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

The Transmission Tower Rodeo

6/11/2019

0 Comments

 
Transmission companies are terrible copycats.  When one of them comes up with some really stupid argument to support their proposed transmission project, others soon follow.  Mostly, this is just entertainment. 

Except for this... this one is just plain dangerous, both to the humans forced to live with transmission lines built across their farms using eminent domain, and to the rest of us who like reliable electricity and pay the costs of transmission in our electric bills.

The stupid argument goes like this... hypothetical U$ele$$ Transmission project will only take 12 acres out of agricultural production, if built!  (Or 9 acres, or even less than 1 acre).  This is calculated using the area of all proposed tower bases.  This assumes that farmers can farm right up to the base of the tower.  I'm talking snugly right up to the base, without any gap between the tower and the crop whatsoever.

Not only is this a lie, it risks safety and reliability of the transmission line. 

This happened last week.
Picture
A farmer tried to farm right up to the base of this transmission tower.  Slight miscalculation, and down it came, trapping the farmer in his tractor.  Luckily no one was hurt.  But who owns liability?  Who is going to pay to repair the tower and lines?  What if the resulting power outage caused damage to some other third party?  Is it the transmission company's fault because they made public statements urging the farmer to work right up to the base of the tower?  Or is it the farmer's fault because he actually tried to do so?

And this isn't a one-time event.  These kinds of collisions between farm equipment and transmission towers happen all the time.  In some instances, farmers have been sued for damages.  It's probably NOT a good idea to try to keep land in production right up to the base of the transmission tower.  A cautious farmer will give that thing a wide berth, causing a much bigger loss of productive farm ground than that bandied about during regulatory hearings.

The claim that the 500-mile Rock Island Clean Line would only take 12 acres out of production was ridiculous, and thankfully that project has been abandoned without being built.  But then the Grain Belt Express transmission line owned by Invenergy claimed that only 9 acres would be removed from production.  And the Missouri PSC repeated that same stupidity in its order approving the project.  Now American Electric Power's Transource IEC project is making similar claims, testifying to PSC Commissioners in Maryland last week that less than an acre will be taken out of production if the project is built.  It's not some silly public relations hogwash anymore.  Now it's documented, on the record.  If these projects are built (and that's a big IF), the transmission owner (and the Missouri PSC) should be held liable for any future transmission tower crashes.  Their stupid contentions that farmers can work right up to the base of a tower shift liability in a big way.

I'm still waiting for the transmission tower/farm equipment rodeo to happen, where transmission company executives and PSC Commissioners stand in the middle of a field and pretend to be transmission towers.  Farmers will compete with their equipment (some as big as the houses these people towers live in) to see how close they can come to the people towers without the people towers flinching, screaming, wetting their pants, and making a run for it.  When transmission developer big mouths and PSC Commissioners are willing to participate in such a rodeo, then they can make all the claims about loss of productive land that they want.

But I'm guessing they won't want to.

This stupid lie needs to be retired.  It's only repeated by stupid people.
0 Comments

Central Maine Power Steps In It

6/5/2019

0 Comments

 
CMP has been acting really crazy lately.  I mean really out there.  Unbelievable.  Totally nuts!

How can they expect that sane and logical people are being influenced to support their project while watching this crazy circus?

Watch this.
CMP sent out a glossy postcard last year promising 3500 new jobs if its NECEC transmission project is built.  Last week, they sent the same glossy postcard promising only 1600 new jobs.  The new postcard also changed the purported "investment" in Maine's economy into a totally different number "injected" into Maine's economy.

Original:  "NECEC will change this with close to a $1Billion investment in Maine's economy and support of 3500 jobs."

Revised:  "NECEC will change this with close to $573 million injected into Maine's economy and support of 1,600 jobs."

The postcards also differ with the name of the website recipients can visit "to learn more."  The original tells recipients to visit "3500mainejobs.com"  The revised version tells recipients to visit "goodformaine.org"

How bad is it when your revamping of your PR program makes your original website obsolete?  (Note, visiting the original redirects to the revised).  Does CMP think people are stupid?  That they have no memory at all?

Geez, CMP, your PR contractor completely screwed this up!  You weren't supervising them at all, were you?  Or maybe you were too busy fighting off the Russians?

Facebook group Say No to NECEC reports:
May 30 - Today at an energy conference in New York, Thorn Dickinson from CMP/Avangrid gave a presentation where he complained that corridor opponents are like the Russians trying to influence elections. https://www.spglobal.com/…/…/northeast-power-and-gas-markets
He complained of artificial intelligence used to spread fake news like the Russians.
Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be any transcript or intense power point featuring Boris and Natasha, just a report from a person who attended and listened to the crazy.

Somebody seems to be cracking up here.

To underscore this, listen to Thorn's excuse for the inconsistent postcards, when he insists that was an "on purpose."
The difference between these two numbers is easily understood by anyone familiar with this project and Maine's approval process. One refers to the average number of jobs supported each year over the six years of development, and the higher number is the expectation during the peak year of construction. Both mailers are accurate. These numbers have been consistent since the onset of the project and were confirmed by two, independent economic analyses using standard modeling techniques. -Thorn Dickinson, Vice President of Business Development, Avangrid
"Anyone familiar with this project and Maine's approval process."  Was this the target of the postcards?  Judging by their wide circulation, I don't think so.  They weren't sent to "anyone," but to "everyone," even those unfamiliar with this project and Maine's approval process.  This is the epitome of stepped in it.
Picture
What a clown!  Oops, I meant клоун.
When I'm done laughing hysterically at this ridiculous circus, I'm probably going to conclude that CMP is making crap up as it goes along.  And nobody is buying it.

Who's paying for this comedy?
0 Comments

Keryn's Truth-o-Meter:  Columbia Missourian's GBE Tower Height Findings are FALSE

5/15/2019

5 Comments

 
Wow, what has happened to investigative journalism?  Nobody has time to do it properly anymore, instead relying on the statements of corporate spinners as "fact."

And that's exactly what happened to the Columbia Missourian's article that wrongly says Block GBE and Wiley Hibbard lied about tower heights.  Reporter Sidney Steele's analysis pivoted on an email interview with Jack Cardetti, hired Clean Line spinner, where he claimed tower heights would be no higher than 150 ft.  This is a straight up fabrication and doesn't match record evidence submitted to the PSC.

The Grain Belt Express application to the PSC states at page 24:
Most structures are expected to be between 110-to-150 feet tall, with taller structures likely required at river crossings and in certain other situations where longer span lengths are required.
It is plainly stated that structures may be taller than 150 ft.

In addition, the Construction Plan for GBE, dated June 2016 and submitted for the record at the PSC includes this table, which gives upper height measurements for all structures exceeding 150 ft.

Lattice structures would be 120 - 200 ft. tall.
Monopole structures would be 120 - 160 ft. tall.
Guyed structures would be 120 - 200 ft. tall.
Lattice crossing structures would be 200 - 350 ft. tall.

The Statue of Liberty, without the base (because the graphic clearly shows the Statue without the base) is around 150 ft. tall.  It is indisputable that GBE would include structures taller than the Statue of Liberty.

The Columbia Missourian's "ruling" and rating of Block GBE's claim as "false" are clearly FALSE.

The Columbia Missourian owes Block GBE and Wiley Hibbard a printed apology and retraction.
UPDATE:  Even when her error was pointed out to her, this student reporter continues to insist she was right.  What's it going to take to stop her from spreading fake news?  A lawsuit?  The Columbia Missourian should know better than to let student journalists put their company at risk by printing false information and libeling Block GBE.  It's time to take it up the chain and let the Missourian know what you think.  Email [email protected] and ask that they print a retraction and apology at once.

Here's where Sidney made her error... according to the article's sidebar, Sidney used the testimony of Wayne Galli to make her "finding" that transmission tower heights would be no greater than 150 ft.  Of course, Galli's testimony said no such thing.  What Sidney is relying on is this, an exhibit to Galli's testimony showing a depiction of "typical" tower structures.  The "typical" structures show a maximum height of 150 ft.  Typical, Sidney, TYPICAL.  It does not show the dimensions of every tower.

Moreover, Galli's exhibit is only one small part of the evidentiary record at the PSC.  Clean Line also put into evidence its application stating that taller structures will likely be required, especially for crossings.  And the weightiest piece of evidence Clean Line entered was its "Construction Plan" designed by an engineer, which clearly shows the heights of these taller structures at 350 ft., along with a range of heights for "typical" towers up to 200 ft. 

Sidney chooses to dismiss this part of the evidentiary record, insisting that she must use the one piece that is most recent, while ignoring equal evidence filed earlier in the proceeding.  Sorry, Sidney, that's not how evidence works.  The GBE evidentiary record is one body.  Unless evidence is withdrawn or amended, it all has equal weight.  A newer piece does not supersede all older pieces.  Dates have no place in an evidentiary record.

What Sidney should be reporting is that Clean Line submitted conflicting evidence about tower heights into the record.  That's what her investigation reveals.  It does not support a "finding" that Block GBE's statement about towers being taller than the Statue of Liberty is false.  In fact, the evidence supports Block GBE's statement as true.

Sidney's article says
Jack Cardetti, spokesperson for Clean Line Energy, says the tallest the structures will be is 150 feet. Cardetti says this plan is what was filed with the Missouri Public Service Commission and is the only official plan of record.
The official plan on record is the Construction Plan!  Galli's testimony is not a "plan" for GBE.  Galli's exhibit is but one small part of a larger evidentiary record, it's not the ONLY record.

And who is Jack Cardetti?  How come his name has never been associated with Clean Line before, and he is not a Clean Line employee?  He's part of this "team."  He's a lobbyist working for GBE to defeat important legislation.  What he knows about the technical aspects of GBE could fit in a thimble.  His assertion that no tower will be higher than 150 ft. isn't based on engineering knowledge.  It's based on what he wants Sidney to hear (and write).

Perhaps if he had any knowledge about transmission, Jack would realize how ridiculous his statement about tower height limits truly is.  Physics, Jack, physics!  If you stretch a heavy cable between two towers, the greater the distance between the two towers, the greater the amount of sag on the cable.  It's easy to pull it tight if the towers are close together, but as the distance between the two towers increases, the weight of the cable causes it to sag and it cannot be pulled tight.  In order to accommodate sag for crossings of greater distances, such as across a wide river, the tower heights have to be increased in order to allow for the physical sag of the cable while still meeting ground clearance standards.  Another physics lesson:  Uninsulated transmission cables get hot.  As they heat up, they expand and increase the amount of sag.  This also is taken into account when designing proper tower heights.  Jack's assertion that no towers will be higher than 150 ft. is ridiculous.  He can't promise that.  He's not an engineer.  He has no idea what he's talking about.

But he sure fooled silly little Sidney.

Sideshow Jack has created a sideshow argument meant to distract your attention at this crucial time.  HB 1062 isn't about tower heights.  Keep your eyes on the prize folks, and continue to contact your senators to urge them to support this legislation.  Emailing the Missourian and demanding a retraction and apology is an amusing dalliance for those with extra time.

This whole thing belongs in the circus.

UPDATE NUMBER 2:  (And, yes, double entendre).  Sidney has suddenly changed her mind and updated her article to "half true."  Finally, she recognizes that the Construction Plan is valid evidence.  But she rushes to make light of its tower heights, insisting that "most" of the towers could now be less than 160 ft., or maybe 140 ft.  The Statue is 151 ft. 11 in., according to Sidney.  160 is still more than 151.  And she acknowledges that the Construction Plan says "up to 200 ft."  She even acknowledges that the Block GBE meme that she found so offensive she needed to write this article in the first place says "up to 200 ft."   And she even mentions that the towers at the river crossings could be up to 350 ft. tall, taller even than the Statue, plus her base.

Why then, is Sidney still trying to insist that Block GBE is "misleading"?  It's not.  It exactly matches the Construction Plan on file at the PSC.

Sidney is behaving very unprofessionally by continuing to insist she's right, even half right.  Now her article is a hot mess of contradictory baloney and she's probably sorry she ever wrote it in the first place.

Poor, misguided Sidney.  Pants on fire, dear.
5 Comments

There's Nothing Natural About Contrived Utility Talking Points

5/15/2019

0 Comments

 
Advice from a spinner: 
How about something like this...in you own, natural voice, and therefore maybe a little less contrived...
There is nothing less contrived about delivering the canned talking points written by public relations spinners.

Contrived - adjective - deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously.
Created or arranged in a way that seems artificial and unrealistic: the ending of the novel is too pat and contrived.

What is "your own, natural voice," and how does one master using it when delivering a contrived statement?

This is pure garbage, brought to you by Central Maine Power's paid public relations spinners as they advise officials from the Town of Jay on what to say at various meetings and hearings on CMP's New England Clean Energy Connect transmission project.
Picture
C'mon, either the Town of Jay naturally supports the project and can come up with their own talking points, or its simply acting as a shill for CMP and needs talking points handed to it.  Obviously the latter.

What kind of collusion is this?
Picture
CMP's spinners can "craft specific statements for anyone in Jay" that can be delivered by human puppets operating remotely without strings.  Isn't technology wonderful?  No strings!
Except that kind of stuff always appears to be the contrived nonsense it is.  But now we learn it can simply be overcome by using your own "natural" voice.  Easier said than done, Spinmeister Lady, easier said than done.

So, now Mainers find out that the Town of Jay has been nothing but a mouthpiece for CMP.  I don't think many of them are surprised, however they are angry, as they have every right to be.  Just two nights ago, the Town of Jay illegally rejected a citizen petition to allow a Town vote on the NECEC.  You have to wonder if that action was also orchestrated by CMP.  In fact, does the Town of Jay do anything of its own "natural" initiative?

While shocking, this kind of utility puppeteering of elected officials, regulators, and sycophantic business and community groups is nothing new.  It has happened so much in the past that it's been a regular part of the utility transmission approval playbook.  I'm sure Connie and Elizabeth know it well.  Front groups, advertising, closed-door-lobbying, and advocacy buys are how the utility tilts the playing field in its favor, and these same tactics have been used over and over again on different transmission projects.

It all costs money.  Lots of money.  Who pays for it?  The utility may wrongly believe that it is the consumers who ultimately pay the cost of the transmission project.  In a traditional cost-of-service project, that would be the captive ratepayers who benefit from the project.  In NECEC's case, as a merchant project, it will be the electric ratepayers in Massachusetts, who have voluntarily contracted to purchase transmission capacity on NECEC for a set price.

Do Massachusetts ratepayers want to pay for this kind of nonsense?  Is it legal to require them to do so?  Many states have strict rules regarding the kinds of costs that may be folded into cost-of-service rates.  Lobbying and advocacy buys are generally prohibited from recovery and must be absorbed in utility profits (shareholders pay these costs because they only benefit the company, not the ratepayers).  In addition, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an Opinion in 2017 prohibiting recovery of these kinds of costs in interstate transmission rates.  It's pretty cut and dried that the cost of advocacy programs shall not be recovered from ratepayers.

Except NECEC is a merchant project.  Its rates are voluntarily negotiated and a price is set in the contract.  The transmission owner cannot increase that rate later to cover the cost of advocacy buys.  CMP probably built in a fixed budget for advocacy in its contract with Massachusetts, and it has been spending freely.  Massachusetts ratepayers will pay that cost regardless, with any difference between the budget and actual costs either becoming additional profit for NECEC, or decreasing CMP's profit.

All the costs of CMP's advocacy buys end up in the electric bills of Massachusetts ratepayers.  Every last one of them needs to think about that every time they flip the light switch to use some of that great "clean" Canadian hydropower their government has mandated.  And it's going to get pretty expensive, because the citizens of Maine aren't backing down.  At some point, CMP is going to meet or exceed its advocacy budget, and then the cost of continuing this farce comes out of company pockets.  How might CMP decrease services elsewhere to make up for this loss?
0 Comments

Debate About Grain Belt Express Is Alive and Well

3/21/2019

2 Comments

 
The Missouri PSC issued an order granting a CCN to Grain Belt Express yesterday.  What does that mean for the viability of the project?  In the grand scheme of things... not much.  Grain Belt Express, as presented to the MO PSC as a 780-mile transmission line from southwestern Kansas to Indiana, is still never going to happen, IMO.  The reasons are myriad, and hopefully I'll get to most of them over time.  More garbage has been generated than fits in one trash truck, ya know.

Let's start here.  Permitting whack-a-mole.  This is an old one, but still very much appropriate.  Grain Belt Express just can't whack all the moles and win this game.  The biggest, baddest mole standing in its currently proposed way is Illinois.  Based on prior court decisions in that state, GBE just can't be permitted.  Pretending it can is unrealistic.  Is GBE lying to us, or is it lying to itself?

And then there's the ridiculous garbage the PSC generated yesterday.  We'll get to the actual Order later.  First, let's look at the press release the PSC issued.

The PSC is a regulator, not a politician, not a public relations agency.  It's supposed to deal in facts.  Its decisions are legal opinions.  It should not have to "sell" them to the public.
Mission Statement
We will:
  • ensure that Missourians receive safe and reliable utility services at just, reasonable and affordable rates;
  • support economic development through either traditional rate of return regulation or competition, as required by law;
  • establish standards so that competition will maintain or improve the quality of services provided to Missourians;
  • provide the public the information they need to make educated utility choices;
  • provide an efficient regulatory process that is responsive to all parties, and perform our duties ethically and professionally.
You failed, MO PSC.  Any respect I used to have for the MO PSC is now gone.  No, it's not that they issued a decision I don't agree with.  That happens a lot from all kinds of regulators.  It's the way they went about it.  Even a regulatory decision you don't agree with contains facts and logic, sometimes a bit of opinion, but there's usually a sufficient amount of legal reasoning that forms a platform upon which the decision was made.  You may not agree with the decision, but you can clearly see how it was created.  The MO PSC's decision happened inside a black box.  And it reeks of politics.

First thing to come out of the box is the press release.
The Commission granted a CCN to Grain Belt determining: 1) there is a need for the service; 2) Grain Belt is qualified to provide the proposed service; 3) Grain Belt has the financial ability to provide the proposed service; 4) Grain Belt’s proposal is economically feasible; and 5) the service promotes the public interest.
The Commission says it issued a CCN to Grain Belt, but it really issued one to Invenergy.  Invenergy has the financial ability and is qualified to provide the service -- Grain Belt has no employees and no money.  Neither Grain Belt nor Invenergy has a proposal that is economically feasible.  There's only 2 customers, one of which was documented to be paying below cost rates.  These customers cannot financially support the proposal.  There are no other customers.  Potential customers don't pay the bills.  Supplying below cost service to one customer is Missouri does not promote the interests of the entire public.
The Commission stated the evidence in the case demonstrated that the Grain Belt project will create both short-term and long-term benefits to ratepayers and citizens of the state. In addition, the project would have a substantial and favorable effect on the reliability of electric service in Missouri.
Benefits to citizens?  Where?  What citizens?  What benefits?  This statement is created out of thin air.  As far as "reliability" goes... a transmission line contracted to serve only select customers with unreliable wind power is not "reliable."  Wind cannot be called to produce when needed.  It's not an open access transmission line that will serve all customers equally, and Missouri may only receive 500 MW, although contracted amounts are much, much less.  This is not a "reliability" transmission asset.  It's a private driveway for select customers to receive special, supplemental wind power so they can pretend to be clean and green and all sorts of peripheral things.  As if electrons can be segregated by color.
There can be no debate that our energy future will require more diversity in energy resources, particularly renewable resources,” said the Commission. “We are witnessing a worldwide, long-term and comprehensive movement towards renewable energy in general and wind energy specifically. Wind energy provides great promise as a source for affordable, reliable, safe and environmentally-friendly energy. The Grain Belt Project will facilitate this movement in Missouri, will thereby benefit Missouri citizens, and is, therefore, in the public interest.”
Whaddya mean there can be no debate?  Of course there's debate.  There's a HUGE debate going on in this country and around the globe.  Wind energy is not the solution to our energy woes.  It's just a gluttonous industry that has been greenwashing America for years, and stuffing its pockets with our tax dollars.  It's not affordable, it's not sustainable.  It's not safe for the people who have to live around its generation plants.  And it's certainly not reliable.  Wind is not a baseload source of power.  It cannot be controlled to ramp up and down to meet need.  Wind does what it wants, and those who depend upon it for a source of electricity are the ones whose electric use ramps up and down to follow the wind.  Who wrote this garbage?  Was it the wind industry?
The Commission noted that any negative impacts of the project on the land and landowners will be mitigated by: 1) a landowner protocol to protect landowners; 2) superior compensation payments; 3) a binding arbitration option for easement negotiations; 4) a decommissioning fund-a fund for this type of project would be the first of its kind in the country; and 5) an agricultural impact mitigation protocol to avoid or minimize negative agricultural impacts. Agricultural impacts will also be reduced because no more than nine acres of land in Missouri will be taken out of agricultural production as a result of project structures, and the proposed route does not directly impact the operation of any existing center pivot irrigation systems.

“Many of the landowners’ concerns will be addressed through carefully considered conditions placed on the CCN,” said the Commission.
Landowner concerns have NOT been addressed.  Landowners are still extremely concerned.  The PSC's conditions did nothing to ameliorate them.  The "landowner protocol" and "agricultural impact mitigation protocol" were created by Grain Belt, not the landowners, therefore landowners concerns are not addressed.  These documents address only the company's concerns.  Landowners were not consulted in the creation of these documents.  It's nothing more than the fox designing a security system for the hen house.  It's worthless and does nothing to satisfy landowners.  The decommissioning fund is also so much nonsense.  It has no substance, no rules, and is completely unworkable.  It's just more glittering make believe.

Superior compensation payments?  Superior to what?  Receiving nothing?  Since the PSC's land is not subject to eminent domain, and the PSC has never been subject to condemnation and eminent domain taking, it's opinion that the compensation payments are "superior" is just so much hubris.  In fact, it's completely insulting to landowners.  It's disrespectful.

And speaking of disrespectful, here's the pinnacle of propaganda:  only 9 acres of land will be taken out of agricultural production.  Just 9 acres!  Across 206 miles of 200-foot wide linear right of way.  The PSC has deemed every square inch of the proposed right of way to be agriculturally workable right up to the base of the tower.  I guess none of these folks have ever tried to drive a huge piece of farm equipment right up to a transmission line pole.  And they've never had to fly around a transmission pole to apply pesticide or fertilizer.  And they've never had to try to grow something along a strip of land that no longer has top soil.  And they're certainly not going to accept liability for any farmer who tries to farm right up to the base of the transmission tower and has an accident.  This is absolutely absurd.  And, ya know, it's something Hans Detweiler used to tell farmers in Illinois... that only 12 acres of land would be taken out of use for the entire Rock Island Clean Line project.

Gotta wonder, who wrote that stunningly bad press release?  I hope that person's food and farm goods will be supplied solely by that compromised 9 acres in the future.

We're only getting warmed up here... more to come...
2 Comments

Follow The Money:  $258M Smells Like A Backroom Deal

2/28/2019

0 Comments

 
Okay, now I've officially seen everything.  A foreign, investor owned utility is complaining about "a pretty nasty ad" that exposes its backroom deal with Maine's Governor to sell the state's pristine wilderness for $258M in payola.
CMP has drawn attention to the ad this week, calling it part of a well-funded, dark-money campaign against the project.
Dark money?  An investor owned utility is pointing at a low budget internet ad campaign and calling it dark money?  Investor owned utilities are the kings of dark money!  They dole out millions in political contributions each year with the hope of influencing laws and policy in states where they do business.  They spend buckets of money hiring the top public relations spinners to lie to their customers with smiles on their faces.  They create front groups and fake "coalitions" to advocate for their money-making transmission project ideas.  And, as CMP has so aptly demonstrated in the past week, they create monetary compensation packages to be traded for political support.  Fact:  Maine Governor Janet Mills has publicly supported the New England Clean Energy Connect project because the state and some private interests have been promised $258M in payouts over the next 40 years.

So, "wahhhhh, wahhhhh" CMP, let me call you a wahhhmbulance.  You're such a lily white, downtrodden, paragon of virtue being attacked for your extra large heart and spirit of charity by some big, powerful, "dark" interests who spent a whopping sum on attack ads, reported to be somewhere between $500-$999.  That's dollars.  Five-hundred dollars.

$500 vs. $258,000,000.  Yup, CMP, you poor, poor victim.

And, oh my gosh!  The ad has had 100,000 to 200,000 impressions, the number of times a post is displayed.  Why, I'm offended.  Soooo offended that this ad
has been viewed over 116,000 times on YouTube!  If I was a total geek who had no real evidence of anything but wanted to spin an opinion piece to make it look like CMP is a poor, poor victim of "dark money" interests, I'd dig up stuff like...  As of Wednesday, the highest number of impressions, 12 percent, has come from men, ages 25-34. The next-highest, 11 percent, from women ages 55-64.  Because this would matter greatly in making my point.  Or covering up the fact that I really had no point.

I mean, don't watch this ad

because it increases the impressions and amount of "dark" money spent by Satan and his anonymous henchmen attacking the purity of Janet Mills.  Just look at her, even her jacket is white as snow!

We definitely have to stop the internet spread of this ad
because CMP says it's "dark money" and anonymous.

Even though it is clearly marked as paid for by Stop the Corridor, CMP and Janet Mills need to know where this coalition got its $500 to run the ad.
Maybe we can arrange a double reveal?  Stop the Corridor can show how it raised $500 and CMP can reveal how it raised $258M?  Maybe throw in a little spreadsheet of all CMP's political contributions, lobbying, and memberships for the past year or so?  Probably the public (and CMP's customers) would rather see that than some bake sale records and copies of personal checks for small amounts.  CMP may be surprised how easily citizen opposition groups can raise $500 - $999 to run ads like this:
Please don't do anything that increases the online impressions of this ad.
Central Maine Power doesn't want you to.
Stop it!
Stop it right now!
0 Comments

Buzzwords, Bluster, and Baloney:  Stirring Up Grain Belt Express

2/18/2019

1 Comment

 
Picture
Languished, obstacle, move forward, favorable, finish line, ambitious, momentum, demand, key, tax credit, renewable, next steps... what do these words have in common?  They're tired buzzwords used to describe tired transmission ideas to a tired public who has stopped caring.  Ya know, if it wasn't for the St. Louis Dispatch energy reporter's own personal greenwashed beliefs, there wouldn't be a "story" here.

What's wrong with this article?  It's misinformed, propaganda-driven malarkey that relies on glittering generalities  and opinion.  It's not "news."  It belongs on the Editorial page, not in "business news."
The proposed multistate transmission line, Grain Belt Express, has languished before Missouri regulators for years — with their at times controversial rejections representing the last major obstacle to sending Kansas wind energy east along an intended 780-mile path.
A bigger obstacle to sending Kansas wind energy east is Illinois.  It seems like the reporter is completely oblivious to the court decision in Illinois that vacated the Grain Belt Express permit in that state.  GBE is back to start in Illinois and it is highly unlikely that it will ever be permitted.  The Illinois Supreme Court has serious concerns that Clean Line's merchant, negotiated rates business model does not meet the definition of a public utility.  If it's not a public utility, it doesn't need a permit from the Illinois Commerce Commission.  Clean Line is free to build any transmission it wants in the state, but it may not use a public utility's eminent domain authority to do so.  The same concern has been briefed in Missouri.  Grain Belt Express will not serve all customers equally, which is a hallmark of public utility status.  Without all of the requisite qualifications, Grain Belt Express cannot be a public utility.
While the overall decision on the project’s approval remains the bigger matter before the PSC, the regulatory body announced this month that it was also warming up to begin the separate process of approving its sale.
Warming up?  What the heck does that mean in a regulatory context?  GBE and Invenergy have applied for Commission approval of the sale.  The PSC has set a hearing to determine a procedural schedule.  It does not imply approval.  It merely illustrates the timing differences here where the companies want the PSC to issue a permit to a project based on new ownership BEFORE it has approved said ownership.  It bolsters the argument of Missouri Landowner Alliance that the PSC cannot approve the project based on the qualifications of Invenergy because Invenergy does not yet own the project.
Some outside experts in Missouri speculate that Invenergy’s bid to take over the project can only help its odds of getting across the finish line.
Outside experts?  Renew Missouri is a party to the PSC case.  Invenergy is the applicant.  These are INSIDERS.  And there is no "expertise" here.  It's talking heads spewing glittering generalities and misinformed, self-serving opinion.

James Owen:  this guy has shot himself in the foot so many times by spewing falsehoods in the media that nobody even listens anymore.  If Invenergy wants to buy the project that's proof there's value to the project?  The only proof there is that Invenergy has some sort of scheme in the works to leverage some parts of the project to serve its quest for profit.  The Invenergy/GBE deal is contingent upon successful permitting in Kansas and Missouri.  It is not contingent upon successful permitting in Illinois and Indiana, nor successful transfer of GBE's FERC negotiated rate authority to proposed new parent Invenergy.  If Invenergy intended to build GBE as currently proposed, all those conditions would be present in the contract.  They're not, therefore Invenergy does  not need Illinois or Indiana permits, nor negotiated rate authority, for whatever scheme it may cook up with the carcass of GBE.
She declined, however, to give updates or estimates about Invenergy’s anticipated, or hopeful, timeline for the project.
“I think it’s premature for us to be talking about timelines right now,” said Conley. “When we have a decision in that case (from the PSC), then we can really consider timelines and development and what the next steps for the project are.”

Is that right, Beth?  You can't reveal Invenergy's actual plan for GBE until after the PSC approves the wolf in sheep's clothing?  Then why was it that two Invenergy witnesses told the PSC at hearing last December that the company would have to begin eminent domain proceedings against 700 landowners immediately after approval, and well before it had all state permits in place to build the original concept?  Invenergy admitted that there have been discussions about ending the project in Missouri, or taking a different route around Illinois.  Invenergy doesn't intend to build Grain Belt Express all the way to Indiana and then sell capacity through negotiated rates, does it?  The only thing "premature" here would be letting Invenergy's cat out of its bag and demonstrating its true intentions to the MO PSC before it makes a decision on the project. It's a lot easier to beg forgiveness than seek permission, isn't it, Invenergy?
The project would be accompanied by the large-scale construction of new wind energy generation in western Kansas. Although about 85 percent of electricity distributed by the project would be destined for other states, it would power approximately 200,000 Missouri households. The PSC, even in denying the project through certain legal interpretations, has agreed that it is in the public interest, and would save Missouri customers millions of dollars by promoting access to cheap wind energy.
This is the reporter's opinion.  There are no facts here.  Building a transmission line does not ensure construction of any generation in any specific location.  Eight-five percent will not be destined for other states.  If GBE would have a capacity of 4,000 MW, then 15% would be 600 MW.  GBE proposes 500 MW for Missouri, if it can find customers for that much.  Instead, it only has purported customers for up to 200 MW, which is 5%.  And of that 200 MW, only a bit over 100 MW has actually been "sold" to municipalities in Missouri.  And where does the 200,000 households come from?  Did the reporter add up all the participating municipalities to get that figure, or did he just harvest it from some GBE propaganda?  So, more than 95% is destined for other states currently.  And of that 95%, only 50 MW, or just over 1%, has been tentatively sold.  And since a merchant project cannot be built without customers (customers who would pay much higher rates than those loss leader rates offered to Missouri municipalities), any prognostication about who would buy the capacity and where they would be located is pure speculation and fairy tale.  Also, it matters not what the MO PSC did on an entirely different matter.  GBE has changed significantly since its prior application, and the PSC's opinion may have changed significantly as well.
Picture
The transmission project would be the biggest, by far, that the Chicago-based company has ever undertaken. The company has developed more than 400 miles of combined transmission lines in its history, Conley said — just over half of the distance that Grain Belt would cover.
But what kind of transmission lines has Invenergy developed, Beth?  They've all been short generation tie line segments built without eminent domain authority.  This is a comparison between apples and oranges.  Invenergy has no experience with open access transmission lines with negotiated rates using eminent domain authority.  All Invenergy's transmission lines are private use for the company to sell its product.  Are we supposed to infer that GBE would just be another one of those, albeit more than 700 miles long?  Great!  But no eminent domain authority would be appropriate for that kind of project.  And besides, Invenergy has not applied to build any transmission project.  The PSC cannot approve this project as something Invenergy is building because Invenergy does not own it.
But for any prospective wind energy developer, the end of 2020 has long been a key point on the calendar.
After that point, production tax credits for completed wind projects begin to phase out. Even without receiving the full tax in their entirety, Clean Line officials previously said they felt the project would be cost-effective, thanks to technology and declining costs. Invenergy shares that belief, Conley said — full tax credits or not.
Does this reporter not know that Clean Line isn't eligible for, and will not receive, any tax credits?  There are no tax credits for transmission lines, and GBE cannot be built in time for any new wind to be built that qualifies for the credit.  It sounds good, but it's pure fiction, certainly not "news."

Perhaps this reporter should have attempted a balanced piece by talking with opponents to the project?  It's almost as if there is no opposition at all.  Failure to recognize the opposition does not make it disappear.  It only makes this article look biased.  And what's up with that graphic?  It shows three Clean Line projects, two of which have been officially cancelled, without any recognition whatsoever by the reporter.

This article is opinionated garbage.  The St. Louis Post-Dispatch needs to do better.
1 Comment

FirstEnergy Open House Fail

1/28/2019

0 Comments

 
The people of Aurora, Ohio, were ready for FirstEnergy last week, and it looks like its "Open House" effort to charm and pull the wool over everyone's eyes was a complete failure.  FirstEnergy may have counted on light attendance to overwhelm and baffle its critics.  Instead, it got this:
Hundreds packed a public open house convened by FirstEnergy Monday night to reveal plans for the Northern Portage Reliability Project.

The big room at Christ Community Chapel was built to hold 350 and it was so packed that people were turned away within the first half-hour of what was to be a two-hour event.
As the open house began at 6 p.m., traffic was backed up for almost half a mile between the chapel just off Ohio 306 and Ohio 82 to the south.

FirstEnergy employees, contractors and consultants staffed themed tables around the periphery of the room. They included stations entitled Engineering & Construction, Vegetation Management, Environmental, Real Estate and Route Selection. The company created a large centerpiece with big photos on easels showing various points where the company wants to put in power lines. The event was designed for people to circulate, but the crowd made navigation around the room difficult. Some attendees complained that there was no public give-and-take between the company and residents as one might have at a town-hall style event.
Oh no!  People turned away, you say?  Guess you'll have to be punished with more dog & pony shows, FirstEnergy.  Punishment?  But of course!  The pictures tell the tale, and they look just like every other set of news photos of a transmission line "Open House."  Shocked and angry landowners glaring aggressively, transmission company employees making animated faces and hand gestures as they try mightily to make their lies believable.  Aurora clearly wasn't buying FirstEnergy's story.

And why should they, when FirstEnergy is clearly making crap up as they go along.  Why else would there be two different takes on burial costs?
According to FirstEnergy, the cost to run the lines underground along the rail corridor would be three to seven times more expensive than using utility poles.
Or
First Energy has said the underground scenario could create a 10-fold increase in the cost of the project and the above-ground rerouting would be longer that the former rail line, and would send the lines over roadways and home owners’ yards.
Pop quiz!  How  much does it really cost to bury transmission lines?

    Underground Transmission Line Cost Pop Quiz

Take a Guess!
Who could believe anything FirstEnergy says?  It's obvious that depending on who you ask, you're likely to get a different answer.  And some of the answers are conflicting, such as this one:
Jennifer Young, a spokeswoman for the company, said the lines will be carried by 60-foot wood poles and those might be reduced to 45 footers, making them lower than nearby trees.
You mean the height of transmission lines is a purely elective thing?  I thought safety standards dictated clearances to the ground.  If the lines are as safe at 45 feet as they are at 60, why in the world would you have ever planned to build them at 60 feet?  60 foot towers are probably more expensive  and maybe more obtrusive, and definitely more objectionable.  Why would you do that unless it was a safety requirement?  I simply don't believe you that the height of the line "might be" reduced to 45 feet.  The only thing that could reduce the height of your project would be if you eliminated a proposed double circuit that would have required additional height clearances, and where would FirstEnergy be with its redundancy and reliability claims if it built a double circuited line?  This is obviously an empty promise.

I wonder who the genius was who came up with this idea: 
Beach said FirstEnergy measures the viability of various routes by their potential impact on property owners. The western route could affect 111 homeowners (although the company would need right-of-way access from about half that number), and the eastern route could affect up to 177 homeowners with right-of-way access from half that number. He also said many of those properties would have utility poles going up in the front of their properties.

“We have the opportunity to build this and maintain it in the right-of-way with one parcel that’s 100 feet wide for the most part,” said Beach.
And said "opportunity" runs along the back side of residential property.  So, where would you rather have a transmission line on your property, Aurora?  Your backyard or your front yard?  Nothing like stuffing a few strawmen for public execution, is there, FirstEnergy?  How about neither yard?  How about FirstEnergy buries it, or better yet doesn't build it at all?  I did not notice those options on the table.  Of course not, FirstEnergy's game is rigged to allow the company to win (build a transmission line) every time!

Aurora Mayor Ann Womer Benjamin takes on FirstEnergy's lies in this video.  This lovely lady seems knowledgeable, calm, and entrenched to resist.  And there's no more formidable opponent than a determined lady of a certain age, is there, FirstEnergy?  You might as well just give up now and cut your losses.
Unfortunately, you've got to sit through a FirstEnergy crapfest where Bill Beach shoots the strawmen before Womer Benjamin appears, but it's worth waiting for.
0 Comments

Social Media Proves Too "Real" For Corporate Astroturf

1/25/2019

1 Comment

 
Wow... big wind sycophants are wasting time and money trying to come up with complicated explanations and expensive solutions for a "problem" that can be explained in one simple sentence and solved by failure to participate.  How easy and cheap is that?

Social media, like Facebook and Twitter, are too transparent to sustain corporate astroturf because real people keep getting in and sharing their honest opinions.

How can anyone take this person seriously when they write stuff like this, which is nothing but one big ad hominem attack on the communities who object to having their landscapes littered with big wind infrastructure?  It's not really constructive or informative in the least.  It's just one more false accusation and personal attack. 

Let's count the ad hominem attacks here:
  1. NIMBYs.  It's right in the headline.  NIMBY stands for "Not In My Back Yard."  The implication is that people only object to energy infrastructure because it's in their own backyard.  Not true.  Objections come from far and wide.  But let's turn this around to where it's more apt, shall we?  The ones who love new energy infrastructure do so only because it is NOT in their own backyard.  Or they love it because they stand to personally profit from it.  Most of the folks who say they love "clean energy" only love it until it encroaches upon their castle.  Then they hate it, or argue that it should be in someone else's back yard, someone else who is less politically connected and smaller in number.
  2. "The people who virulently hate wind energy. The irrational ones who ignore the clear science that shows that it’s perfectly healthy, that windows and cats kill orders of magnitude more birds, and who refuse to accept the evidence from around the world that it’s cheap and easy to integrate into grids. Often they are global warming deniers as well."  Hate.  Irrational.  Ignore science.  Refuse to accept evidence.  Deniers.  This is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, as if making these people socially unacceptable is sufficient argument to support wind power.
  3. "It’s all too easy to recirculate fake news about wind energy on Facebook. There’s a small group of people who do it from the time they get up in the morning to the time they go to bed."  Fake news from people who spend all their time on the internet and do nothing else?  Calling something you disagree with "fake news" is just another ad hominem.  And I assure you, these people you believe do nothing but sit on the internet have plenty of other things to do.  There's just a lot of them, and growing daily.  They have professional jobs, own companies, and most importantly they are engaged in the backbreaking daily task of producing food to stuff in your ungrateful piehole.
  4. "It is understandable as social and digital media for anything controversial demands constant attention. First, you have to build a following of supporters and then you must police the comments until the supporters stand up for wind and chase the anti-trolls away. It can get ugly and it’s no fun but is necessary. Our public opinion research around the nation finds nearly 7 of 10 citizens throughout the United States in favor or wind, yet the anti groups are bolder and have been able to dominate the discussion making approvals harder and harder."  Trolls?  Ad hominem name calling doesn't make you right.  And it's just unfortunate that people are speaking up to disagree with the plentiful piles of bullshit the wind industry serves up daily.  Deal with it.  It's inherent to social media.  You cannot present a cherry-picked, one-sided version of "facts" when you open the door for public comment.  If you ask for public comment, you will get it, both favorable and unfavorable.  And here's the thing... I think your own pro-trolls are actually having fun with their arrogant, clueless arguments and gang attacks on any naysayers who do manage to get into the room.  This very article is case in point.  It looks like someone showed up to disagree with the subject article and was gleefully insulted and told his arguments were wrong.  However, this person's comments seem to be hidden (not approved by the moderator).  Therefore, if you don't click on each instance of a comment not approved, it looks like these jerks are arguing with the Invisible Man, or simply themselves.  And they do it en masse with such arrogance and glee!   They're having fun! This isn't helpful discussion or reasoned persuasion.  It's bullying, plain and simple.  Approvals of wind projects are harder and harder because the communities affected are getting more numerous.  Sly tricks and local government payoffs and bullying aren't working any longer to secure approvals.  It's like a snowball rolling down hill.  The more invasive big wind projects you build, the more evidence builds against them.  Creating more pro-trolls isn't going to help that because nobody really pays these angry bullies any attention.  They're irrelevant.
After a few paragraphs of look at me and all my accomplishments, the author suggests wind companies spend money creating an army of bots and professional trolls to scour social media sites in order to respond to "disinformation."
New technology and new businesses hold out hope. Twitter bots exist for good and evil. Just as there are Russian bots spreading fake news, there are bots which respond with carefully selected and edited reality. It’s possible to build social media responses with mixtures of professionals and automation now, and to respond without rancor to disinformation campaigns. There are social-media savvy firms which know how to mobilize effective pro-development efforts on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.
But how would a fake astroturf campaign win the social media war?  Astroturf depends on silencing other points of view.  No matter how companies try, they simply cannot have a public social media presence that is free from dissenting opinions.  This is why corporate energy initiatives have given up on social media, as well they should.  They have figured out that it's just too time consuming and expensive to engage in this battle.

Score one for the people.
1 Comment

Californians Still Making Excuses To Avoid Burial of Transmission Lines

1/15/2019

0 Comments

 
California investor-owned utility Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is still making excuses for its liability for the mass destruction left after its transmission lines sparked another deadly wild fire.  With only $1.4B worth of wild fire liability insurance, and facing upwards of $30B in liability claims, PG&E will file for bankruptcy protection.

But somehow the "bankrupt" company will continue to exist and provide "safe" and economical electricity service to its customers.  Oh, get real!!!

So, let's see... transmission line failures, combined with insufficient ROW clearing, have sparked more than a dozen fires in the past couple years.  What if... what if you remove the transmission lines from the tinder?  Of course it's going to be expensive, but $30B and climbing?  Aging lines in fire-prone areas should be replaced, and new lines should be constructed underground.
“Underground is about 10 times more expensive than overhead,” said Malashenko, who is the PUC safety and enforcement division director. “If we were to underground (throughout) California, all our rates would go up ten times.”
Oh, baloney!  Ten times, you say?  I simply don't believe you!  How about twice... as in two times more expensive, roughly?  Why do you exaggerate like this?  The "ten times" lie is one routinely spewed by transmission companies who don't want to underground their lines.

Underground lines also face risk from earthquakes and floods!  Uhh... because overhead lines face no risk from those hazards?  Of course not!  The risk is the same.  She also claims underground wires are harder to maintain.  Perhaps, but they need less maintenance overall because they're not exposed to the elements.  And it's harder to find the fault when they do break?  What is this?  1850?  I'm pretty sure a fault could be pinpointed to a certain section between vaults.

Excuses, excuses, excuses.  The answer here is quite simple... transmission lines should be buried to protect them from the wear and tear of the elements, and to protect the environment from the risk faulty transmission lines pose.

How about now, PG&E?  Is burial of new lines cheaper than bankruptcy?

And then there's the crazy claims that PG&E is the victim of climate change.  As if climate change caused the fires?  Some would like you to think so.  But the reality is that exposed overhead transmission lines and lack of vegetation maintenance were perhaps the biggest reason for the fires.  And let's take this climate change reasoning a little further, shall we?  Climate change science says we must reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuel electricity generation.  We are supposed to shut down old generation and replace it (although not equally) with fossil-free generation such as wind and solar.  Is wind and solar available to all locations equally?  No.  The climate change folks want to create huge wind and solar farms at strategic locations and run overhead transmission lines thousands of miles to places like California.  The last thing California needs right now is more overhead transmission lines.  Climate change is everyone's favorite villain, but blaming corporate neglect on climate change is a bait and switch of epic proportions.

Less transmission.
Bury it.
Stop robbing utility O&M accounts to increase share dividends.
Bankruptcy is not a way to escape liability.
Think about the consequences of your actions (or lack thereof).
Quit blaming convenient scapegoats.
And maybe, just maybe, investor-owned utilities are a dumb idea.
0 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

    August 2025
    July 2025
    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.