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

Does TVA Not Love Clean Line Energy Partners the Right Way?

2/23/2014

10 Comments

 
They're not alone!  Although Clean Line Energy Partners keeps touting some "desperate need" for its transmission projects by unnamed "states farther east," the company has yet to produce any evidence of any future customers for its transmission projects.

In the case of its Plains & Eastern Clean Line, a
recent article tells us "TVA still has no deal to buy Clean Line's wind energy."  The article makes an important distinction that Clean Line hopes everyone will ignore:
TVA is in final negotiations to allow a proposed $2 billion transmission line carrying wind power 700 miles from Oklahoma to connect to TVA's grid near Millington.

However, it will be another issue entirely whether Texas-based Plains & Eastern Clean Line LLC can send its wind-generated electricity into the TVA system, TVA spokesman Chris Stanley said Tuesday.

TVA policy requires the federal utility, which supplies electricity to MLGW in Memphis, only buy power priced competitively with other energy sources.

No consumer prices have been disclosed by the Houston firm.

"Inter-connectivity just allows Clean Line, in this case, to connect to our grid," Stanley said. "They do not, however, have the ability to inject any power into our system."

TVA is now waiting on Clean Line to request a "transmission study," he said.

"We had to do studies and make sure we have system reliability. That's all happened and we're in final negotiations with them about what that looks like going forward,'' Stanley said.

After the interconnection study is completed, a the transmission-service study will look at sending wind power into the electric grid.
Looks like Clean Line's much ballyhooed Memorandum of Understanding with TVA isn't proof that the TVA is willing to buy power from the project after all.

Clean Line has been pulling this same scheme with all of its transmission projects by pretending that there are some potential customers in "desperate need" of power supplied by the project, or that a regional grid operator, or federal entity like the TVA, has "approved" its project or contracts to purchase the electricity.  Nothing could be further from the truth!  The interconnection studies simply determine whether or not Clean Line would compromise system reliability if they interconnected, and also determine what alterations need to be made to the system to accommodate Clean Line's interconnection.  Clean Line is responsible for the costs of the studies and any system upgrades determined to be needed in the studies.

Clean Line is in a catch-22.  They can't negotiate prices for their transmission capacity until they have completed all permitting, siting, land acquisition, engineering, contracting, etc., and know exactly how much their project will cost to build.  The cost of the project will inform the amount of the capacity charge.  The capacity charge will be added to the price of the wind (or other) generation and then a power purchase agreement will be negotiated between the generator and the utility buying the power.  The generators don't exist.  The customers don't exist.  The transmission project doesn't exist.  Clean Line is nothing more than an overly-ambitious and fantastical business plan.  I don't believe it will ever happen.

But as long as Clean Line's "patient" investors want to continue to dump money down this rat hole, entities like TVA will continue to take their money and produce "studies".... because they have to.  State utility commissions also have to entertain Clean Line's permit applications, but they don't have to approve them.  And they certainly don't have to grant such a speculative venture utility status and its attendant power of eminent domain.

The TVA is currently working on its integrated resource plan (IRP).  An IRP is a long-range plan by a utility to determine the proper mix of resources that will serve its customers reliably and economically in the future.  The IRP will determine whether TVA will purchase huge quantities of wind from Oklahoma.  TVA's IRP won't be completed until 2015.  Although one of the stakeholder participants in the process recently asked the question, "Would it be appropriate to consider a scenario around grid/transmission expansion - for example, an HVDC line is built from the Midwest making lower cost wind energy available to the TVA?" it looks like this question was batted aside by the group think of the TVA's IRP process. 

Maybe Clean Line needs to do a little reading on the Delphi Technique?

It looks like Clean Line's business plan is nothing but a house of cards, and a big wind is starting to blow.
10 Comments

Iowa, Eminent Domain and NIMBYs

2/22/2014

3 Comments

 
Clean Line Energy Partners went into panic mode when dozens of landowners stormed the Capitol in Des Moines this week.  While legislation proposed to protect landowner rights under threat of eminent domain takings for the company's Rock Island Clean Line project passed out of committee, it failed to advance because Mother Nature intervened and turned the legislature dysfunctional at a crucial time.

However, all is not lost.  As Clean Line's snarky editorial tells us, "...it could come back as an amendment tacked onto another bill that's still alive."

And what's up with the name-calling in that editorial?  NIMBY?  Is that the best Clean Line could do to lobby for its project? 
But some people don't like the project, which is why the bill came forward. Landowners who are wary of eminent domain powers are speaking up against the project. In large part it has become an issue pitting pro-business groups and legislators against people who carry the NIMBY, or Not in My Backyard, mindframe.
Name-calling is one of the cheapest propaganda devices.  By placing opponents into unacceptable groups, the propagandist attempts to remove them from the argument before their positions can be logically considered.
Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears or arouse positive prejudices with the intent that invoked fear (based on fearmongering tactics) or trust will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion, in respect to the former, or a positive opinion, with respect to the latter, about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to believe. The method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from an impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When this tactic is used instead of an argument, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an argumentum ad hominem.
Clean Line is so frightened by the righteous concerns of landowners being asked to make a sacrifice for the pecuniary aspirations of a company from Texas, that they have resorted to cheap party tricks like "NIMBY."

News Flash:  Use of the "NIMBY" name in transmission battles is passe and ineffective.  The Alliance has already overcome that stereotype quite effectively.

And why shouldn't landowners be concerned or, as the editorial puts it, "not like the project."  The project is asking them to sacrifice their property, their business, their peace of mind and their physical well-being for the needs of some phantom others in "states farther east."  Who wouldn't resist it?  Would you resist a similar attack on your own home, income and way of life?

In addition, the "project" isn't even needed for reliability or economic reasons.  It's a scheme to make a lot of money supplanting existing generation in "states farther east" that have no desire for the power in the first place. 

While the financial windfalls may be shared with a handful of politically-connected landowners in NW Iowa who voluntarily host turbines, the buck stops there.  The Alliance landowners are being forced to take a one-time "market value" payment, not share in the wealth.  Their contribution to the effort is not being fairly recognized or compensated. 

While Clean Line's lobbyists hyperventilate that the legislation will "shut down this project as well as kill jobs,” the proposed legislation merely removed the company's threat of eminent domain against landowners who refused to go along.  As the Illinois Farm Bureau said in its Illinois Commerce Commission brief:
"In addition, if granted § 8-503 relief, what Rock Island characterizes as “voluntary” easement negotiations with farmers will actually sound something like “Rock Island has been directed by the Commission to construct a transmission line on an approve[d] route, which crosses your land.” Characterizing the easement negotiations as voluntary under these facts is kind of like giving someone the option of jumping off of a cliff before you push them."
If RICL is a viable and economic project, it shouldn't have any trouble compensating landowners to their satisfaction, and would not need the threat of eminent domain.  The use of eminent domain for private gain is the issue here, not jobs or economic development.  At what point does a person's right to own and enjoy property become less than another individual's desire to confiscate that property for his or her own pecuniary goals?  If you believe this is okay, as long as it's in someone else's back yard and you're sharing in the wealth, you're heading down a very slippery slope.  Because if you think it's okay in someone else's back yard, you are also saying it's okay in your own, and some day, the chickens are going to come home to roost and then you will be the "NIMBY." 

Why is Clean Line so scared? 
Think about it.
3 Comments

Potomac Edison/Mon Power EPRI Study Turns Out to be Irrelevant Gibberish

2/19/2014

4 Comments

 
FirstEnergy finally filed a public copy of its Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) report on its West Virginia billing problems.  The report can only be described as a grammatical HOT MESS. 

The general gist of the report tells FirstEnergy to stop screwing around with its estimation algorithm because it works well, except that it overestimates customer usage an average of 14%.

EPRI tells us that when the meter is read every other month, both monthly kwh values are a forecast or estimate, because the first month is estimated and the second or "actual" month is actually a result of actual use plus any true-up amount from the first estimated month.  In other words... you never get a monthly bill for the actual amount you use.  Customers whose bill is read every month have accurate bills, but not you.

The report goes wrong in the first paragraph:
The focus of this assessment is to evaluate the BE protocols’ performance where bi-monthly
meter reading is the standard.
The General Investigation was not triggered by the inaccuracy of FirstEnergy's estimation algorithm.  It was triggered by a huge outcry by customers whose electric meters had not been read as required by FirstEnergy's tariff.  FirstEnergy made it about its algorithm by focusing on that during the investigation and hearing.  By asking the wrong question, FirstEnergy shifts the focus off its willful disregard of its own tariff and the injury it caused (and continues to cause!) to its customers.
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." - Thomas Pynchon
And, therefore, this hot mess should be tucked away in File 13 and forgotten.  It's not relevant to the investigation.

Besides, it's the hardest read I've come across in a long time.  Yes, it's hopelessly technical, but it seems that FirstEnergy also ran it through the Gibberish translator before approving its final content.  This thing is chock-a-block full of typographical errors, missing words, extraneous words, incorrect words, and incomplete sentences, to the point that the reader is constantly stopping to reach for their secret Gibberish decoder ring.  Here's just one of the hundreds of sentences that gave me pause.  What does this mean?
When the values are designated as actual, then BSE assumes that they are actual meter reads and treats when according to the
protocols employees in levelization.
Here are a few quotes from sentences that didn't need decoding:
Note:  "BE" stands for "Bill Estimation."  Just think, if EPRI had named it the "Bill Simulator" instead, we could have been treated to a report full of "BS."  Oh, wait, I think that happened anyhow...
As the number of consecutive estimates increases, the BE performance deteriorates.
...ascertain if using the Prior Period should not be considered for the Base Period if the Prior Period was estimated, and especially if there are indications that there was a large but unwarranted reconciliation.
In the case of scenario 10b (Figure 7-13), which imposed two months of 33%
underestimation followed by a large reconciliation, the performance was not quite as good. The R-value distribution became less compacted around R = 1.0, and the
percentage extreme R-value increased to 8%, four time that of scenario 1b. This might
result because underestimation of usage results in systematically poorer performance of the BE in situations where the estimated month’s usage and the reconciliation amount is large. More testing is called for to verify this result before changes are made to the BE
protocols to mitigate this apparent bias.
Missed scheduled meter reads resulted in a modest increase in the extent of
overestimation measured by the mean R-value, but more importantly more individual
customer R-values are in the extreme tails.
Blah, blah, blah, who cares?  But if you can manage to get through nearly 100 pages of this Gibberish, there's a treat at the end for you.  It's a 12 slide deck of FirstEnergy's "response" to the EPRI report.  Why did FirstEnergy need a slide deck?  Maybe it's because:
EPRl was asked to perform objective statistical testing of our estimation processes. While we (FirstEnergy) agree with EPRl that the  estimation algorithm performs well for most customers we also believe that performance can be improved.
As such we recognize the need to mitigate any unintended impact to customers in the interim and will as proposed in the settlement:
Bill message customers who received a bill varying by more than 25% from previous year following multiple estimates to remind of
payment options (February 2014);
Exception customers whose current estimate vary by more than 25% from their previous year’s bill for manual review (May 2014).
Settlement?  What settlement?  Is the Commission going to allow FirstEnergy to skip out with a slap on the wrist in a settlement? 
4 Comments

A Zacks Valentine to Electric Utilities

2/15/2014

0 Comments

 
Zacks Investment Research sent a love note to our favorite transmission-dependent electric utilities on Valentine's Day.

In a commentary about the utilities sector, Zacks advised transmission lovers that they're about to become obsolete:
The emergence of Microgrids for power generation could threaten the dominance of the age-old power distribution system in the U.S. Microgrids have evolved from simple power backup systems to small smart grids. The swift and cost effective installation of Micro grids could help distribute electricity among the masses. These rooftop solar systems meet the energy needs of the customers. In addition, the customers are allowed to sell excess power back to the utilities.
A report from American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that utilities need to spend $763 billion by 2040 to properly modernize and harden the existing grids against natural disasters. We believe that rather than going for a very costly maintenance, it will be economical to develop these Microgrids, which could lend support to the existing system.
That's right, instead of building more transmission it will be more economical to develop more secure microgrids.

A microgrid is defined as:
A microgrid is a localized grouping of electricity generation, energy storage, and loads that normally operates connected to a traditional centralized grid (macrogrid). This single point of common coupling with the macrogrid can be disconnected. The microgrid can then function autonomously. Generation and loads in a microgrid are usually interconnected at low voltage. From the point of view of the grid operator, a connected microgrid can be controlled as if it were one entity.
Microgrid generation resources can include fuel cells, wind, solar, or other energy sources. The multiple dispersed generation sources and ability to isolate the microgrid from a larger network would provide highly reliable electric power. Produced heat from generation sources such as microturbines could be used for local process heating or space heating, allowing flexible trade off between the needs for heat and electric power.
Wow!  What a great idea, right?

Just one more warning shot across the investor owned electric utility bow.  Transmission is a dead end.  Save yourself, utility friends!  After all, if my favorite utilities die, who am I going to pick on in my spare time?
0 Comments

FirstEnergy's Corporate Malfeasance Trifecta

2/12/2014

1 Comment

 
Remember when FirstEnergy told the WV PSC in its February 3 brief on the General Investigation that its customers in Pennsylvania haven't had issues with estimated bills?
The two major storms were the largest impact cause of the disruption to obtaining scheduled meter reads. That conclusion is supported by  the experience of sister company, West Penn Power, which experienced all the same  integration issues (system integration,  renumbering, meter reading restructuring) as the Companies experienced, but did not  experience the same level of damage and  widespread outages from these two super  storms. Consequently, West Penn has not had the level of customer complaint and billing  issues that the Companies and their customers experienced.
Ooooops.

Looks like FirstEnergy wasn't exactly being honest with the Commission.

The very next day, two complaints were filed with the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission alleging that FirstEnergy subsidiaries West Penn Power and Penelec have not been reading meters in that state either.

The complaints were filed by the Utility Workers Union on behalf of customers who also happen to be union members.  The complaints add to the meter reading issues FirstEnergy's West Virginia and Maryland customers have been experiencing to create a multi-state trifecta of willful corporate malfeasance:
UWUA brings this complaint in its capacity as the representative of meter readers and other Penelec employees who are being directed by Penelec to continually and willfully violate the Commission's meter reading regulations and the provisions of Penelec's own tariff.

UWUA states on information and belief that Penelec routinely estimates bills for thousands of residential customers three, four, or even five consecutive months when there are no exigent circumstances and no problems with utility personnel gaining access to the customer's meter.

UWUA states on information and belief that Penelec fails to read meters as required because it has failed to fill vacant meter-reading positions and has otherwise failed to properly staff its meter reading function. That is, Penelec has made a business decision to save the expense of hiring additional meter readers and instead issue numerous consecutive estimated bills to residential customers in violation of the Commission's regulations.
Oh, so it's not about salt-laden snow after all?  Maybe it's about the company deliberately failing to read meters as a cost-cutting measure?

Shame on you, FirstEnergy!
1 Comment

Wisconsin Public Service Commission Snubs Citizen Groups

2/10/2014

1 Comment

 
The Wisconsin Public Service Commission chose to not respond to a request to reopen the CapX2020 Hampton La Crosse high-voltage power line docket.  By allowing time to run out on the Jan. 9 request filed by Save Our Unique Lands of Wisconsin (SOUL) and Citizens Energy Task Force (CETF), the request is considered denied effective today, February 10.
 
“We may disagree with the PSC over who needs the power lines and why, but there should be no question that the process to plan and approve energy infrastructure should be transparent, comprehensive, and accountable to the citizens and ratepayers it is meant to serve,” said Debra Severson, who participated in the filings on behalf of the groups.  Severson continued, “By choosing to ignore rather than address valid concerns, the PSC raises questions over whose interests they serve.”
 
New information cited by the groups in the request included minimal or declining growth in electrical demand, increased potential to further reduce demand, changes in La Crosse area electrical resources, and a Wisconsin court ruling regarding land-owner compensation.
 
More than three thousand individuals and ninety municipalities have asked for comprehensive analysis of alternatives to regional transmission.  The lack of this analysis remains a point of contention for both CapX2020 and the Badger Coulee – the next section of new transmission lines that utilities hope will follow.
 
CapX2020 transmission would stretch form the Dakotas into Wisconsin near La Crosse.  The Wisconsin segment was approved in May 2012. The proposed Badger Coulee line would plug into CapX2020 in the La Crosse area and travel non-stop to Madison, where energy from the Dakotas could be transferred further south and east.
 
The ability to transfer large amounts of electricity from the Dakotas both to and beyond Wisconsin was a driving force in approving CapX2020, and would require constructing the Badger Coulee line.  Because of this, the groups feel the PSC should have considered the $514-$548 million Badger Coulee cost, and to not do so is misleading to the public and over-values the purported project benefits.
 
The Badger Coulee application has been submitted, but not yet considered complete by the PSC.  SOUL is providing education so citizens can document their concerns during the Badger Coulee “scoping” meetings.  These meetings will be sponsored by the PSC during preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for Badger Coulee.  Additionally, SOUL has applied for legal participant status in hearings on the Badger Coulee application.
 
Attorney Carol Overland, who filed the request on behalf of SOUL and CETF, said the groups are evaluating other activities to undertake to address CapX2020 concerns, before construction of the line begins in Wisconsin.
1 Comment

A Farmer Laments the Nature of Sacrifice

2/8/2014

0 Comments

 
Sharon, an organic farmer from north central Kansas, recently had the opportunity to pause and ponder one of nature's wonders on her way to work.  Here are her words:

"Oh beautiful for spacious skies... " What a perfect Kodak moment! As I drove into town to my off the farm job, I was so lucky to witness yet another of Mother Nature's magic moments. I am so grateful that I was born and raised and returned back to our old family farm located in North Central Kansas. Most of you already know from geography class, that puts me on the western edge of that grand land many of us call Mayberry. Watching Mother Nature produce some of the most breathtaking artwork is one of the many perks of living out here, in the "boonies". I am so very blessed.

It's just too bad the next time many of us will see this spectacular and rare sight, the pasture fence will most likely be upstaged by 150'-200' tall, steel lattice poles with high voltage transmission lines carrying 3x the power of Hoover Dam from one end of our great state to the other and into our just as great, neighboring states. And they will stand there for--"FOREVER"!

We are assured they will be carrying all this clean? green energy which will be carried “out," not in or throughout our state. But we needn't worry, the company tells us. All is well, even though a project of this magnitude has never been built before and this company has never built a high voltage transmission line of any size.

The company and their expert witnesses assure us that we are in good hands, all is safe, there are no dangers, for "forever" and ever. Our children's grandchildren will just be fine, don't worry. They may never get to see or even know what an eagle is, nor the family farm. But what's a few sacrifices, for the greater good?

While I have spent many hours reading, re-reading, researching, searching for truth, there's still one problem I can't quite figure out in all of this. Exactly what is the "greater good" or maybe I should ask, for whom is this greater good? I'm certain Eminent Domain will let me know soon enough. Let's hope by then, it's not too late!
0 Comments

Moody's Dubs Transmission Building Schemes "A Credit Positive"

2/7/2014

0 Comments

 
Moody's researchers have been busy contemplating investor owned utilities' most recent scheme to "de-risk" their holding companies by shifting investments to the regulated side of the business.  After gathering all sorts of information available, Moody's has weighed the risks and decided that this utility investment scheme is a safe harbor for the time being, and utilities engaging in it should receive higher credit ratings.

I think Moody's got it wrong because they discounted the mettle and determination of regulators, elected officials, not-for-profit entities, and the people they represent, to continue to toss banana peels into the utility feeding frenzy that threatens to bleed them dry.  We're quite creative and getting smarter every day. :-)

Although the actual report is for subscribers only, an article in Platts tell us that Moody's has concluded that utility holding company transmission subsidiaries have a stranglehold on regional transmission operators.
"FERC transmission regulation provides forward-looking formula rates, true-up mechanisms and premium authorized returns on equity. Transmission owners face limited revenue risk, owing to strong counterparty relationships with the operating utilities and the regional transmission organization," Moody's said.

The report also "highlight[ed] the key role that US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission policies are playing in driving transmission investment" and attributed "a premium return and good cost recovery" for transmission as "thanks in part to FERC's regulatory policies, calling the commission's oversight "a material credit positive."

Moody's chose to bat aside the current parade of ROE complaints at FERC.  Perhaps Moody's thinks that ridiculous petitions like WIRES' request to stop the complaints actually has merit?  Moody's needs to take a gander at the RM13-18 docket and face reality.  The money buffet isn't going to last forever.

And Moody's totally checked out on the one thing that utilities, FERC and transmission operators have no control over:

The exploding resistance to new transmission in the form of landowners, ratepayers and local elected officials.

FERC's "premium return" means nothing when transmission can't be built due to overwhelming opposition that equates to political poison, or when ratepayers accept their responsibility to examine and challenge transmission rates they must pay.

But, that's okay, Moody's.  We're patient, and we're used to being on the cutting edge of new trends, instead of running behind trying to shore up failing business models.
0 Comments

Appalachian Power Customers Find Out How They Were Lied To By The Company, The PSC and Their Elected Officials

2/6/2014

20 Comments

 
"I told you so" is never as satisfying as it sounds.

Back in 2012, Appalachian Power proposed legislation that would allow the company to mortgage all its old, unrecovered fuel and other debts so that it could cash out and leave its customers with a long-term monthly mortgage obligation.  Appalachian Power called this amazing "no rate increase" magic trick "Consumer Rate Relief Bonds."

The legislature and the PSC embraced APCo's rate relief magic because it gave them cover to pretend they had averted a 30 - 40% rate increase for APCo customers.

The measure was approved by the legislature, and the PSC has since approved the bond sale.  Appalachian Power has now been made whole for the outrageous costs it paid for coal to fuel its power plants in 2009.

However, APCo customers have finally been handed the bill, and they're not happy.
Lynn Pugh opened her AEP bill this month to see just how much the cold January had set her back, but she found something in her bill that she normally doesn’t see.

“I’ve never seen the consumer rate relief charge,” said AEP customer Lynn Pugh.

Starting in December of 2013, AEP began adding the consumer rate relief charge to customer bills. According to the company, the new charge is a way to help them account for the spike in the price of coal in 2008-2009.

“It’s actually a reflection of a settlement we had with the PSC to recover the cost of coal,” said AEP spokesman Phillip Moye.

Normally AEP pays around $50 per ton for coal, but in ’08 and ’09 they were paying over $100 per ton because of a coal shortage.

The Public Service Commission signed off on the charge and has allowed AEP to keep it on your bill for the next 15 years. Pugh was shocked to learn that the charge would be on her bill for the next 15 years.

Moye said the AEP opted to go with the additional charge rather than increasing the rate on the price of power.

“The impact on the rate would have been tremendous,” Moye said. “30 to 40 percent increase, and that obviously is more than what customers can bare.”   [bear!!  although maybe customers will tear off their clothes and run naked through the legislature in protest?]

Pugh said she understands why she is paying the additional charge, but doesn’t think it should be on there for the next 15 years.

“I can’t imagine that they paid that much extra for coal that every AEP customer is going to have to pay this.”

The charge is based on how much your bill costs. Pugh’s charge was almost 11 dollars.
Ms. Pugh is only beginning to understand that now, in addition to all the old coal debt, she's also paying for other deferred regulatory assets, plus interest and fees.

We tried to stop this craziness in 2012, but customers like Ms. Pugh weren't paying any attention and took no interest in helping themselves.  If Ms. Pugh had known then what she knows now, might she have picked up the phone and called her elected representative, or dashed off an email to the PSC?  Probably.

Now APCo customers have the next 15 years to lament their lack of consumer education.  When will West Virginia fund an effective consumer advocacy program that includes public education?  Or does our legislature prefer us to remain barefoot, pregnant and chained to the coal-fired power station?

We have a lot of work to do, West Virginia!
20 Comments

Missouri Grain Belt Express Opponents Hit It Out of The Park on First Swing

2/5/2014

10 Comments

 
When Clean Line Energy's Grain Belt Express shell company recently filed a notice of intent with the Missouri Public Service Commission, opposition to the project exploded.

Hundreds of landowners came together at public education meetings and the media took notice.  This video was part of a story in the Kansas City Star. 
The video has drawn the attention of affected landowners, citizens, elected officials, and other entities I'm not at liberty to reveal.  Ut-oh, Grain Belt Express, another race lost right at the starting gate!  Missouri may be your worst nightmare yet!  You see, the opposition to your projects is getting better and more knowledgeable.  And there are thousands of us in multiple states.

The video has also drawn the fascination of other transmission opposition groups who want to replicate it.  But first, they have to determine why this video works so well.

It's the people.  The KC Star used a variety of interests and personalities in their video.  The people are very, very real.  They aren't making complicated arguments, they are simply speaking from the heart.  The emotion is raw and the viewer identifies with the landowners.

Contrast the landowners with the little vignettes of Grain Belt manager Mark Lawlor that have been interspersed here and there.  At best, he's Waldo come to life, creeping around in all sorts of places, hoping you'll notice him.  At worst, he's been called an unblinking alien by someone who viewed the video.  Point here is that he's emotionless and boring and comes off as an uncaring corporate stooge.
It's that contrast that makes this video work so well.  None of the participants had any idea during the filming that the finished product would be so brilliantly edited.  It's pure kismet, and it's a home run start to Missouri's successful battle against Grain Belt Express.  Well done, Missouri, well done!
10 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    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.