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

Missouri Law Works for New Transmission Projects

9/8/2017

11 Comments

 
Clean Line and its big city environmentalist friends want to change Missouri law for their own benefit.  Changing Missouri law doesn't benefit Missouri.

The problem?  A Missouri law that has been functioning for 100 years.  Sec. 229-100 says
TITLE XIV ROADS AND WATERWAYS Chapter 229 Provisions Relating to All Roads
Section 229.100. Improvements along public roads--location--control.

229.100. No person or persons, association, companies or corporations shall erect poles for the suspension of electric light, or power wires, or lay and maintain pipes, conductors, mains and conduits for any purpose whatever, through, on, under or across the public roads or highways of any county of this state, without first having obtained the assent of the county commission of such county therefor; and no poles shall be erected or such pipes, conductors, mains and conduits be laid or maintained, except under such reasonable rules and regulations as may be prescribed and promulgated by the county highway engineer, with the approval of the county commission.
Missouri counties must assent to the crossing of their roads by linear infrastructure projects.  Missouri counties are responsible for their roadways, so naturally they have control.  Without that control, linear infrastructure projects could block, make useless, and destroy roadways that the county is financially responsible to maintain.  A transmission company could cause all sorts of problems with county roads and skip off into the night, leaving repair costs to burden county taxpayers.

When the Mark Twain Transmission project was approved subject to future county assent, a Missouri court corrected by determining that county assent must come before PSC approval.  Mark Twain found itself in a predicament.  The counties would not give assent because the Mark Twain project proposed new rights of way over county roads.  So, what did Mark Twain do?  Did they have a big, sniveling tantrum and demand that Missouri change its law to allow crossing without county assent?  No.  Mark Twain went back to the drawing board to create a better project for which the counties could give assent.

The revised Mark Twain project used existing rights of way and road crossings for its project, adding new capacity and rebuilding an old circuit.  Eminent domain for new rights of way was minimized.  While not everyone was happy, the revised project was improvement enough to receive the assent of impacted counties.  That's right... Missouri law worked as intended to allow impacted counties to have control over the crossing of their roadways, while still allowing transmission projects to be built.

The Mark Twain Transmission project is a MISO-ordered project.  MISO thinks this project is important and needed.  Perhaps it was important enough that compromise was the best path forward to achieving success.  While MISO didn't get what it originally wanted, it did eventually get county assent to build a project that achieved its goal while also compromising to create a project that the counties could approve.  This is the way the law is intended to work.  Mark Twain changed its project to work within Missouri's law, instead of attempting to repeal the law in order to build its original plan.

Missouri law works to protect Missouri.  There's no reason to toss the baby out with the bathwater and bow to out-of-state interests who don't want to follow Missouri law.

Clean Line's contention that no linear infrastructure projects can be built in Missouri with the 100-year old law in place is completely and totally wrong.  Mark Twain is proof that infrastructure CAN be built in Missouri.  It's testament that acceptable projects can be built.

The problem here is that Clean Line does not want to revise its project to become something acceptable to Missouri counties.  Clean Line has cut off all communication with Missouri counties.  Clean Line is not even trying to compromise for a win-win -- where counties are happy and projects get built.  Instead, Clean Line wants to have its own way, building its project and leaving counties with the tax burden of caring for the roads Clean Line destroys.  This is not in the best interest of Missourians.  It is only in the best interests of Clean Line, an out-of-state company with foreign investors.

Just say no to Clean Line.  Say no to its outside interference in Missouri's legislative process.  Once Missouri cedes control of its fate to the hands of outside influence, it can never be regained.

Clean Line needs to go back to the drawing board and build a better project, one that doesn't require Missouri to cede control to greedy foreign investors or urban environmental groups.  One that works for Missourians.  Put Missouri first!
11 Comments

Missing Buyer Syndrome

9/5/2017

5 Comments

 
Say what?  "Missing buyer syndrome?"  That's not a "syndrome," that's a capitalism fail.  If someone offers a product or service that nobody wants to buy, it's not a "syndrome" that can or should be cured.  It simply means that the product or service offered is not marketable, not needed, and not beneficial to targeted customers.

Except what if the seller wants to force the purchase of its product or service because it sees an opportunity to make a lot of money if someone buys the product or service?  Then it's a "syndrome" that must be cured through government intervention.  That's absurd.  Why don't we call it what it is... government-facilitated corporate greed?

"Missing buyer syndrome" is the bastard child of greedy corporations who want to make a bundle of money building new wind farms in the Midwest and huge new transmission lines to move the electricity generated to population centers.
The proposed Chokecherry Sierra Madre wind energy project could face challenges selling power in the desert southwest, officials told lawmakers in Casper last week.

The energy generated from the proposed 1,000-turbine site will be carried along a high power transmission line to California and the desert southwest.

California, however, is being difficult.

“We have a huge issue in California in that Californians would like to keep all of the development and buy all of their power from within their borders,” she said.

“We call it the missing buyer syndrome. The need is still there … we believe the market is there, but we are right now caught in a limbo.”

Ah, sweetcheeks, if your buyer is "missing" then there is no market.  There is no need.  There is no "limbo."  It's simple supply and demand.  Economics 101.  It's not up to Wyoming, or Chokecherry Sierra Madre Wind, to determine what energy suppliers in other states buy.  Nobody cares what you think, especially because you're driven by greed.

And here's another "missing buyer" for a greedy company that also found there was no demand for its service.
Clean Line Energy Partners, a Houston-based company that proposes to bring wind-generated power from Oklahoma and Texas to the Southeast along a $2.5 billion transmission line, says it could deliver power to TVA at less than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour.

But the utility has yet to commit to buying any of the 3,500 megawatts of wind-generated power Clean Line Energy will bring to the western edge of TVA's territory along its 720-mile transmission line from near Diamond, Okla. TVA said it doesn't need more power generation because of the stagnant demand for electricity in its seven-state region, and Johnson said TVA still would have to maintain or build other generation capacity to make up for the Clean Line energy when the wind doesn't blow.

"The price [from Clean Line Power], in and of itself, is a good price for wind," Johnson said. "But it actually costs us a lot more to import it and to make sure we have gas plants running or capable of running in case the wind doesn't show up."

Johnson estimates having the additional capacity to make up for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine typically adds at least 2 cents per kilowatt-hour to the quoted price of such renewable energy.

"At the moment, we have yet to conclude that [buying power from Clean Line Energy] is the right fit for what we are doing," he said.

"But I am mostly pro consumer, so we want what is the best price, the most reliable and the cleanest power for the consumer," he said. "Given our demand projections, we actually don't need any additional generating capacity at this time."

Picture
But yet environmental groups continue to sing and dance at each quarterly TVA board meeting, and certain news outlets continue to eat it up and present it to the public as if environmentalists are better at planning and running the TVA system than the slate of professional economists and engineers employed by TVA.  Unlike urban environmentalists, TVA professionals plan its resources based on need and economics, not some pie in the sky environmental goals.  TVA is "pro consumer."  Environmentalists are "pro environment," no matter the cost.  Clean Line and other wanna be transmission developers are "pro profits."  The only one in this menage a trois who is looking out for consumers is the TVA.
And how do these greedy corporations think they can cure "missing buyer syndrome?"
The Trump administration could help by pushing for an infrastructure package that would see the government “buying down a portion of the capacity” on big transmission projects so they can enter construction more quickly, or perhaps through an investment tax credit, Skelly suggests.

“All the ideas come down to a temporary underwriting of the project so you can get these things over the top, or some sort of tax mechanism.”
This one wants to force the federal government to take the place of the "missing buyer."  And if the federal government became the "missing buyer" then its customers would be forced to shoulder economic risk and financially support corporate greed through higher electric rates.

The Anschutz Corp. wants state governments to force "missing buyers" to purchase its product and service through legal mandates.  It's all the same corporate greed looking for a government bailout for bad investments in renewable energy and electric transmission.

While these investors thought they saw a financial opportunity to use government tax credits to build something that's only needed through forced mandates, their gamble has not paid off.  The government mandates are shifting and there's a new call to keep energy local.  While the industrial wind industry thought it could exploit windy states to produce energy for export, the target importing states have a greed of their own to keep their energy dollars in state.  This creates the mythical "missing customer."

If a state can choose between local economic development and sending those same dollars out of state to develop the economy elsewhere, the choice is simple.  But what about those states that think they can develop their own economy becoming an exporter?  They're selling themselves short.  Instead of becoming an industrial wasteland in exchange for a few jobs and tax dollars, those states should be marketing themselves as a cheap energy mecca.  Instead of exporting energy, perhaps they should try importing energy-intensive businesses?

And what about all those "fly over" states caught between states that want to export renewable energy and their "missing customers?"  They're getting nothing in the deal and they're not going along with it.
Dozens of developers are competing to offer Massachusetts the best price for long-term contracts to supply clean energy to hundreds of thousands of homes. But many of the projects face a challenge: convincing residents of northern New England that it's in their interest to host the Bay State's extension cord.
I think it's pretty clear.  Those corporations who gambled that they could make a lot of money developing remote generators and transmission lines to connect the generators to demand centers made a bad investment.  It was a bad idea fueled by greed.  We've all made bad investments in our lives, from  huge market-crashing bad deals to the weekly waste of buying lottery tickets that never win.  But when we lose, we realize we can't demand a government bailout to save us from our own bad decisions.  And that's the difference between us regular folk and the one percent, who aren't used to taking responsibility for their own losses.  Nobody cares how many millions Philip Anschutz, National Grid, or the Ziff brothers have poured into these bad renewable energy ideas.  They made a bad decision and they no more deserve a government bailout than the guy on the corner who is holding a worthless lottery ticket.

Remote renewables are dead.  Stop throwing good money after bad.  Local renewables are on the rise.  Quit wasting the remaining years of the production tax credit on bad ideas.  Here's the next great thing:
Offshore wind is still a relatively costly technology, but here's one advantage: You can build ocean-based windmills pretty close to the demand centers, and avoid all those long transmission lines.
Because aerial transmission lines on private property are the problem.  There would be no need to "work closely" with regulators, governments, or landowners if you were creating partnerships and providing value for customers.  "Working closely" is another euphemism that needs to go.  "Working closely" means "we're lobbying them intensely but they're not buying our bullshit."

Instead of trying to beat everyone into submission, perhaps you should offer a product or service that people like, want, and need?  That would turn your "missing customer" into "eager customer."  Unless you just really like swimming upstream, against the current. There are smarter and easier ways to make money.  Some days I wonder how you rich people got that way in the first place...
5 Comments

Clean Line's Delicious Lollipop

8/17/2017

3 Comments

 
Yesterday, the Missouri Public Service Commission held out a tasty, sparkly, beautiful lollipop for Grain Belt Express.  But instead of carefully handing GBE the lollipop to enjoy, the Commission plunged the lollipop into the nearest pile of manure and walked away, leaving Clean Line scrambling to dust off its lollipop before having a lick, and then sharing it with MJMEUC, environmental groups, and the media.

Don't lick this lollipop!
Picture
What exactly happened at the PSC yesterday?

Grain Belt Express's application was denied.  Done.  Finished.  Not approved.  Case over.

But then the PSC did something unfortunate.  It issued what can only be dubbed a useless opinion on the case it had just denied.  The denial is the only thing with any legal effect.  It doesn't matter if they might have approved it, or whether they think it was worthwhile, because it's denied and the useless opinions in the "concurrence" have no authority or effect.  The project is denied.

Of course, Clean Line begged for this favorable opinion separate and apart from a denial, and the Commission spread it on pretty thick.  An actual approval couldn't have been so biased and one-sided.  During oral arguments, Clean Line's attorney said it would use the useless opinion to convince county commissions to assent to its project.  But it looks like Clean Line has used it for everything but.

Clean Line has used the useless opinion to try to shield itself in the media so it doesn't have to utter the word denial.

Clean Line has used the useless opinion to beat up on the PSC and the State of Missouri in the media.

Clean Line has used the useless opinion to make its former customers think their contract is still binding and convince them to sit around like good little sheep and fail to pursue replacements for supply contracts that expire in 4 years.

Clean Line has used the useless opinion as the proposed basis for future legal action.

Clean Line has used the useless opinion to pretend it would make a good platform for federal usurpation of the Missouri PSC's authority.  The Commission whined in its concurrence that the courts had overstepped onto Commission authority.  If they think the Missouri court system stuck its nose where it didn't belong, then the Commission ain't seen nothing yet if the Feds get involved.

Lastly, did Clean Line use that useless opinion to unlock the investor money vault and give its investors false hope that the opinion had some value and effect?  I wonder how the Missouri PSC might have ill-advisedly overstepped by producing knowingly ineffective and overly complimentary opinions that give investors false hope for a project that has failed?  At least one Commissioner had the good sense not to sign that thing.

The Missouri Public Service Commission's "Concurrence" is a powerless, feel-good, useless opinion that does not matter.  It does nothing.  It has no legal force or effect.  It's just a piece of paper.

The only thing that matters from yesterday is the Order denying Grain Belt's Application.  Grain Belt Express was denied by the PSC.  It cannot be built in Missouri.  That isn't some easily scaled "hurdle," it's a 16-story brick wall.  Missouri said no.  End of story.

The Missouri Landowners Alliance's attorney told the AP everything they needed to know yesterday.
"They're done at this point. We won. They can't build the line," said Paul Agathen, an attorney for the Missouri Landowners Alliance. "So it's up to them as to what steps, if any, they take."
So there Clean Line sits, holding its dirty PSC lollipop, hoping everyone has a lick.  Just say "no" to that lollipop or you're going to end up with a mouth full of.... 

Next... what happens when a Clean Line employee consumes too much sugar?  Stay tuned...
3 Comments

Todd Burns:  Liar?  Or Just Stupid?

8/10/2017

5 Comments

 
It's one or the other.  Let's contemplate this...

When I asked Todd Burns what his company's return on equity was, he appeared confused.  He didn't know what a return on equity was.  It was only after I explained what it was that he finally remembered that Transource's return on equity for this project is "10 to 11 percent" something like that.  FACT:  Transource has applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a 10.9% ROE.  The matter is currently in settlement discussions, with an administrative hearing possible if a settlement is not reached.

I met a handful of the Transource guys and gals the other night.  Most attempted to be personable and avoid direct lies while trying to answer my increasingly hard questions.  And then I worked my way up to Todd Burns.

He also had trouble admitting that Transource has received an incentive from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that allows the company to file to recover all its sunk costs from ratepayers in the event that PJM decides to abandon this project. 

So, do the lawyers and bean counters at "Transource" (really utility giant AEP, because Transource has no employees of its own) not share basic information, such as return on equity and who pays if the project is abandoned, with Todd Burns?  Todd needs to hustle home to Columbus with great alacrity and find out about all this stuff!  Otherwise, he looks rather stupid to a public who does know about it.  Or maybe he looks like a liar who was pretending to be uninformed so he could avoid the question?  As if that could happen.

Todd Burns also seemed to be confused about a lot of other facts during an interview with the Waynesboro Herald Record.  Despite that, the reporter managed to write a great, balanced article.  The Herald Record has the best coverage of this issue that I've seen (other media take note!)  What was it that Burns said?
Burns said some of the negative feedback is based on misinformation about the project. “There’s a lot of confusion and a lot of things being said that aren’t accurate,” Burns said.
I blame you, Todd.  I think most of the "misinformation" is coming from you.  Please, allow me to demonstrate...
“Burying lines causes problems,” Burns said. “If a line fails and it’s underground, it can’t be located and fixed immediately. That’s what happened recently on the Outer Banks.
“The environmental disturbance is greater to trench and bury a line than to run it overhead. And it’s ten-times more costly to do it underground.”

It is NOT "ten times more costly" to underground lines.  In fact, it's only twice as costly, roughly.  AEP has been claiming undergrounding is "ten times more costly" for years, along with a whole bunch of other excuses for taking the cheaper and easier option of aerial lines.  And the technology does exist to determine where a fault is on an underground line.  And you probably can mark an underground line to prevent all by the biggest idiots from pile driving onto it.  I'm not buying the environmental disturbance thing, either.  I've seen what transmission companies do to rights of way when building overhead lines.  So, let's update these excuses, because they sort of sound like a lie to me.

As well, who cares how much it costs to underground lines?  If the landowners require undergrounding, then that is the cost of fixing this "bottleneck."  Are you saying that unless you can build this cheaply that all the savings for the DC-Baltimore elite will evaporate?  A more expensive project doesn't clear a cost-benefit analysis?  Then, obviously, this project isn't worth doing.  It is not incumbent upon Pennsylvania and Maryland landowners to sacrifice by allowing the cheapest project you can build in order to move cheaper power to the city.  If you want them to sacrifice for the cities, then the landowners need to have input into how the final project looks on their property.  And by having input, I mean actually making the determination -- I don't mean having an opportunity to toss comments down a black hole at Transource where they are completely ignored.  The only way a landowner can have effective input is when eminent domain is not an option.  Anything else is coercion, not negotiation.  Which brings us to...
“I’ve heard people are concerned about land use and whether they will be able to use their properties,” Burns said. “People will still be able to work under the power lines, although obviously there would be a limit on building underneath them. The land is still useable.”
Burns said property owners would be compensated for the easements through their land. “We’re going to be acquiring easements from the landowners and compensate them for it. They will retain the rights to certain activities,” Burns said.
He said property-owners shouldn’t be worried about the threat of eminent domain. “Our approach is we negotiate fair market value for anything that has to be acquired,” he explained. “We use eminent domain less than three percent of the time.”

If you want to see how landowners can still work under high voltage transmission lines, carefully watch the AEP videos on this page.  Nuisance shocks, EMF, and big brother monitoring your activities on your own land?  What's not to like?  But wait, there's more... like aerial spraying of the right of way with chemicals to keep growth down,  or power line workers coming on your property for maintenance or repairs and leaving gates open, driving large equipment through your fields, and disturbing the soil.  The truth is that you will have picked up a parasitic tenant on your land... in perpetuity.

"Compensation" for property taken may be less than you'd expect.  After all it is a value created by an out of state company, that will never even lay eyes on your place, from market studies of similar land sales of property in your county.  It is Transource's idea of the value of your property, not yours.  As well, you may only be paid for the property in the right of way, when the right of way itself devalues the rest of the parcel.  Payments for damages will be argued over in court for years... at your expense, if you don't accept what the company wants to give you.

I'm pretty sure Transource land agents will use the threat of eminent domain 100% of the time in order to coerce the landowner to sign on the dotted line.  That isn't negotiation, that's coercion.
Burns said he is confident the Independence Energy Connection will save customers money not just in the greater metropolitan areas south of here, but locally. “The driver is to give customers in this area access to lower costs,” he said. He said it is too early to estimate what the cost savings might be, or whether local, independent energy companies will pass the savings on to customers. “They may have other initiatives that will affect your bill,” Burns said.
Perhaps Burns needs to talk to his underlings, who have readily admitted that the lion's share of the savings is for customers in the DC/Baltimore area.  And PJM agrees with that.  That's why 80.52% of the cost of this project will be paid for by DC, Baltimore and Northern Virginia Customers.
Picture
Those who receive the benefits (in this instance cheaper power) pay the costs.  That's how PJM works.  Any savings for the project area (benefits) are not commensurate with the cost to the community and the individual landowners.  Their costs are much greater than any benefit they may receive.

And I hate to let Burns know, but one of his underlings actually confirmed that market efficiency projects perform a leveling of costs across the region.  If power is cheaper in the cities, the cost of it must rise somewhere else.  All that cheap power "bottlenecked" in PA and MD and unable to reach the cities?  Those are the prices that are going to go up once the "bottleneck" is removed.

And then Burns admits he has no hard evidence of how (or even if) this project will lower local electric bills.  Then he supposes that local electric companies may keep any savings that develop for themselves.  Of course... always thinking ahead, that Todd, to explain now why bills will never go down after this project is built.

Todd is not telling the truth about project benefit.  But he may not be the only one with a penchant for prevarication.  Transource spokeswoman Abby Foster made up a whole bunch of satisfied and happy landowners out of thin air.
Despite the many negative comments exchanged from person to person around the packed community center, Transource officials said there was also positive feedback.
“We found in this area, people understand the greater need for infrastructure,” said Abby Foster, community affairs representative for Transource Energy. “Everyone here benefits from something being on someone’s property.”
Foster said the positive comments she heard came from residents who see the financial benefits of easements on their properties as well as the benefits of costs savings on energy bills.
She said some residents don’t like the exact location of the proposed line across their properties but are willing to have it shifted to a different location on their properties.
“There’s a lot that has shifted because of public input,” Foster said.
Why are there no quotes from these people?  Why didn't the reporter talk to any of them?  Is that because they don't exist?  These must be the mysterious folks who have requested monopoles, because those people are just as elusive.  What it seems more like is that Transource is making up a mythical landowner who is pleased because Transource is altering its plans to suit Mr. Mythical.  A company that presented its public image as "take it or leave it" would be seen as unfavorable by the public.  One that pretends it is bending to the will of the people may curry more favor.  But when there are no happy people in reality, it's all an illusion.  Nobody wants this transmission line on their property.

And as far as that “everyone here benefits from something being on someone’s property” line, puh-leeze.  I heard that from one of the Transource people at the open house.  It was the tagline of the night.  And it sucks.  It doesn't work on the public, just so you know, Transource.  Other companies have tried it before you.  It is met with anger and confusion.  It has no relevance for affected landowners.  Just because we use eminent domain and rights of way to take property for public use does not mean that everyone should gladly sacrifice for the selfish needs of others.  And that's what this is... rural sacrifice for urban benefit.  This project isn't needed to keep the lights on.  It's only "need," according to PJM, is to make power cheaper in the cities to the south.  Those cities like to keep their pretty skylines lit up all night long.  There's no reason at all to keep an office tower lit inside all night.  Maybe if the cities quit wasting so much electricity, they wouldn't need to call older, more expensive plants to generate during peak load a few days out of the year.  And then we wouldn't "need" gigantic transmission towers in Pennsylvania.

Let's wrap up with this...
“We’ll look at a route that strikes the best balance,” Burns said, mentioning recreational activities, historic value and land use concerns. “You rarely come up with one that’s gonna satisfy all those things. Ultimately, it will be at the state level to decide where it goes.”
It is up to the state to decide WHETHER it goes, not just where.  Opposition to this project is huge and gathering mass every minute.  Loud, forthright opposition kills transmission projects.  Todd Burns is going to need to get himself educated quickly!  Or else quit lying.  He's not very good at it.
5 Comments

How Dare you, Dominion!

8/8/2017

5 Comments

 
I was completely floored to hear how rude, insulting and arrogant Mr. Chuck Penn of Dominion was on the Kojo Nnamdi radio show yesterday.  Shame on you, Chuck!  You sure didn't paint your company in a good light.  In fact, you only served to create new enemies.  I'm one.

Now, I met Mr. Penn several years ago and he was quite the friendly personality.  But, then again, he was getting what he wanted at the time (and so was I).  Either he's been drinking too much Arrogant Bastard ale of late, or he's really been a nasty person all along.

The story presented on the show concerns a transmission project Dominion wants to build in Prince William County, Va.  The transmission line is "necessary" to serve a proposed new data center owned by an Amazon subsidiary.  And Dominion wants to run it through private property.  Of course, the affected landowners objected.  Their local elected county officials responded by backing the landowners.  Dominion's "preferred route" was blocked by the creation of a conservation easement along the route.  The Virginia State Corporation Commission then selected the next route option that plows through the nearby Carver Road community.  Carver Road is an historic African-American community.  Dominion (and Mr. Penn on the radio) played this up as a rich, white community dumping unwanted infrastructure on a less affluent African-American community.  This is the stuff movies are made of, right?  Except the Carver Road community has joined forces with the community on the original route to oppose the transmission line on any route.  The original group is fighting just as hard to have the route moved out of Carver Road as they did to have it moved out of their own neighborhood.  This is the epitome of a community working together to benefit everyone, despite Mr. Penn's best efforts to portray it as racial.  I'm guessing that Mr. Penn doesn't speak for Carver Road... after all, he works for Dominion.  Mr. Penn thinks the county should release the easement so Dominion can build its project along the original route.

How about this?  How about Dominion doesn't build its project at all?

Opponents said that the data center isn't even a sure thing, and even if it was, this project is nothing more than a gigantic service line, necessary only to serve the data center. 

There is a route that goes along the highway and comprises some buried sections of line.  The Virginia SCC says they did not select that route because it was "too expensive."  Penn said that route would cost $100M more than tearing up one of the affected neighborhoods with an overhead line.  And then Dominion and the SCC sit around and talk about how all ratepayers in the region will pay for the transmission line so they need to build it as cheaply as possible.

The opposition pointed out that 97% of the transmission line benefit will be for Amazon and asked why Amazon isn't paying 97% of the cost?  If you or I built a house up on a remote mountain and then wanted electric service, we'd have to pay to run our service line from the nearest distribution line.  This project is nothing more than that on a grand scale.  Why should Amazon have no cost responsibility for its own service line?  Because of economic development, jobs, taxes, and all the wonderful things it could possibly bring to Prince William County?  Who did the cost benefit analysis on that to prove that the benefits of the data center are greater than the cost to the ratepayers?

And then we get down to the fundamental question... why must a handful of landowners sacrifice their economic and environmental well-being to host a transmission line for a data center that economically benefits the entire region?  If the project can be built on a more expensive route that nobody objects to, and Amazon covers the cost of its service line, where's the harm to the ratepayers of using the more expensive route?  The true cost of a transmission project is one that finds a route that doesn't harm anyone.  If that includes burial, so be it.

The idea that certain segments of society (either black or white) must sacrifice for the whole is outdated and unacceptable any longer.  This isn't the 1930's when that was necessary to electrify the country.  "But for" the data center, this project isn't necessary.

I find Dominion's attempt to play communities against each other completely disgusting. Instead, the communities should be fighting their common enemy, Dominion.  The communities are to be commended for refusing to fall for Chuck's ruse.  United they stand, divided they fall.

And Chuck should quit being so ugly to people.  I'm sure his momma taught him better than that. 
5 Comments

AEP's Shocking Arrogance Translated into Cheesy Videos

7/28/2017

3 Comments

 
Well, hey, hey, hey, aren't we Johnny on the Spot with our Wind Catcher Energy Connection project website, AEP!  But there seems to be some sort of discrepancy.  AEP has not provided the same information to the public on its website for the Independence Energy Connection, even though that project is several months down the road into route selection.  Independence Energy Connection's website provided very little information up until quite recently, and what's there now is so facile that it insults the intelligence of the public.

For example, this explanation of "congestion."
Picture
Right... because transmission lines are just like highways and if all the electrons can't squeeze through electric prices will go up?  You forgot to mention that the "cheaper" electricity that can't squeeze through is only "cheaper" because it can't get through.  Once your 4-lane highway is in place, all the "cheaper" energy will motor through to consumers in other places.

And Independence Energy Connection seems to be missing this collection of cheesy videos that you've provided for "property owners" on your Wind Catcher Energy Connection website.  I'm sure they apply to both projects.

After watching a few of these videos I can only conclude that AEP has absolutely NO self-awareness.  Does AEP really think these videos will appeal to and reassure landowners that everything is going to be hunky dory?  The technique of using multiple actors to recite talking points and finish each other's sentences is annoying.  I'm not sure what presenting your information in that format was supposed to accomplish.  Are the public supposed to find someone they identify with in the video and listen to their 10 words of information and reject the rest recited by the other people they don't like the looks of?  Honestly, some of these guys look like deer in the headlights.  If they're not comfortable presenting information, then the viewer is not comfortable receiving it.  Or is the viewer supposed to feel like they're outnumbered and the only one going against the program?  Whatever technique you were going for, I don't think it works.

And that's because of the actual information recited. 

Such as this one, where AEP says they control what you can do on your land and you'll need AEP's permission to use it.

Or this one, where AEP lists all the things you might want to do with your land that they consider "encroachments."  AEP will monitor what you do and may "insist" that "encroachments" be removed.

This one may be most shocking... because AEP calmly tells you how you may be shocked while around or under their high-voltage transmission lines.  But it's not a risk to you.  It just might be a bit uncomfortable.  Forever.  It's all perfectly safe.

So, let's see here... AEP has just told property owners being asked to host new transmission lines that AEP will become Big Brother to monitor what goes on on their properties forevermore, insist that they remove anything AEP doesn't like, and that they're probably going to be "nuisance" shocked constantly.   Well, gosh, AEP, sign me up!!!

And AEP wonders why property owners oppose their projects?

One last thing, AEP.  I sort of hate to play the race card and all, but why are all the people in your videos white, except for that lone token black guy?  That's not what a cross-section of America looks like, in case that's what you were attempting.

AEP just keeps kicking itself in the butt.  Nice going, knuckleheads!
3 Comments

Why Buy the Milk When You Can Own the Cow?

7/27/2017

2 Comments

 
Have you often wondered why Clean Line Energy Partners doesn't have any customers for its transmission projects?

Clean Line proposes to build a transmission line and sell capacity on the line to load serving entities who want to buy power from future wind facilities and ship it east to serve their retail customers.

But what if that load serving entity already owned a bunch of its own generation and transmission assets... would buying one more generator and building one more transmission line be no big deal?

Utilities make money by owning physical assets like transmission lines and regulated generators that allow them to shift the costs and risks to captive customers and earn a guaranteed return (or profit) on their ownership.

Clean Line wanted to make money just like any utility by owning a profitable asset.  Except other utilities would much rather own the transmission (and generation) asset themselves and collect a return.  It's sort of like the difference between paying rent and ownership, and ownership comes with a guaranteed return on your investment.  What's not to like for big utilities who want to purchase generators and transmission lines to serve their geographically distant customers?

This article explains how utilities are cutting out the middleman wind farm and transmission line owner in favor of scoring the biggest profit.

Yup, AEP has announced that it wants to buy the country's largest wind farm currently under construction and build a transmission line from the wind farm to its customers.  I'm guessing AEP doesn't want to buy transmission capacity from Clean Line and then hope generation springs up at its terminus.  The risks of that are that Clean Line will never actually be permitted and financed to build any transmission, or that the wind farms won't be built, or that prices will be much higher than expected if they actually do.  Utilities hate risk.

But AEP is no hero and its $4.5B plan has an uphill regulatory battle as it seeks to stick customers with the risks of its renewable energy plays.  AEP figures its plan will save customers in four states $7 billion, most through use of federal production tax credits for wind.  Ahhhh... AEP.... did you stop to apply any simple logic to that idea?  Where do you think federal production tax credits come from?  They come from taxpayers.  They're not cash that just falls out of the sky when a wind turbine spins.  So, those customers who receive $7B in savings are also paying into a tax system that creates the savings.  How much do customers actually save when the tax burden of creating the credits gets added into the equation?  How many other taxpayers around the country that don't receive any of AEP's $7B savings are going to be subsidizing this artificial savings house of cards?  And what happens to a wind farm with a 25-year lifespan when a 10-year tax subsidy expires?  What are the savings then?  This plan may never come to fruition.

But it stands a much better chance than Clean Line's plan.  It's interesting that AEP's ginormous wind farm is located in exactly the spot Clean Line claimed independently owned wind farms to support its Plains & Eastern Clean Line would spring up. 
Picture
I'm thinking this announcement pretty much makes what Clean Line is peddling even less appealing.  Did AEP ask Clean Line to build a converter station near Tulsa to deliver power from a wind farm in the panhandle?  Of course not!  If AEP builds its own transmission line, it can earn anywhere between 9-12% annual return on its investment, plus have all its operating costs fully covered by ratepayers.

This is why you failed, Clean Line.  Why buy the milk when you can own the cow?
2 Comments

Clean Line Wants Taxpayer Bailout for its Transmission Projects

6/30/2017

14 Comments

 
Building five ginormous transmission projects totaling thousands of miles of new merchant lines was a pipe dream.  Utility experts said it couldn't be done.  They were right, it can't.

Teetering on the brink of failure after spending more than $200M of investor cash on his impossible dream, Clean Line Energy Partners CEO Michael Skelly now suggests that the federal government bail out his investors.
The Trump administration could help by pushing for an infrastructure package that would see the government “buying down a portion of the capacity” on big transmission projects so they can enter construction more quickly, or perhaps through an investment tax credit, Skelly suggests.

“All the ideas come down to a temporary underwriting of the project so you can get these things over the top, or some sort of tax mechanism.”
Skelly has finally given voice to his frustration in an interview with Recharge News.
Picture
Skelly suggests that the federal government should buy capacity on his transmission project in order to get it over some imaginary hump that will allow him to start construction.  The federal government isn't in the business of buying unnecessary transmission capacity in order to prop up commercial projects that cannot stand on their own two feet.  While federal power marketers do occasionally purchase needed transmission capacity, they are not forced to do so merely to support the building of bridges to nowhere.  And if the federal government legislated the purchase of transmission capacity by its federal power marketers, it would be creating captive customers to shoulder the risk of this speculative transmission idea that cannot get off the ground on its own merits.  As a merchant transmission project, Clean Line has pledged to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that its investors will shoulder all the risk for its projects and that it does not have a captive ratepayer stream of funding.  Merchant projects succeed or fail based on their economics.  If a merchant project is useful, customers will voluntarily purchase its capacity, and the project will come to fruition.  If there are no customers, a merchant project cannot succeed.  Suggesting that the federal government pour taxpayer money into Skelly's projects would create an artificial "need" and economic basis for the project.  Participation by a government customer would not be voluntary.  That's not how merchant transmission works.
Picture
Clean Line has no customers.  Despite Skelly's claim:
Plains & Eastern is “pretty much fully developed at this point”, Skelly says. “We’re now in the commercialisation phase, matching chippers – that is wind developers – with utilities in the southeast.”
He turns around in his next breath and suggests that the federal government be forced into being a customer through legislation or executive mandate.  Obviously, Skelly's efforts to match his chippers with customers isn't working.  It's been 18 months since the U.S. DOE got involved in his project in an attempt to usurp state authority and claim federal eminent domain authority to site the Plains & Eastern Clean Line, and Skelly still doesn't have a customer.  When the DOE agreed to participate in the project in March, 2016, Skelly claimed that he would have his customer agreements sewn up in a matter of weeks, but that has not panned out.

Skelly's other taxpayer bailout idea is federal investment tax credits.  This would give a direct tax credit to project investors, which they could use as cash to pay down their own corporate tax debt.  Let's see... ultra rich 1% Democrats who invested in a renewable energy scheme supported by a Democratic White House want the current Congress to bail them out with tax credits.
Picture
A tax credit is taxpayer-funded cash for its owner.  By eliminating its own corporate tax debt, the investor would have more cash to invest in Clean Line Energy Partners.  Essentially, it's free government money for Clean Line that the investors wouldn't spend otherwise.  It's a way to prop up Clean Line's failing business model with taxpayer funds.  Clean Line's investors pay less taxes?  You pay more to make up the difference.

Where does the federal government get its money?   Out of your pocket.  Every.last.dollar.  There's no such thing as "free" government money.

So Clean Line has been posturing to the Trump Administration for months now, suggesting it is a prime candidate for the President's great, great Infrastructure Plan.  Trump has posited that private investors can belly up to the bar and fund billions in new infrastructure projects in exchange for ownership that creates a revenue stream, or tax credits that allow publicly-owned projects to be built.
Picture
Except Clean Line isn't a publicly-owned project.  Clean Line's rich investors will own the project and the revenue stream, and charge the public a fee to use it.  There's no benefit for the public.  It's nothing short of taxpayer-financed private industry, and it cannot be included in an infrastructure package designed to get infrastructure like roads and public works projects built.  And furthermore, Skelly wants the federal government to be the "private sector investor" who gets his project over the finish line!  I'm pretty certain that's not what Trump had in mind.

Once certain that his transmission projects would be marketable under a Democratic administration, Skelly now fantasizes about a Republican-led taxpayer bailout to prop up his failing company.
“It’s still a bit early to tell exactly what the administration will do to stimulate more infrastructure investment,” Skelly says. “But in terms of the things they’re talking about, with private-sector-led projects, it forms a pretty nice Venn diagram with transmission.”
What kind of a guy uses the words "Venn diagram" to prop up his unsuccessful ideas in the media?
Picture
Is Skelly's dream even logical, or is the stress getting to him?  Why would the federal government fund an infrastructure project that's supposed to be "led by private investors?"

The idea that our current Congress will pour buckets of taxpayer dollars into a wind energy transmission project that has no customers in order to bail it out of its current financial crisis is insane.
14 Comments

What has EEI Done for You Lately, Little Ratepayer?

6/26/2017

3 Comments

 
The Edison Electric Institute is a trade association for investor owned electric utilities.  It's mission and vision:
Our Mission

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) is the association that represents all U.S. investor-owned electric companies. Our members provide electricity for 220 million Americans, and operate in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a whole, the electric power industry supports more than 7 million jobs in communities across the United States. In addition to our U.S. members, EEI has more than 60 international electric companies as International Members, and hundreds of industry suppliers and related organizations as Associate Members.
 
Organized in 1933, EEI provides public policy leadership, strategic business intelligence, and essential conferences and forums.

Our Vision
EEI will be the best trade association.

We will be the best because we are committed to knowing our members and their needs. We will provide leadership and deliver services that consistently meet or exceed their expectations.

We will be the best because we will attract and retain employees who have the ambition to serve and will empower them to work effectively as individuals and in teams.

Above all, we will be the best trade association because, in the tradition of Thomas Edison, we will make a significant and positive contribution to the long-term success of the electric power industry in its vital mission to provide electricity to foster economic progress and improve the quality of life.

That's just a whole lot of business-y sounding jargon for... we lobby, we propagandize, we stick our nose into regulatory proceedings we don't understand, and we do it all for the purpose of increasing investor owned utility profits!

Does any of that sound like something that benefits you, little ratepayer?  No?  Then why are you paying for it in your electric bill?

The Energy and Policy Institute has published a new report detailing how utilities' EEI "dues" end up in electric bills, although ratepayers don't benefit from EEI's activities.

Paying for Utility Politics
How utility ratepayers are forced to fund the Edison Electric Institute and other political organizations

tells the story of the millions of dollars funneled to this organization, and others, by investor owned utilities every year that are, in turn, added to the utility's "cost of service" rate.  A utility's "cost of service" is supposed to include all expenses of the utility necessary to provide your electricity.  The utility also earns a return on its investment for your benefit.  But the Edison Electric Institute doesn't provide any benefits for ratepayers, it only benefits investor owned utilities.  And because some regulators are lazy about examining utility rates, the utility is often successful in passing its expense to fund EEI and other political organizations into the rates you pay.

A utility's political and lobbying expenses aren't a ratepayer burden.  A utility spends its own profits on these things because it cannot be assumed that laws, regulations, and propaganda that benefits the utility also benefits the ratepayer.  Except that utilities have a nasty habit of having little "accidents" where expenses that are clearly political or lobbying find their way into rates.  Sometimes when caught with their hand in the cookie jar, the utility says "oops" and removes the expense from rates.  Other times, they stand there arrogantly stuffing cookies into their gaping maw as fast as they can while stamping their feet and crying that the political expenses really aren't political at all, or that they are entitled to recover them by twisting regulation to make them into something unpolitical.  Honestly, these schmucks are crooked dirty jockeys who drive a crooked horse.
When third-party organizations or public service commission staffs have attempted to protect ratepayers from funding political organizations in recent years, their attempts have met with fierce resistance from the utility companies.
The report's executive summary:
This report explores how regulated utility companies are including their Edison Electric Institute (EEI) annual payments, along with payments to other trade associations, in their operating expenses. The widespread practice forces ratepayers to pay for political and public relations activities with which they may not agree, and from which they do not benefit. It also has the effect of ratepayers subsidizing the political activities of EEI and other trade associations. Utility commissions have a responsibility to protect ratepayers from paying for industry groups and their political work along with public relations activities. But utilities have become adroit at using EEI, and other organizations, to effectively and quietly influence policy while sheltering their shareholders from the bulk of the associated costs. Almost no other political organizations have the luxury of subsidization enjoyed by EEI and other representatives of the regulated utility industry.
You've paid for:

The salary of EEI President Thomas Kuhn, who made $4.1 million in 2015.

EEI's time to make sure that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) “provides compensatory returns on equity that recognize the risks associated with transmission construction."

EEI's education of regulators and consumers advocates on key industry issues, including capital expenditures that highlight the record-high investments in the grid.

Utility dues for The American Gas Association, Nuclear Energy Institute, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Utility contributions to the Democratic Governors Association; and Republican Governors Association.

EEI's legislative advocacy; regulatory advocacy; advertising; marketing; public relations; legislative policy research; regulatory policy research.

EEI's "litigation efforts".

EEI-sponsored dialogues and forums that brought together FERC commissioners, state policymakers, consumers, Wall Street analysts, and industry leaders to discuss key issues facing the industry.

A "Defend My Dividend" campaign, that secured permanent parity between the tax rates for dividends and capital gains.

A "We Stand For Energy" campaign, to educate and unite more than 250,000 electricity consumers and stakeholders across the country and to advocate for smart energy solutions that ensure electricity remains safe, reliable, affordable, and increasingly clean.


Hunton & Williams LLP and Venable LLP. Hunton & Williams is the counsel for the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), Utility Water Act Group (UWAG), and Waters Advocacy Coalition (WAC). Venable represents the Utilities Solid Waste and Activities Group (USWAG). Since 2008, Hunton & Williams has received $64.7 million from EEI and Venable has received $21.5 million.  These ad-hoc organizations lobby the EPA and other federal interests to roll back clean air and water regulations.

Americans for Prosperity


Congressional Black Caucus/Foundation

Thomas Alva Edison Foundation

American Legislative Exchange Council

EEI's “Lexicon Project,” an opportunity for utilities to assume an “offensive posture” on energy policy and to rebrand the electric utility industry and overcome the negative perceptions consumers have about the lack of progress utilities have made on renewable energy and environmental issues.

American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

There's much, much more in the report, so read it for yourself.

The report recommends

The evidence in this report reveals that EEI is primarily and inherently a political organization, and that much of its work targets policymakers throughout all levels of government to build influence, specifically for their member companies but also for the industry at large. While many states have their established practices of how to code trade association dues, they should revisit outdated guidelines due to the nature of EEI’s modern activities to ensure that they are adequately protecting ratepayers. Throughout the past three decades, some regulators and consumer advocates have acted to protect ratepayers, but scrutiny has waned dramatically. Precedent exists for public officials to act in every state to investigate whether or not EEI’s inherently political work ought to be funded by ratepayers.
Your public utility commission and consumer advocate owe it to you to pick through rate filings and demand that the utility prove ratepayer benefit for the EEI dues it pays, along with other "dues" it pays to political organizations and other groups whose mission is to support investor owned utility profits, not consumer interests.

Thomas Edison would probably be ashamed of these crooks.
3 Comments

Rural America Doesn't Want to Become America's Power Plant

6/26/2017

8 Comments

 
A friend sent me an op ed that cracked the door on a little bit of truth that urban America needs to accept.  Rural America doesn't want to become your power plant.  Donald Trump was in Iowa recently, and issued a Trumpism critical of wind power.  The media jumped on its propaganda pony to point out that Iowa loves wind, and gets 36.6% of its energy from wind.  The story was that Trump was a lone critical voice and that Iowans are happy to reap wind profits and jobs and nobody minds becoming America's power house.  That's just not true, according to the op ed.  There is serious resistance to industrial wind in Iowa and other rural states.  I already know this, but many do not, preferring instead to believe the rosy picture painted by an industry making money hand over fist exploiting rural America.

What's the difference between what happened in West Virginia a hundred years ago and what's happening in the Midwest now?  Not much.  Out-of-state corporations invaded and bought up the land and the people in order to exploit them for corporate gain.  The people were told it was a great opportunity for jobs and tax revenue, and became so dependent on a single industry that they can't survive without it.  Energy became the only game in town, and the politicians and profiteers refused to utter any criticism, despite the reality that it was actually destroying the state.  And then, just like that, energy was no longer sustainable in the state because society had moved on from that particular form of energy.  And the state was left in ruins as the corporations raced on to the next big energy goldmine.  Those who refuse to learn from history are destined to repeat it.

Wind energy relies on tax credits.  The companies who build wind farms are raking in the dough courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.  When the governmental largess stops, so will the wind farms.  But meanwhile, wind energy companies are desperately, madly, trying to build new tax credit generators while they still can.  And rural America resists.

What was it Donald Trump said?  "I don't want to just hope the wind blows to light up your house and your factory..."  Wind is an intermittent resource.  It doesn't blow constantly at a consistent speed.  If Iowa was 100% dependent on wind energy, homes and factory lights would rise and fall like the wind.  I saw another propaganda blast last week that claimed a European country's train system runs on "100% wind energy."  Untrue.  Electrons are all the same color, whether created by coal or wind, and they're all mixed together when combined on the electric grid.  Otherwise, that train would start and stop, slow down and speed up, based on a gust of wind.  Face it, other forms of energy generation must back up intermittent resources to provide a steady stream of energy.  At some point, wind reaches saturation in a geographic area, and considering that rural America doesn't use a whole lot of power compared to urban America, Iowa may be at its saturation point right now.  But the tax credits are still good for another 3 years, and once a wind farm qualifies, it can draw on that credit for 10 years.  When the last big hurrah of wind gets built in 3 years, and when the 10-year draw of taxpayer profits expires, Iowa is going to be left in a graveyard of broken wind turbines that are too expensive to fix, and without tax credits, it doesn't make sense to replace them.  But the wind industry needs to build NOW, even if Iowa can't use the  power, so the companies want to export it.  And the next thing you know, some cowboy wants to build gigantic transmission lines for export.  While hosting turbines is completely voluntary on the part of the landowner (and some argue that the landowner is paid quite generously for leasing land), cowboy's transmission line wants to use eminent domain to force landowners to host its towers for a pittance.  There's a complete disconnect here -- if wind farms are voluntary, then the infrastructure to enable them should also be voluntary.  But it's not.  And rural America objects to having its productivity and lifestyle sacrificed for benefit of big wind's profits and the environmental dreams of electric consumers in other states.

This article makes a better attempt at balanced coverage.  This is the story that urban America never hears.  And the few who do hear it tell the ones living in wind alley that their criticisms of industrial wind aren't true, or that the should just suck it up, or that criticism of big wind is a sock puppet of the Koch brothers.  As one Iowan commented, you just haven't become effective in your opposition until some arrogant, urban environmentalist accuses you of being funded by the fossil fuel industry.  Nailed it.

Putting aside the politicians and wind farm hosts, and the corporations who fund them with a tiny portion of their profits, all the "support" of big wind comes from urban environmentalists who don't live there.  This is often expressed quite arrogantly by folks who want to save the planet at someone else's expense.  They're condescending, they're blithe, they're arrogant, and they don't want to host energy infrastructure in their own communities.  They're looking for the next patsy, because importing coal-fired power from West Virginia is now just so gauche.  It's not about taking responsibility for their own needs (something rural America is very familiar with), it's about demanding that someone else take responsibility and sacrifice for their needs.  The dictating to rural America about what they must do isn't going over too well.  Rural America isn't some cretinous population easily swayed to paint Tom Sawyer's fence, and they resent being treated as such.  And they will continue to resist urban America until the arrogance stops.  Everybody matters, or nobody matters.  Those who think they're so smart that they can control rural America like a monkey on a leash just can't seem to grasp why they continue to lose.  We must come together on even footing.  If you love wind energy, urban America, put it in your own backyard.  Rural America doesn't want to become your power plant.
8 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.