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

News Flash:  Skelly Admits He Is Full Of Crap

1/12/2022

1 Comment

 
Finally, an admission!
Skelly said markets and mechanisms are critical, “so that private actors can come in and compete and beat the crap out of each other and bring costs down.”
Well, you can't beat the crap out of someone who isn't composed of crap in the first place. 

Touche'.

We also get one of those almost analogies that Skelly spews.  The ones where he tries to make an analogy, but in the same breath ends up tripping over it.
“It’s not a gale-force wind, but it’s a little bit of momentum out there in the world for us to tap into,” said Michael Skelly, the CEO of Grid United, a Houston-based transmission developer.
Compare to the famous Ironman/triathlon/decathlon/marathon that wasn't.
You would think in eight years, you would have sort of a lull, but it’s a sort of a mad dash every day to move these projects forward,” Skelly said. “It’s more like an Ironman [Triathlon], not a marathon. It’s more like a decathlon, but it goes on for eight years.”
Blah, blah, blah.  Why does anyone think this guy is relevant anymore?  He's admittedly full of crap.  He has no relevance to the story here, but that never stops him from making failed analogies to the media.

What this story is about is the eagerness of energy companies to help themselves to the taxpayer buffet of free cheese legislated into existence by a biased and uninformed Congress.  Case in point:
That “could accelerate everything we’re doing in our clean energy transition and probably provide some pretty nice [cash flow] features to fund additional capital investment,” said James Chapman, the chief financial officer at Virginia-based Dominion Energy Inc. “So it all seems pretty good.”
Right.  Pretty nice cash flow.  The utilities are raking it in... and it all comes from our pockets.  They wouldn't be interested in "clean energy" at all if they weren't making money hand-over-fist building it.  It's not about climate change, equity, or the future of our planet.  It's about
Picture
It's about
Picture
Gale Klappa, executive chairman of Milwaukee-based WEC Energy Group, said he expected that extensions of renewable tax credits would happen. “It’s such a sausage-making machine in Washington as you know, but if I were a betting man, I think something will pass,” Klappa said, referring to the “Build Back Better” plan under consideration through the budget reconciliation process.
I'll take that bet and raise you $20, Gale.

When you put out the cheese, the rats will show up.

So much crap, it smells like an overflowing manure pit on an August afternoon.  Also an analogy... correctly presented.
1 Comment

Reaching into History

1/5/2022

1 Comment

 
Picture
The folks who stand to make a bundle building unprecedented amounts of new electric transmission are busy trying to tell everyone what citizens affected by said new transmission want.  They think they can define you, marginalize you, and take what's yours to serve themselves.

We saw these same arrogant suggestions in comments on FERC's transmission planning rulemaking recently.  But we fought back.  Now they're taking their arrogance to the media.  Well, sort of media... as if we can take biased "Climate News" as any kind of real media.

According to these arrogant shysters, a brand new "investigation" reveals the answer to transmission siting was determined 50 years ago.  They are now promoting a 1970's transmission line siting battle as the answer to contemporary transmission opposition.  Their "investigation" supposedly reveals that the only mistake made in that battle was not notifying affected landowners early enough in the process.  The take away is supposed to be if today's transmission developers engage with landowners early in the process that opposition can be avoided.
One of the lessons was that power companies need to engage the public early and be willing to change course in the face of well-reasoned criticism, as opposed to ramming through a project.
Perhaps most objectionable about the article's contentions is that they are taking great liberty with the history.  The First Battle of America's Energy War is a story that has been studied extensively by today's transmission opposition.  It's a lesson in what not to do.  Do not get bogged down in governmental processes designed to distract your attention.  Do not let the transmission company and their governmental lackeys set your agenda.  Do not play the part they have written for you.  That part ends in defeat because it's designed to run you over, take your property, and build a transmission line there whether you object, or not.  Earlier deployment of the highway to hell will not change the outcome.  It will not result in a docile, happy, affected community.  It doesn't change the fact that land use, prosperity, health, heritage and economic impacts will be visited on the few for the benefit of the disconnected and ungrateful many who believe they can use "stupid" rural America to serve their needs.

Transmission opposition to overhead lines on new rights of way is going to happen.  There is no way to avoid it.  Pretending a 50-year old battle holds the key to today's transmission opposition is nothing more than creative fantasy.  Perhaps they should spend more time studying today's opposition.  If they did, perhaps they'd realize that we've come a long way, baby.  What happened with the PATH project?  The Monmouth County Reliability project?  SWEPCO's Kings River project?  AEP's Windcatcher?  Transource's Independence Energy Connection?  New England Clean Energy Connect?  Cardinal Hickory Creek?  All the Clean Line Energy projects?  I'm probably forgetting a few, and for that I apologize.  The cancellations of hotly opposed Big Transmission projects over the past decade have been too numerous to rattle off the top of my head.  (Somewhere I have a list that I prepared several years ago for an event where I was speaking... somewhere I can't put my finger on right now.)  What would happen if someone studied all these cancelled projects to find the common denominator?  I suppose it would depend on who does the study.  But the only ones who can arrive at the right answer are the transmission opposition groups who won the cancellations.  Collectively, I'd say that the common denominator is overhead transmission on new rights of way.  If you poke a stick into the lion's cage, you're going to piss off the lion.

Maybe the solution is not to engage the lion in the first place.  How can transmission developers do this?  Buried transmission on existing rights of way.  As the developers of the SOO Green project have proven, if you don't create new rights of way using eminent domain, the lion simply doesn't care all that much.  SOO Green has found the secret sauce...
...new transmission can be sited and routed with broad support from the public and the communities most impacted by it.
When transmission opposition and transmission developers agree on something, maybe it deserves a second look?  Instead, the shysters doggedly insist that it isn't a solution at all.
Power companies can reduce conflict by building transmission lines in existing corridors, like along highways and railroads, but those options can be more complicated and costly.
They're not more complicated.  The technology to bury electric transmission along existing rail corridors exists.  It's probably a lot less complicated that engaging in decades-long battles with affected communities.  Costly?  Yes, it may have a higher upfront cost, but it also saves an enormous amount of money the developer would otherwise spend battling opposition, not to mention the time involved.  Time is money, and the environmental groups clambering for new transmission say we don't have the luxury of time.  Why, then, do they insist on doing things the hard way when SOO Green provides the true "shining example" of how to avoid expensive, time-consuming opposition?

One of the first things a community does when notified of a new transmission proposal is find a way to shift it elsewhere.  Sorry, it's just the knee jerk reaction.  However, in all successful opposition groups realization of the true enemy (transmission company) quickly follows.  Then attention may shift to ways to mitigate the impact upon their collective group.  Burial is a favorite.  Out of sight, out of mind.  However, because transmission projects are always presented as fully formed ideas, the developer will always try to shut that idea down because it's not in their plans.  Excuses are usually cost, with a promise that if the community pays the extra (estimated at 10 times the cost), then the project can be buried.  That's no mitigation offer.  It's a dead end.   And why should a community pay to mitigate the impacts of a project from which they will not benefit?  This also applies to crazy ideas to financially bribe local communities to accept impacts.  When ratepayers are picking up the tab for the project, that community will be paying to bribe themselves!  And why is it that financial bribes should be the responsibility of beneficiaries in other areas, while the cost of burying the project and not incurring the impacts of the project in the first place gets left on the doorstep of the affected community?  This is not logical... at all.  Transmission developers also whine that buried projects are harder to maintain and faults are unable to be seen, leading to longer repair times.  WRONG!  Buried projects are completely unaffected by weather, fire, sabotage, and accident.  They fail less often.  But when they do, modern technology can pinpoint the location of the fault to a very small section of line, which can be accessed for repair via regularly spaced maintenance vaults.  Underground transmission is designed to provide for easy detection and repair of faults.

Oh boy... how did I get so far afield?  I've got things to do today, other than this blog.  Let's cut to the chase here...

These arrogant greedsters will continue to push their narrative that only a boot on the neck of rural America can usher in a renewable energy future.  Instead of working with rural America to find a solution, these folks continue to push for more authority to simply take what they want.  Case in point... I emailed the author of this piece 2 days ago.  No response.  They don't want to find an acceptable solution.  They just want more power to control the lives and land of folks in rural places by pretending they know what you want.

Ultimately, it will fail.  Whether it's quickly, courtesy of  those who thoughtfully make public policy, or in a long slog punctuated by protests and violence reminiscent of the 1970's, is up to them.

We have a voice, and we will continue to use it.
1 Comment

Shame on you, Wall Street Journal!

1/1/2022

2 Comments

 
Happy New Year!  My wish for the year is that the news media quits behaving like a political commentator and begins investigating and reporting actual news while allowing the reader to make up his own mind without plowing through a bunch of biased hogwash and meaningless buzzwords.

Case in point:  The Wall Street Journal.

How in the world did the mighty fall so far?

It looks like WSJ hired a bunch of biased and uniformed energy reporters with a political agenda.  Not really surprising, based on the history, but it's actually getting worse!

These two political hacks masquerading as reporters think that Joe Biden can do something to speed up electric transmission permitting and siting. 

No, he can't.  Adding new layers of government control SLOWS things down, it does not speed them up.  But never-you-mind, these two gals believe!
The changes—which include giving the federal government more authority to intervene in state-level permitting decisions—are meant to expedite the approval of new transmission lines, which often encounter regional opposition and face years of delays.
What?  The federal government is going to file a petition to intervene in each state transmission permitting and siting process?  That's what she wrote.  Of course, that's not anywhere near accurate.  She just has a general idea that the feds can somehow force a state to permit, so she makes up some feel-good sounding crap that means absolutely nothing at all.  You know, a REAL reporter would have investigated this matter, found the enabling legislation, and then asked questions of the federal agencies involved.  This lazy reporter just made crap up.

Here's reality:  This is NOT a new process.  It's one that became law back in 2005.  What is new is a change to the wording of the statute that supposedly gives FERC the authority to site (and grant federal eminent domain authority) for a transmission line that is denied a permit by a state utility commission.  The old law only gave FERC authority if a state failed to act on a permit application. 

There's also a whole lot more to this process, such as a congestion study and designation of NIETCs.  This MUST happen first because the only transmission projects eligible for federal usurpation of state authority must be in a NIETC.  Even with a NIETC designation, the state process must play out before it could bump to FERC.  Also, add years of rulemakings and governmental bureaucracy (environmental reviews) to the mix.  And, does Congress actually have the authority to claim a role in electric transmission siting?  Our Constitution says the feds can't step into an area that was left to the states.  Add years of court challenges to this list.  Why didn't the reporter mention ANY of this?

You know, the whining of developers should have tipped a reporter off that there was more to this picture.
Developers expect the new measures to streamline approvals but say they might not be enough. Companies proposing transmission lines say they often face local opposition, protracted state-level study processes or pushback from rival companies that don’t want new sources of electricity coming into regional markets.

“You look at the history in the U.S., and it’s very tough,” said Mike Garland, chief executive of transmission and renewables developer Pattern Energy Group, which recently started operating a 155-mile transmission line in New Mexico that took about seven years to finish.

“A couple of people can stop a transmission line, and that’s really bad news,” Mr. Garland said. “For us, the infrastructure bill provides a number of benefits that can help. It doesn’t solve the problem.”
Of course it doesn't.  It does nothing but throw tax money at a problem and attempt greater force to crush people who object.  The harder the government stamps its boot on the neck of rural America, the more entrenched and creative the opposition will become.  Acting like a bully is never the way to get someone to cooperate.  Waving a big stick and threatening to beat someone with it if they don't get in line is not the way to solve a problem.  What the hell is wrong with you, Rob Gramlich?
Rob Gramlich, founder and president of power-sector consulting firm Grid Strategies LLC and executive director of advocacy group Americans for a Clean Energy Grid, said the Energy Department’s expanded ability to resolve and perhaps override state-level decisions could have a significant effect on efforts to expedite projects. But he said it remains unclear how the agency would use the new tools.
“It may just be the big stick they carry around while speaking softly in these regional transmission efforts and state siting proceedings,” Mr. Gramlich said. “But when everybody knows that stick exists, their behavior might change.”

Who is this clown?  What does a "power-sector consulting firm" actually do?  The reporter wasn't the least bit curious to uncover that Gramlich appears to be Bill Gates' energy investment lackey in his evil plan to take over the world.  Muhahaha, as Dr. Evil would say.

But let's get back to Mike Garland and his affront that a couple of people can stop a transmission line.  Ya know what, Mike?  There's a really simple solution to your problem.  If you bury your transmission line on an existing right-of-way, nobody is even going to want to stop your project in the first place!!  It's a miracle!  Maybe if Mike quits trying to take land from other people upon which to build his profit-making power line, we could make some real progress here.  No sticks, no made up propaganda, no reporter bullshit needed.

And where did the reporter get this notion?
Critics of transmission projects over the years have cited various concerns including the use of eminent domain, environmental impacts and potential effects on property values, among other factors.
Poor little city gal.  She doesn't know where her food comes from!  She completely misses one of the biggest concerns:  Transmission interferes with farming and lowers the yield.  There's actually a lot more to it that the reporter *could* find out, if she bothered to actually contact a rural transmission opposition group.  But she doesn't have time for the folks who grow the food she stuffs in her pie hole.

This whole article is full of derogatory presumptions, such as bringing up NIMBY, and blaming opposition on the fossil fuel industry.
Transmission line projects often face pushback during the permitting process, including opposition from established power providers. Companies that own nuclear and fossil-fuel plants have raised concerns about their ability to compete with wind, solar or hydropower delivered from other markets.

Maine residents last month voted to reject a $950 million transmission line under construction by Spain’s Iberdrola SA that would carry Canadian hydropower into the New England market. NextEra Energy Inc., a power company that operates a nuclear plant and an oil-fueled power plant in Maine, donated about $20 million to a political-action committee opposing the project and was joined by several other companies with plants in the area.NextEra declined to comment. Avangrid Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of Iberdrola that is behind the project, is fighting the ballot measure in court.

“This is really about the transition from the old to the new, and how we manage that,” said Avangrid’s deputy chief executive, Bob Kump.
Some Maine residents also raised concerns about the project’s potential harm to state forests and questioned whether the developer overstated its environmental benefits.
Sandi Howard, a music professor and Registered Maine Guide who leads a grass-roots opposition group, said the removal of tree canopy could hurt tourism and pose environmental and wildlife harms, including disturbing deer wintering areas and hurting native brook trout.
“Sometimes people throw up NIMBY,” said Ms. Howard, referring to the acronym for “not in my backyard.” “It’s bigger than that.”

These thoughtful committed citizens changed the world.  It wasn't about preserving fossil fuels.  Those companies did their own thing because they were protecting their own financial interests from competitor Avangrid.  If the shoe were on the other foot, Avangrid would do the same.  There's no honor among thieves.  I'll give you another analogy to go with it:  The enemy of my enemy is my friend.  If these companies wanted to dump a bunch of money into defeating the power line, are the grassroots groups supposed to stop their opposition?  Think about it, little city gal, and realize what you're "reporting" is presumptuous garbage.

And let's talk about Bob Kump's assertion regarding what this is really about.  Bob gets it wrong.  What it IS about, at its very core, is money.  Piles and piles of big green money!  Kump and his company stand to get very, very rich if they can build a transmission line through rural Maine and pretend to sell "renewable" power to Massachusetts.  It's always about the money.

The comments on this article are numerous.  Perhaps the most infuriating is this one:
Picture
Bribing local communities in exchange for quietly accepting economic, health, and environmental impacts?  But how does that change the impacts?  It doesn't.  Not one bit.  This is the epitome of urban arrogance.  "Oh, let's put our nasties in some place far away where the people are poor and grateful for our crumbs."  Ya know, some states, like West Virginia, are tired of being urban toilets in exchange for a handful of colorful beads.  How about avoiding those impacts in the first place?  Burying the transmission project on existing rights-of-way means that nobody has to suffer, or be paid off to do so.  We're really not grateful for your beneficence.  Take your bribes and shove them.  Maybe if you put your big stick up there first, it can pave the way.

However, the comments overall seem to be telling the reporters the same thing... that Big Government is never the solution.  In fact, it's more likely to be the problem.
Chris Miller, the council’s president, said he remains concerned that the federal government could override state-level decisions on transmission projects without having to consider alternatives with potentially less environmental impact.
“You’re basically taking state and local self-determination and exchanging it for the administrative fiat of FERC,” he said. “If your goal is to protect the environment, that is not acceptable.”
It seems to me that this article could be summed up in one sentence.

Some People oppose transmission, but Most People need new transmission.

Some People are rural.
Most People are urban.

Did the reporter actually count everyone to see which should be labeled "some" and which should be labeled "most"?  How many is "some"?  How many is "most"?  Or are the words "some" and "most" propaganda words used to subliminally sway reader opinion?  Doesn't look like it's working.

This article is nothing more than a bundle of glittering generalities that mean absolutely nothing at all.  What a complete waste of time and effort.  How about reporting the facts for a change and leaving the opinion on the editorial page?  Shame on you Wall Street Journal!
2 Comments

Invenergy Insults Missourians

12/11/2021

1 Comment

 
Who do you think you're fooling, Invenergy?  In response to a puffy, propaganda editorial touting the "genius" of Grain Belt Express, Monroe County Missouri Associate Commissioner Marilyn O'Bannon speaks for Missouri in a response op ed, Misleading Missourians is the real aim of the Grain Belt Express.

O'Bannon says,
Plundering the land of Missouri landowners for private gain is not heroic nor commendable, but rather a shameful abuse of eminent domain laws by an out-of-state billionaire who aims to ship government subsidized wind energy across our state’s borders and profits into the pockets of investors. It does not benefit the state when private companies manipulate our eminent domain laws to serve only their bottom line and not our citizens.
It looks like Invenergy's "Way of the American Genius" public relations campaign hasn't fooled anyone... anyone at all.
... the author’s attempt to equate the corporate behemoths behind Grain Belt Express to true Missouri trailblazers like Mark Twain, J.C. Penney and Walt Disney is an insulting attempt to mislead, misguide and distract readers from the facts. 
First, the Grain Belt Express is not a product of a Missouri genius, but rather an outdated idea of a Chicago billionaire whose intent is to drive profits for investors. If Grain Belt Express was truly innovative they would be taking notes from the SOO Green which delivers renewable energy underground on existing rail rights of way through Iowa to the Eastern U.S., eliminating land and environmental impacts of above-ground merchant transmission lines.
New transmission without landowner sacrifice?  Now that's REAL American genius!  But GBE is a bargain basement, leftover idea that Invenergy bought at fire sale prices from defunct Clean Line Energy Partners at the time it went belly-up after wasting $200M of its investor's money.  Instead of making GBE better, and making it welcome by everyone, Invenergy continues to spend as little as possible trying to make this bad idea work.  It's not like Invenergy cannot bury this project on existing rights of way, it's that it simply chooses not to.  The people of Missouri are not respected in the least by Chicago-based Invenergy and its super-rich CEO Michael Polsky.  Any flimsy excuses by Invenergy that it cannot bury its project should fall on deaf ears because the company has demonstrated that it CAN bury new transmission when it demonstrates a bit of respect for landowners in its path.
Even the Clean Path NY project (of which Invenergy is a partner) is buried underground. One would think an actual genius could modify the Grain Belt Express project to provide all of the “benefits” of clean power without the major disruptions. But corporate greed stands in the way of actual progress.
Corporate greed?  That's right!  Instead of building a more expensive project that doesn't require landowner sacrifice, Invenergy seeks to squeeze maximum profits out of its project idea through the use of eminent domain to acquire land as cheaply as possible.  It's not like the use of eminent domain creates cheaper rates for GBE's customers.  GBE's rates will be market-based; that is it will charge the maximum amount it can negotiate with customers based on the market value of the transmission capacity.  The market value will not change if GBE uses eminent domain.  The market value depends on the value of the service to voluntary customers.

Customers?  GBE only has one, and that contract is priced below cost, a loss leader, signed for the purpose of Public Service Commission approval.  The claims of savings are based on numbers at least 5 years old, and that pie-in-the-sky figure was created based on overpriced contracts with Prairie State that have since expired.  Isn't it time for Invenergy to do a re-calculation based on current contracts and market prices, instead of spending its time creating fake "American Genius" marketing campaigns that serve no foreseeable purpose?  Who is Invenergy marketing to with this campaign?  Is it supposed to be the landowners?  Is it supposed to be the County governments, who have yet to grant assent for the project to cross county roadways?  Is it supposed to be potential future customers that Invenergy has not even attempted to negotiate with in a fair and open manner?

Invenergy isn't fooling anyone, except maybe itself.  Missourians know that there's a very real possibility that the project will never be built.  Instead of seeking customers and financing for its project that would assure Missouri's elected officials that the land taken by eminent domain would actually be used for a public purpose, Invenergy wastes its time and money pretending to be a genius.
... it may surprise some readers to learn the Grain Belt Express is a purely optional merchant transmission line which has not been ordered or required for any ratepayer need. Instead, it is a private, supplemental, profit-making endeavor as a merchant transmitter of electricity that is not restricted to wind energy. It is NOT funded by ratepayers because it is not for them. It is funded by investors who receive the benefit from the project. As an optional project, Invenergy can cancel the Grain Belt Express at any time. In fact, the project may never be built if the economics do not translate into returns for investors. For this reason, the project should not be allowed to take land “for a public use.” Landowners deserve certainty, not smoke and mirrors, and Grain Belt Express should not interfere with landowner rights before it even has customers and financing for their project.
If Invenergy takes land using eminent domain now, there's no guarantee that the land will actually be used for a public purpose.  What happens if Invenergy takes land now and later cancels its project?  Will it have to give the land back when it doesn't serve a public purpose?  Or will it be able to keep the land it took under the guise of public purpose and use it for its own private profit?

Missouri's elected officials are understandably cautious, and they're not fooled in the least by Invenergy's smoke and mirrors.

Read the whole editorial for yourself.
1 Comment

Who's Ready For Another Round of Permit Whack-a-mole?

9/23/2021

1 Comment

 
Let's take a look at the Grain Belt Express shenanigans that have transpired while I was on blogging break...

Perhaps the most significant thing is the way Invenergy wormed its way into a crucial energy bill in Illinois.  Illinois was facing the closure of numerous baseload nuclear generators that were no longer financially efficient to operate, but could cause reliability issues if closed.  It's never just about the issue at hand when legislation is created  to fix a particular problem, though.  Instead, all the grifters showed up to cut themselves a huge piece of the energy $$$ pie, tagging their particular want onto a piece of legislation that was needed.  Before you knew it, Illinois had created a monster energy bill, with plenty of money to be had for all the players who could afford entry to the party.  And, of course, Invenergy used the legislation as a vehicle to favor Grain Belt Express in the state.

Remember all that blather about not changing the law to impede a project that was already under development?  Well, apparently that does not apply if the changed law BENEFITS a project already under development.  Missouri was prevented from changing its laws because Invenergy didn't like the change, but Illinois was encouraged to change its laws because Invenergy liked the change.  What's the change Invenergy inserted into the Illinois energy bill?  It granted Grain Belt Express eminent domain authority to take property in nine Illinois counties.  Not only that, it also requires that the Illinois Commerce Commission make certain findings "if demonstrated in the application" and "without the taking of additional evidence."  So, now the Illinois legislature is dictating the decisions a supposedly independent regulatory body will make?  And it is removing due process for other parties who may participate in the regulatory process?  Who knows if this is even legal... I'm sure it will end up in the courts at some point.  Seems like a stretch to me.

So, GBE got what it wanted in Illinois.  I'm sure it's busy scribbling its "demonstrated" application as I write this.  Does anyone know where I can get a kangaroo to bring to the public hearings?

Meanwhile, GBE has been busy trying to be liked in Kansas and Missouri by sprinkling a little money around.  I had a dream last night that sort of went something like this:

*Insert Wayne's World dream sequence music here*
                  *Diddly-doo, diddly-doo, diddly-doo*
Citified PR Person:  These local yokels think it's fun to gather at the end of the growing season and throw big festivals that they call "fairs" to display the things they have wasted their time growing over the past year.  They give out awards and everything!  Here's where we come in:  The locals auction their projects off for money at the end of the festival.  It appears that purchasing one of these food things garners great respect for the purchaser.  Our idea is to have GBE bid on these things!

Executive:  Why would we have to compete to own one of these animals?  Can't we simply take it from the local using eminent domain?  Besides, what do we want with farm animals?  I can't keep those kinds of animals at my home in Chicago.

Citified PR Person:  Well, sir, it appears that the locals send these animals to the butcher and then feed off their flesh over the winter.  Also, our eminent domain authority does not cover the taking of farm animals, however, if you want that changed I'm sure it can be done, but maybe not as cheaply as buying a cow.

Executive:  *screams*  That's barbaric!  I demand allegiance from state legislatures everywhere!  Besides, everyone knows that meat is manufactured at supermarkets, not created by killing things. And you must know that eating meat is causing climate change.  Everyone must stop eating meat in order to save the planet!

Citified PR Person:  I was prepared for that... so I also have another option.  Sometimes they auction off vegetarian options, such as pies.  But pies don't cost as much or earn as much respect for the purchaser.

Executive:  I like pie!  But you may also purchase animals for the express purpose of disposing of them in order to end their planet-warming flatulence.  Here's $10,000.  Now go forth and buy some goodwill.
Wow, I need to find a sleep aid that stops such crazy dreams!  But GBE did manage to purchase a stunning array of farm critters at fairs across the region, however that decision was actually made.  Maybe Polsky can potty train a few and make them into family pets?  I'm just wondering what purpose Invenergy sees in trying to be liked.  It's not like purchasing animals at fairs will change the mind of any landowner to voluntarily sell a transmission easement.  So, what's the purpose of trying to buy favoritism with everyone else?  Invenergy must have some scheme in the works, because it is also trying to manufacture likeability by sending out pointless propaganda in the mail.
Picture
Genius?  Sort of like Positive Energy?  I'm pretty sure the only people who care about GBE have already joined their neighbors... in opposition.  What's the point, Invenergy, what's the point?  What if you threw a party and nobody came?

GBE has also been busy making political contributions in Missouri.  What's next?  Special jackets for legislators with "Invenergy" embroidered on the lapel?  Hey, maybe they can hold a legislative barbecue to dispose of all those unwanted farm animals they purchased at the fair!  Whatever....

It's apparent that GBE still doesn't have enough customers to make its project economic, or it wouldn't be trying so hard.


Picture
How would a new application in Illinois change things?  It would bleed Invenergy of even more cash trying to get GBE approved, that's for sure.

What if Invenergy stopped throwing good money after bad and re-imagined its project into something everyone didn't hate?  What if it could build a transmission line that didn't require eminent domain, and contentious siting battles?  It could if it went back to the drawing board and routed its project underground on existing rights of way.  Other developers have been smart from the start, and feel confident that the additional costs to bury will be offset by avoiding legal and regulatory battles caused by opposition, as well as avoiding costly project delays.  That business plan is a win for everyone!  Do you suppose Invenergy (and before them Clean Line) has already spent MORE trying to build above-ground transmission on new rights of way using eminent domain than it would have spent designing a better project in the first place?  It's never too late to do the right thing.
1 Comment

Grain Belt Express Moving Forward With Eminent Domain Threats

6/29/2021

1 Comment

 
Picture
There, fixed the headline of this awful article on NPR that proclaims, "Grain Belt Express Moving Forward With Land Purchases."  How is it that this reporter gets everything wrong?  And I do mean everything.  I'm not sure there's even one sentence in this "news" article that is factual.  It's nothing but Invenergy's propaganda, and this lazy reporter bought it hook, line and sinker.  He did not talk to any other sources to verify any of the information he was given.  Did he learn that at journalism school?  Did he even earn a degree in journalism?  Or did he get a degree in political schmoozing?  Did he develop the lazy habit of simply reprinting corporate propaganda because it was quick and convenient?

Here's where the facts don't support the narrative in the article:
A project to generate electricity using wind turbines in Kansas and distribute the power in the Midwest and east coast is moving forward.
Invenergy has purchased nearly half of the land it needs in northern Missouri for the construction project that will begin in earnest in 2023. All of those deals have been the product of voluntary negotiations with landowners willing to sell, according to the company, although Invenergy could have used eminent domain to acquire the land.
Moving forward?  What does that even mean?  It's not fully permitted, it has no interconnection agreement to connect to the rest of the grid, and it has no customers.  It's been that way for pretty much the last decade.  It's not moving anywhere.

I seriously doubt that Invenergy has purchased nearly half the land it needs in northern Missouri.  Qu'est-ce que c'est "nearly," Invenergy?  Wasn't it something like 45% of the land in both Kansas and Missouri in Invenergy's recent letter to landowners (with nearly all of it in Kansas)?  So, 45% is "nearly" half?  Nearly only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, Invenergy.  Did Invenergy really make this claim, or did the reporter misunderstand the information he was given and Invenergy hasn't bothered to correct him because they *like* the misinformation being presented?

What is "earnest" construction?  Is that unlike GBE's current quasi-construction on property purchased outright in order to avoid time and other constraints placed on its permit by the MO PSC in order to "protect" landowners?  Invenergy is currently engaged in apathetically building a bridge to nowhere.  Fact:  Invenergy won't be building anything anywhere until it is fully permitted, has interconnection agreements, and enough customers to make the line economic (GBE's loss leader pricing to Missouri municipalities doesn't count).

Voluntary?  Didn't use eminent domain to acquire land? 

***BREAKING NEWS FLASH for Reporter Ahl***

Invenergy has been sending a vaguely threatening letter to all landowners who refuse to sign.  It says
In certain circumstances, for example when landowners have stated their intention not to
engage in a voluntary negotiation process or have repeatedly refused attempts to be contacted by the Project, the only option available to Grain Belt Express is to pursue a legal proceeding for right-of-way acquisition. Missouri law requires landowners be notified in writing no less than 60 days in advance of the intended initiation of any right-of-way acquisition legal proceeding. Kansas has no prior notice requirement, however the Project intends to inform landowners prior to beginning any legal proceedings. To be clear, this letter is being mailed to all landowners for informational purposes and does not constitute such notice.
That sort of looks like a threat of eminent domain action to me.  I suspect that's Invenergy's intention as well.  You can take your "voluntary" and "willing to sell" and line the manure pit with it.  Landowners are being coerced to sign agreements under threat of eminent domain.

And if that's not factual enough, perhaps Ahl might be interested in one of the actual 60-day condemnation notices being sent to "selected" landowners?  These notices say:
If we are not able to come to terms on an easement agreement within 60 days of this letter, Grain Belt intends to file a condemnation action regarding the referenced property.
Any easement acquired as the result of this letter is in no way a voluntary action by a landowner willing to sell.  It's just another threat, this one more ominous.

Will Invenergy actually file on day 61?  We haven't quite gotten there yet, and the letter only says it will file, not when.  Both letters also sort of insinuate that the condemnation filing ends negotiations and sets the price.  In my experience, the condemnation filing was only the beginning of serious negotiation to acquire property.  The condemning entity would most likely rather not have to engage in the whole process and be willing to settle just to prevent a price for your property being set by a board of your landowning neighbors.  In fact, the letter itself says:
As it relates to the proposed acquisition, under the Missouri law, you have the right to:

b. Make a counteroffer and engage in further negotiations;
The list of landowner rights after condemnation is filed are required to be included in the letter under state law.  Landowners have plenty of leverage and can settle at any time, not just before condemnation is filed.  Maybe Invenergy isn't going to make condemnation filings until some time down the road when it has county assents, a permit in Illinois, interconnection agreements, and customers to pay for the project?  I dunno... just trying to apply a little logic because Invenergy's land acquisition cart is way ahead of its project pony.  I wonder why Invenergy is so interested in signing "voluntary" easements  for a project that is years away from actual construction?  Something smells here...

Maybe it's this?
The issue could come up again next year, but Luckey said the company isn’t concerned with that, as Invenergy is open to talking with lawmakers.
“It’s about coming to the table and letting them know we respect their point of view and the constituents they represent,” Luckey said. “We want to be a partner with them, and we are going to continue education and outreach with citizens and lawmakers.”
Coming to the table with legislators and playing a little footsie?  Respect must be earned.  Everyone knows those legislators are not acting in the best interests of their Missouri constituents, but in the interest of an out-of-state company's profits.  Missourians will vote accordingly.

And then there's this bold faced lie:
Luckey said linking the Grain Belt Express to the power grid could have helped avoid the massive power outage Texas experienced in February.
“The line would have made it possible to import substantial amounts of excess electricity to supply from other regions to address those outages,” Luckey said.

Except Texas has its own grid that is not connected to the rest of us.  They like it that way so they can control their own energy policy and avoid federal meddling.  Texas can't import anything from Grain Belt Express or anyone else, and that's not going to change. 

And let's end with this, which indicates that Invenergy's broadband promises may be going the way of the monopole... just an empty promise that falls to the wayside in order to increase Invenergy's profits.
Invenergy also lists benefits to Missouri including  the possibility of using the infrastructure to improve broadband internet connectivity to underserved areas.
Possibility?  Seems like it's getting less possible as time goes on.  When are Missouri legislators going to wake up and realize they're being played for fools?

This is possibly the worst reporting on GBE... ever.
1 Comment

Shocker:  Unreliable Renewables Cause Power Shortages

6/15/2021

1 Comment

 
It wasn't even a month ago that I wrote about NERC's recent predictions that increased reliance on renewables, such as solar and wind, in both California and Texas would cause shortages this summer that could require calls for consumer conservation, and eventually rolling blackouts if it gets bad enough.

Well, guess what?  It's happening, just as predicted.

California tells public to prepare for heatwave; power prices soar.

The California power grid operator told the public to prepare to conserve energy next week if needed as homes and businesses crank up their air conditioners to escape what is forecast to be a brutal heatwave.

But the ISO said it will notify the public if it needs to take steps to reduce electricity use, including a call for public conservation and if the grid becomes seriously stressed, rotating outages.

The group responsible for North American electric reliability has already warned that California is the U.S. region most at risk of power shortages this summer because the state increasingly relies on intermittent energy sources like wind and solar...

And what did California do?  It added more solar.  Yay.  Seems like it's not helping.

And then there's Texas...  Texas grid asks residents to conserve power as heatwave hits.
Texas's embattled electrical grid operator warned residents to cut electricity use "as much as possible" for the rest of this week, as several days of heat over 90 degrees Fahrenheit (32°C), combined with generation outages, could strain the grid even before summer officially starts.

ERCOT was "supposed to have enough reserves to meet peak demand this summer, yet here we are in mid June with the first bout of high temperatures and they are already seeking conservation," said Matt Smith, director of commodity research at ClipperData, a provider of commodities data and analytics.
"It does not bode well for the months ahead," Smith said.
Adding more wind, or more power lines to move unreliable wind around the state, isn't a long-term solution to this problem.  This is what happens when states rely on unreliable renewables. 

Thanks to federal subsidies for renewables that artificially make renewables the cheapest power out there, unsubsidized baseload fossil fuel power that can run when called is priced out of market and closed.  It's no secret that our federal government wants to force all fossil fuel electricity generators to close.  When they do, the entire country is going to be in the same boat as California and Texas.

It is suggested that spending trillions on new transmission for these unreliable renewables will be able to fill in the gaps by importing/exporting enormous amounts of electricity around the country.  It relies on the presumption that wind or solar will be producing in excess somewhere.  This only works on paper, or in some wacky computer simulation where renewable production is averaged out to a set percentage of full capacity.  Except it doesn't actually work that way.  When renewables are not producing, there is no power.  Presuming that your neighbors have enough excess to power your entire state is a fool's paradise during widespread weather events... or the roughly 12 hours per day when the sun isn't shining.  We simply don't have the technology to build enough batteries that can carry urban loads for any sustained period.

If we build some supergrid that sucks power from other regions to feed places like California, what are the other regions going to use to power their own towns?  Who makes the determination of power priority?  Will it be the federal government, making political decisions for the party that's in power?  Will rural America turn into a power-producing serfdom for the big cities that is blacked out first?  We're heading for disaster.  Why won't politicians listen to reliability experts like NERC?  Whatever happened to "science?"
1 Comment

Globalism and Electricity:  Taking Over the World

6/9/2021

3 Comments

 
Ever since President Xi Jinping pitched the idea of a “global energy internet” to the United Nations six years ago, China’s been trying to persuade the world to build the high voltage highways that would form its backbone. That plan to wrap the planet in a web of intercontinental, made-in-Beijing power lines has gone pretty much nowhere. Yet the fortunes of so-called supergrids appear to be turning, if not on quite the spectacular, Bond-villain scale Xi first envisaged.
What could go wrong?  What could go wrong with a global electric grid powered by unreliable wind and solar electricity?  What are the chances that some country that's still building fossil fuel generators would jack up the global grid and then disconnect itself and rely on its alternative resources to take over a paralyzed, powerless world?
This is absolute madness being pushed by an increasingly bold mainstream media owned by the elite with a global agenda.  It's the elite, rich and powerful, vs. the rest of us.  The Have-Way-Too-Much vs. the Have-Nots.

Take a look at this proposed map of the new global grid.
Picture
Let's focus in on the U.S.:
Picture
In addition to the green and blue lines, there's also a network of black and red lines across the continental U.S.  What are those?
Picture
How close does that come to this?
Picture
That's a map of a proposed "overlay" high voltage transmission grid that's been bumping along unbuilt for years.  First it was for coal, now it's for renewables.

It also looks a lot like this more recent version used by "Breakthrough Energy's" front groups, ACORE and ACEG, to illustrate their "Macrogrid Initiative."
Picture
What's The Macrogrid Initiative?  It's a group of global elite billionaires who want to invest in a new electric transmission "overlay" grid.  These billionaires think they know more about the power grid than professionals.  It includes characters such as Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg,* Jeff Bezos, a couple of Chinese Billionaires, and a selected elite from around the globe.

Ya know, they say New World Order is a conspiracy theory, just like a lot of things poo-poo'd by the media lately as conspiracy theories that later turned out to be true.  The media merely covered them up because they didn't fit the desired narrative.  Ditto with believing that The Great Reset is an elite takeover.  But if you google Bill Gates + either of these "conspiracies" there's plenty to read that doesn't sound quite as crackpot as it used to.

What are the chances that the Chinese independently came up with a macrogrid idea at the same time as Bill Gates?  That making electricity bigger and costlier and centrally controlled isn't a plan to take over the world like Dr. Evil?  What's the one thing in the world our society can't do without?  Electricity.

Why is our Big Government so obsessed with centralized renewables and Big Transmission?  Why is democratic energy, such as microgrids, home generators, and distributed generation being squashed?  We could sit here all day and ask these rhetorical questions.  Is there really no such thing as coincidence?
*Must be a real coincidence that this crazy story about a global power grid was published by Bloomberg, right?
3 Comments

Help Wanted!

5/21/2021

0 Comments

 
Now here's an interesting twist...  Dominion Virginia Energy wants the public's "advice" in siting its new transmission connection to its new offshore wind farm in the Virginia Beach area.
Dominion Energy Virginia is seeking public feedback and advice about linking its planned wind farm, 27 miles off the Virginia Beach shore, to the 500 kilovolt backbone of its statewide power grid at the Fentress substation on Centerville Turnpike in Chesapeake.
Bravo for taking suggestion, Dominion!  Communities burdened by new transmission will absolutely, positively rebel against a fait accompli transmission proposal.
Is there a "good" way to present a transmission line proposal to the public?  Not if you're approaching the communities with a fully-formed idea of what you're going to build and where you're going to put it.  The only good way to involve a community in a transmission proposal is to approach them with a need before making decisions about what to build and where.  Presenting a community with a problem to be solved and allowing meaningful input into the solution selected is the only way a transmission company can get community buy-in and support for the proposal.  Everything else is nothing more than a battle to push a bad idea the community doesn't want off onto someone else.
But Duh-minion only gets it half right... no,  maybe even less than that.  They simply use the *idea* that they are seeking community advice in an attempt to trick the community into thinking they are involved in solving a problem.  When all the window dressing is removed, this is nothing more than your routine transmission siting exercise. 

Dominion has already selected 6 routes.  The community gets to pick its favorite.  Are you kidding me?  That's not how it works and it's not going to fool anyone.  Dominion would have done better to ask for help connecting its offshore wind farm and left the siting options hidden for the time being.  Must be a control issue.  Dominion can't stand not having complete control.


The power company has part of the route nailed down: the 27 miles of underwater cable to a landing point at the state military reservation at Camp Pendleton. It also has proposed an underground route through the southernmost reaches of Naval Air Station Oceana, to comply with regulations restricting structures near airfields, which the Navy must still review.

Its research into what’s on the ground, in terms of neighborhoods, wetlands, wildlife and historic resources has led it to six options for the final roughly 15 miles to the Fentress station.

“We can look at maps and desktop it, but it’s not until we talk to people that we’ll really understand these alternatives,” said Kevin Curtis, Dominion’s vice president, electric transmission.

Guess what alternative they're going to get from the community?  Bury it.  All of it.  On existing rights of way.  Without that alternative, opposition begins.  Why?  Because burial is already an option for portions of the route, such as the path through the air station.  If Dominion can bury it under the ocean, and through the air station, then it can bury it the entire length.
One option for one of these routes would be to bury the lines for a stretch. That could create much more disruption during construction and mean they were costlier to install and repair than running lines overhead but would mean that portion of the lines would not be visible.
Oh, please!  These are transparent excuses that don't even make sense.  Too disruptive... as if having 3 separate overhead 230-kV lines in parallel isn't disruptive at all.  One time disruption to bury the project?  Or 50 years of disruption from an overhead line?  Installing a buried transmission line isn't really that disruptive.  They do it on streets all the time.  It's a shallow, narrow trench, not a whole lot different than fiber optic cable installation.  Costlier to install?  Maybe, but cheaper to maintain, especially in a coastal area subject to extreme weather.  Dominion's excuses are plainly excuses and completely illogical in the face of their plans to bury it at the air station and along a portion of one of the route alternatives.

With this kind of deceptive roll out, Dominion is doomed.  Why?
Five routes would run along the never-built Southeast Parkway, now an open space corridor through the most densely populated neighborhoods between Oceana and an area southwest of Princess Anne Road, between the Virginia Beach National Golf Course and the Princess Anne Athletic Complex.
Two words... densely populated.  It's over before it begins when Dominion ham-hands its rollout like this.

Help wanted?  Not hardly... unless the "help" Dominion is looking for consists of wildfire opposition leading to an entrenched battle.

Well, there goes that offshore wind idea.
0 Comments

Transmission Tax Credits Interfere With Negotiated Rate Authority

5/14/2021

1 Comment

 
Picture
Well, someone's been doing a little reading, haven't they?  Stick around, fellas, and maybe you'll learn enough about transmission rates to finally admit that your stupid ideas about building a useless and super expensive "macrogrid" just don't work.

The silly schemers behind the "22 shovel ready transmission projects" have finally recognized that there are two distinctly different types of transmission, traditional and merchant.  Can we get a hallelujah, boys and girls?  I'm guessing that they got a little worried that someone might recognize their lies, and that regulators certainly aren't going to fall for them.  So, they issued a new "report."  There's more "reports" in there than a 7th grade Social Studies class!  However, their "we meant to do that" ass-cover report does nothing but make excuses for their ignorance.  Do they really think regulators are going to buy this nonsense?

ACORE says that investment tax credits for transmission can be used by either type of transmission project.

Traditional:  The tax credits lower the cost of the transmission project and lower the amount captive ratepayers must pay for cost-of-service rates. *

Merchant:  The tax credits lower the amount of money the transmission owner needs to recover through rates, therefore the transmission owner can "offer" lower rates to voluntary customers it negotiates with, making the project more likely to find customers and be built.

Say what?  This is the biggest bunch of misleading propaganda I've read in a while.  Does ACORE really think regulators are going to buy that?
The tax credit would stimulate both of the main types of transmission projects—regulated rate- based projects and “merchant” lines whose costs are recovered through negotiated or market- based capacity reservations. In the case of regulated lines, a utility or Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) would allocate the costs through a state or federal (FERC) regulatory process across a set of wholesale or retail customers. In that case, the tax credit would reduce the costs paid by those customers and make the cost allocation and approval process easier so more projects can move forward. In the latter case of merchant projects, the transmission capacity reservation costs that developers need to recover from wholesale customers would be reduced by the tax credit. This would allow the transmission developer to offer a more attractive price to customers, increasing the odds of success.
A merchant project will have a set amount of capacity to offer through negotiation with willing buyers.  The project offers that capacity, and then negotiates the highest price it can get in the open market with voluntary customers.  Lowering the project's costs does not affect the market, or the negotiating power of the project.  The transmission owner will still negotiate individually with a voluntary pool of customers to contract the highest rates it can negotiate.  Paying less for the project because of a tax credit only increases the merchant transmission project's profit, it doesn't lower its rates.  Whoever came up with that idiotic idea needs to belly up to the bar and think of something else because this dog don't hunt.

And while you're scheming up your new scheme, don't lose sight of the fact that merchant transmission accepts all risk.  Any subsidization of merchant projects invalidates their merchant status and ability to fairly negotiate rates.  You can't give government or other handouts to merchant transmission and still call it merchant.  If you want to do that, we're going to have to regulate merchant transmission rates.  So, which is is going to be?

*The schemers have turned traditional transmission rates into Robin Hood Rates by replacing the current system of beneficiary pays with a new system where taxpayers fund the electric system based on income.  This upends the way utilities are paid for, and wrecks the regulatory system.
By reducing the cost of electricity, a transmission tax credit can significantly reduce the burden of electricity costs on lower-income Americans. Electricity costs are regressive in that they hit the lowest income Americans disproportionately hard. Electricity accounts for 3.7 percent of total household expenditures for lower-income Americans, versus only 1.4 percent for the highest-income Americans. This is because electricity is a necessity for many aspects of modern life, so the poorest Americans can only reduce their electricity consumption to a limited extent. Unlike other products, it is not possible to use a lower-cost substitute, as a kiloWatt-hour used by a lower-income family is the same and costs the same as one used by a higher-income family. In addition, lower-income Americans have less ability to invest in cost-saving energy efficiency upgrades. As a result, those in the highest 10 percent income bracket only spend twice as much on electricity as those in the lowest 10 percent bracket; for other goods, those in the top 10 percent spend nearly six times as much.In contrast, the federal taxes used to offset the cost of a transmission tax credit are much more progressive, with the top 10 percent of earners paying 60 percent of total federal taxes, and the bottom 30 percent paying negative tax rates due to policies like the earned income tax credit. As a result, a transmission tax credit that moves costs from utility bills to tax bills is very progressive.

It's also very illegal!!!  A public utility with an obligation to serve must charge the same rate to all similarly situated customers.  This means by customer class (residential, business, industrial) and not by individual customer income.  A public utility is prohibited from charging different rates to different customers based on their income.  A rich person pays the same for a kilowatt hour as a poor one because both use the same system at the same rate, and the sale of kilowatt hours is for the purpose of building and maintaining the system that produces and delivers that kilowatt hour.  Regulated utility rates are not about how much the consumer can or wants to pay, but about the consumer's share of how much the system costs to build and operate.

You cannot change regulated electric rates into some Robin Hood system based on income, race, or political affiliation by shifting the cost responsibility for electricity from ratepayers to taxpayers.  I think this idea might just be laughed out of regulatory venues.  Again, belly up to the bar... more ideas, more reports, more spinning your wheels doing dumb things.

The "macrogrid" just isn't going to happen.
1 Comment
<<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.