout for opportunists in your own community!
1 Comment

The Two Biggest Clean Energy Lies

11/16/2022

2 Comments

 
Picture
Gaslighting is one of today's most popular political buzzwords.  It means to manipulate someone by psychological means into questioning their own sanity.  Unfortunately, most of the clueless babies that use it incessantly have no idea what it really means, although many of them may be quite insane.

The environmental movement, which may have been a good thing 50 years ago, has grown into an entitled brat that lies constantly.  In this blog, we're going to examine the two biggest lies the "clean energy" brat tells you.  While it doesn't make me question my sanity, it can make your logic center feel like you've just eaten a bad  mushroom.

Clean Energy fills up its gas tank like this.
This summer, the Midwest faced a heightened risk of blackouts due to a supply shortfall that could’ve been filled if only a fraction of the projects stuck in limbo had been online.   Luckily, we made it through the summer without major incident, but no one should be complacent—new supply is urgently needed. Fossil fuel dead-enders complain that we’re shutting down dirty power plants too quickly. In reality, the clean energy to replace them is ready and waiting, stuck in utility bureaucracy.
Lie number one:  All the renewable energy projects waiting in regional transmission interconnection queues will deliver 24/7 at their nameplate capacity.

Nameplate capacity is the amount of energy a generator could produce if it produced at its maximum capacity.  No generator produces its nameplate capacity all the time, however, some generators are better at it than others.  Fossil fuel and nuclear generators run very close to their nameplate capacity, only being forced to shut down for repairs or maintenance.  Renewable generators, on the other hand, can only produce electricity when their fuel is available.  It's never 100% of the time.  In fact capacity factors for wind and solar average 36%, and 24.5%, respectively.  That means that wind and solar only produce their maximum capacity one quarter to one third of the time they operate.  So, even if we thought we could add 13,000 gigawatts of renewables to the grid if all interconnection requests were granted by magic today, the reality is that less than a third of that capacity would actually produce electricity.

Lie number two:  We need to build more renewables and transmission to shore up reliability.

If you want to increase reliability, you need generators that can run when called.  That means when needed, not when there is fuel available.  You cannot count on a wind turbine or solar panel to produce power at the exact moment you need it.  Storage is not yet mature enough to provide more than a brief backup.  Adding renewables will not increase reliability. 

We ARE shutting down "dirty" power plants too quickly... much quicker than renewables can backstop.  And this  creates a problem for the unicorn utopia idea that supposes that an area where renewables fail to produce enough energy to meet demand can simply "borrow" extra electricity from the renewables of another area.  What happens when those renewables are also failing to produce?  Pass the buck until you find an area with excess power.  But when all the "dirty" power plants have closed, there will be nothing but endless buck passing while you shiver in the dark eating your healthy government-issued insect protein.

The reliability crisis has been created by too many government-subsidized, unreliable renewables that put financial pressure on reliable "dirty" power plants to close.  More unreliable renewables and less reliable "dirty" power plants equals unreliable power.  Adding more unreliable sources of power isn't going to fix that.

If that doesn't sound logical to you, you may be insane.
2 Comments

More Transmission Dead Ends

11/11/2022

3 Comments

 
Our bloated government and its clean energy sycophants are on a high-speed transmission train to nowhere and a crucial bridge is on fire.  Trouble ahead!  Can these self-important bloviators cross the bridge to Unicorn Utopia before it completely burns through?
Of course not.  This bridge has been burning for several years now and is pretty thin.  I'm talking about the landowner bridge... the landowners who are expected to accept the greatest impacts of new transmission lines on new rights of way across their private property. 

The Unicorn Engineers are positively obsessed with finding the solution to transmission opposition.  They continue to dream up stupid, unworkable ideas that will only further delay Unicorn Utopia.  How do I know this?  Because I have been a transmission opponent, and more importantly I have listened to the stories of hundreds of transmission opposing landowners over the past 15 years or so.  Why are the Unicorn Engineer ideas so bad?  Because they have never been transmission opponents and they have little understanding of how and why opposition forms and acts, and have never felt the emotions that go into landowner battles.

This week I came across a couple of bad ideas and one bright spot.

The first is an op-ed in Utility Dive written by former state and FERC Commissioner Tony Clark.  He talks about dumb plans to federalize transmission permitting.
The renewables spurred by the IRA require a considerable transmission buildout. Accomplishing it will be no mean feat. The most oft-proposed solution is to federalize ever more of the transmission planning and permitting process. That may sound better in theory than in practice.

Furthermore, the federal government has a dismal record in streamlining infrastructure permitting, even when it is needed. Look no further than the Western U.S., where federal lands are often an obstacle to transmission, rather than a facilitator of it.

So... permitting reform... Big NO!

But then Clark combine electrics transmission permitting with gas pipeline permitting to incorrectly conclude that we need to cripple NEPA.
Infrastructure opponents have had increasing success obstructing projects with a federal nexus. FERC’s natural gas pipeline certification program is a good reference point. Activists have blocked needed energy projects through the aggressive use of litigation at every step of the permitting and review process. Without meaningful reform to federal laws like the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act, all those litigation weapons will now be in the hands of interveners seeking to stop electric transmission lines.
Can you say hypocrites, Tony?  The ones who use NEPA as a battering ram would never stoop to help an electric transmission opponent.  Despite pretending that their opposition is about landowners and the environment, the truth is that the big green groups are motivated by politics, grants and donations that pay fat salaries.  Landowners and the environment be damned.  The fact is that electric transmission opposition is devoid of politics.  We're about what unites us as landowners, not what divides us at the ballot box.  We've already got a great strategy and a bottomless bag of tricks developed over the years.  We don't need to be hypocrites like the environmental groups.

And here's a different article with another stupid idea -- bribing unaffected community members to accept impacts ON THE LAND OF THEIR NEIGHBORS.
Beyond just educating the neighbors of a proposed project, former U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III (D-Mass.), now managing director of Citizens Energy, said developers and utilities should explore ways to ensure that the expansions directly benefit those communities.

Such arrangements can prove worthwhile even to for-profit companies by alleviating residents’ concerns that large transmission projects could lower property values or disrupt their neighborhoods with no visible benefit to them, Kennedy said. The costs of the delays or resiting of projects can often well exceed the expense of profit sharing with those communities, he argued.

But this doesn't work either.  Landowners with new transmission on their property are the ones leading the opposition and they are not going to be deterred by bribes paid to their neighbors.  Those bribes don't do a thing to alleviate the landowner burden.  The bribes actually juice opposition to work harder.

And here's another stupid idea from the same article:
Former FERC Commissioner Colette Honorable, now a partner at Reed Smith leading the firm’s energy regulatory group, noted that getting all parties on board with a project in the early phases can reduce the likelihood of prolonged, and expensive, delays at FERC and the federal courts.
Earlier engagement does not bear fruit unless there is compromise on both sides.  What do impacted landowners get from earlier engagement?  If it's not something that prevents impacts, such as burial along existing rights of way like highways, or reconductoring existing lines, then landowners get nothing.  Again, urging people to throw your neighbor under the bus is not a successful strategy.

But Honorable does offer some valuable insight gleaned from her years as a state and federal regulator.
“You’re in trouble if you have a matter pending and the first time you hear them is when they object,” she said.

Likewise, she said incorporating equity into the work done by RTOs can be accomplished by examining what voices are missing at the table and including those stakeholders who aren’t represented.

It's so simple, it's stunning.  Landowners are the missing voices.  Ignoring them absolutely guarantees that the opposition will continue.
Picture
3 Comments

Is This The Newest Renewable Energy Scam?

11/10/2022

4 Comments

 
Picture
This news story says that a utility wind and solar developer has created a joint venture with an oil well shares company to build industrial scale wind, solar, energy storage and hydrogen assets on 1.5 million acres across West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Sounds great, right?  If they could find owners of 1.5 million acres who want to lease their property for wind and solar.  In this day and age, that doesn't seem likely.  Many landowners who have leased property for renewable development, as well as their neighbors, have found out that living and working in the middle of an industrial energy facility isn't exactly the peaceful paradise the fast-talking salesman assured you it would be.  Word travels fast on the internet, and the horror stories of impacted landowners have convinced new landowners not to lease.  And even when they do lease, the surrounding community oftentimes creates project-wrecking opposition groups that cancel project plans.  What's a renewable energy developer to do when it simply can't find any new land to lease for projects?
The Chrysalis Energy partnership will focus across 1.5 million acres of mainly contiguous, rights-owned land within Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia.
See those words "rights-owned" land?  That's when a company owns some "rights" to your land, such as mineral rights.  But mineral rights only cover things like oil and gas below the surface of your property.  If you're unlucky enough to own a piece of property where the mineral rights have been severed and sold to someone else, you may one day find a oil company drilling on your property, and there's nothing you can do about it.  When a company owns your mineral rights, they also have the right to use the surface of your property for the purpose of extracting the minerals they own.

There's some really cagey wordsmithing going on here... 1.5 million acres of mainly contiguous rights-owned land across three states?  I just can't fathom that this oil well shares company has managed to buy the surface rights to 1.5 million contiguous acres across 3 states and this is the first time anyone has decided that it is "news".  But, perhaps the oil well shares company has managed to patch together mineral rights for that many acres.  But how does that give them "rights" to construct energy infrastructure on the surface to produce energy from the sky?  What kind of flim-flam is this?  Is this an effort to bully surface landowners to allow the takeover of their properties to build industrial energy infrastructure that can harvest trillions of dollars of new renewable energy subsidies?  Is this an effort to conscript private property to produce "green" energy?

How much is 1.5 million acres? 
"The sheer magnitude of the land position is remarkable, likely the single largest private land inventory in PJM and comprising 1/1000th of the entire continental US acreage.
The company has a "map" on their website that supposedly shows this.  It's just a map of the entire states of West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio.  The entire states!  How did some oil well company buy three entire states and nobody blinked an eye?

If you live in an area where it is common to sever surface rights from mineral or other land rights, you might want to roll up the welcome mat and find a good lawyer.

What if "rights-owned" land can now be conscripted and covered with wind and solar installations without the owner's permission?  Without further compensation?  If you make your living off the land, pay close attention to this debacle as it unfolds.

There's very little written about this "joint venture" and pretty much nothing about this 1.5 million acres they supposedly own the "rights" to.  If it was just a friendly renewables developer who wanted to lease new land and pay the owner to do so, there would be no reason for the oil well shares company to be involved.  But...
Within the scope of the JV, OYA and OWS will develop, construct, jointly own and operate an extensive portfolio of renewable energy assets across OWS’s current land inventory.
"Land inventory."  OWS owns 1.5 million acres of land?  Or just some "rights" to that land?

Something here just gives me the shivers...
4 Comments

Misinformation Won't Help Grain Belt Express

11/5/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
The Silly Old Man's Club of Kirkwood must have had a Halloween meeting where this blog was dreamed up: "Tiger Connector" Planned:  Kirkwood Electric Gets A Bit Of Good News On Energy Front. 
It did scare the bejeezus out of me, but only because it is so completely misinformed and contains a number of outright falsehoods.  I will have to say that this blog is appropriately named:  Environmental Echo.  Just an echo chamber for all the crazy enviro-whacko claims being made that don't have any basis in truth. 

Let's start with this lie: 
“We’re well on our way because the project has obtained an overwhelming majority of the easements, now has Public Service Commission approval, and now has a legislative framework,” said Petty.
The "Tiger Connector" does NOT have PSC approval.  In fact, without approval of the specific "Tiger Connector" addition, the "approved" Grain Belt Express project does not have any place to connect to the Missouri electric grid.  When the project was initially approved in 2019, it was planned to make a 500 MW connection in Ralls County.  At some point new project owner Invenergy decided that interconnection was not viable and applied with regional grid operators to move its interconnection point to Callaway County and increase its size five-fold.  This interconnection of 2500 MW is still not fully approved by the regional grid operator.  Who knows where or when (or IF) GBE will ever connect.  In addition, the Missouri PSC is now evaluating the project anew and may not approve the changes.

As far as the easements go, let's clear that up, shall we?  Many easements have been obtained through coercion and threats of condemnation using eminent domain authority.  It's not like all landowners who have signed easements under duress "do understand it and are on board."  In addition, Invenergy is pursuing easement acquisition through the courts for a growing number of properties.  These landowners didn't knuckle under and sign an easement out of fear but are determined to fight Invenergy tooth and nail all the way to the end.

Lastly, what is this "legislative framework"?  Just because some agricultural organizations took it upon themselves to negotiate meaningless "protections" for landowners in a sneaky fashion that did not include the landowners themselves does not mean that landowners are "on board" with the way they were stabbed in the back during the last legislative session.  All that aside, the SOMC of Kirkwood should be aware that Invenergy made sure to file its application for the "Tiger Connector" just days before this new "legislative framework" took effect.  It will not apply to Grain Belt Express therefore, even if it was useful, it will not come into play.

And what kind of a "reporter" takes this kind of statement at face value and does not bother to verify it?
“Invenergy has always been more than generous to the farmers with their compensation for access to their property. Its supported the generous compensation spelled out in a legislative compromise that was reached in 2021,” said Petty of Kirkwood Electric.

“While a few farmers still remain skeptical about Invenergy’s intention to make this a win-win situation for all, over 70% of the landowners and a majority of folks do understand it and are on board,” Petty added.

Spoken like a true NIMBY who won't find Grain Belt Express in his own back yard.  Petty has NO contact with "farmers" and does not speak for them.  He has NO IDEA what they want and what they think.  Pretty brassy to tell those farmers how great GBE will be for them, don't you think?  Maybe you should contact him and let him know the truth so he can stop spreading misinformation.

Speaking of misinformation, what could this mean?
... Grain Belt Express, which has scored some recent successes.
Recent successes?  Where?  How?  WHAT?  There have been no "recent successes."  It's just a platitude that means nothing.

And then there's this:
...Chicago-based Invenergy, which has now navigated objections to the line from rural legislators and groups like the Missouri Farm Bureau.

State legislators with ties to the fossil fuel industry have opposed the wind energy project. Farm groups also have fought the project for years over opposition to the use of eminent domain for siting of transmission towers.

Some rural landowners and farmers supported legislation meant to derail the project, including one proposal that would have given county commissions veto power over transmission projects. Farmers wanted more money for land acquisition, and resulting legislation could have killed the project.

So much misinformation in this short blurb it's hard to know where to begin.  First of all, the opposition to this project has always come from affected landowners who object, not to clean energy, but to the use of eminent domain to take new easements across their working farmland.  It places an impediment on the productivity of the entire parcel and costs farmers additional money and time and results in lower yields.  Farm Bureau and other agricultural groups took it upon themselves to defend their members through lobbying at the legislature.  But the Ag groups got a little too carried away last year and forgot about the landowners they were supposed to be working for.  This doesn't mean landowners are "on board" with any of last year's meaningless legislation.  Invenergy is probably still snickering at how easily the Ag groups fell for their bait and switch.  And now the Ag groups are ticked off because they've been made to look foolish.

Legislators have been responsive to their constituents' opposition to Grain Belt Express.  Their legislative agenda is driven by their constituents, not by any "ties to the fossil fuel industry."  That's a disgustingly common Sierra Club talking point that is no longer true.  People don't like ANY energy infrastructure in their community, and certainly not on their land, especially when they derive no benefit from it.  Quit whining about the "fossil fuel" devils.  The only devils buying legislators these days are "clean energy" companies.  Clean or dirty, it's all about corporate profit.  Don't lose sight of that.

Where's the proof that "farmers wanted more money for land acquisition"?  This statement is concocted out of speculation and ignorance.  Farmers actually say that their land is not for sale at any price!  And can we talk some truth about price here for a hot minute?  Eminent domain for utilities insures that the utility can acquire the land it needs to serve customers at "fair market value" instead of actual market value.  The money the utility saves on land acquisition flows back to their customers in the form of lower rates.  This is what's known as "cost of service" rates.  The customers are charged what it costs the utility to serve them, plus reasonable return.  In the case of Grain Belt Express, however, their project does not use "cost of service" rates.  Instead it's what's known as a "merchant" transmission project that negotiates with voluntary customers to agree on a market based rate for service.  The price GBE can charge depends on how much the voluntary customers will pay in a free and fair market.  It is completely divorced from GBE's "cost of service."  In GBE's case, the difference between it's cost of service and the market based rates it negotiates represents the company's profit.  The cheaper the project is to build, the bigger Invenergy's profit.  The market sets its rates, not its cost of serving customers.

Then there's this misinformation:
According to Petty, Missouri cities like Hannibal, Springfield and Kirkwood have supported the energy project for years. He said everyone is “jumping on the bandwagon now” and the cleaner, cheaper energy for Missouri will save money for homeowners and businesses.
Who's jumping on the bandwagon?  Nobody, that's who.  Invenergy has not revealed any new customers for its project since the Missouri cities got a below-cost deal handed to them back in 2016 in order to score PSC approval.   GBE has had authority to negotiate voluntary customer "negotiated rate" contracts since 2014.  In all the time since, Invenergy has only managed to announce one customer for less than 10% of its proposed Missouri capacity.  Only the Missouri municipalities thought GBE was a good deal.  Other potential customers have avoided it like the plague.  Does the cities' contract represent a fantastic opportunity that everyone else is missing out on?  It's more likely that the cities signed on to something that everyone else doesn't want.  It's not like the Missouri cities are really smart about buying power.  They bought a healthy share of the Prairie State coal-fired generation complex AFTER Missouri voted for clean energy in 2008.  Doesn't sound very smart to me.

And here's your completely clueless ending:
“While a few farmers still remain skeptical about Invenergy’s intention to make this a win-win situation for all, over 70% of the landowners and a majority of folks do understand it and are on board,” Petty added.

According to Petty, it’s just a matter a time before everyone will be on the same page with the Grain Belt project.
By that token, has Petty considered that 90% of Grain Belt's potential Missouri Customers, and 100% of its potential PJM customers, are NOT on board with it?  If 70% of needed easements equals landowner support, then 95% of customer avoidance equals utility opposition. 

It's just a matter of time until Grain Belt Express collapses in a heap and the SOMC of Kirkwood gets left with drool on its collective chin.
0 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

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

    Categories

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

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.