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

Here's Why Grain Belt Express Must Be DOGEd

3/11/2025

1 Comment

 
Although DOGE isn't officially a word that refers to cutting the fat out of government yet, I'm turning it into a verb.  DOGEd:  verb - to eliminate from government spending programs. Example - Grain Belt Express has been DOGEd.
Picture
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey wrote a letter last week asking the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to investigate the U.S. Department of Energy conditional loan guarantee for Grain Belt Express in the amount of $4.9B.
“In the waning, chaotic days of the Biden Administration — when the former president’s mental decline had grown to such a severe state that we now know he was not actually running his own White House and often signed documents without even knowing what they contained — left-wing bureaucrats seized the opportunity to advance their radical ‘green agenda,'” said Attorney General Bailey. “In the shadows of this confusion, far-left deep staters advanced a $4.9 billion green energy federal loan guarantee boondoggle to bankroll the Grain Belt Express (GBE), one of the most egregious abuses of taxpayer dollars in recent memory.”
Grain Belt Express isn't even eligible for the loan guarantee in the first place!  From my recent comments on GBE's draft environmental impact statement:
The first paragraph of the Executive Summary states that in order to qualify for a loan, the project must be eligible under Section 1703 of Title XVII (the Clean Energy Financing Program), which defines eligible projects as those that, “avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases [GHGs]; and employ new or significantly improved technologies as compared to commercial technologies in service in the United States at the time the guarantee is issued” (Public Law [P.L.] 109-58, Section 1703(a)).
The DEIS makes this presumption: “The Project could also help reduce overall GHG emissions by allowing new renewable energy projects to access the electric grid, potentially leading to the replacement of existing fossil-fuel power plants, while providing additional power to expanding renewable energy markets.” (Table 3.1.1). Coulda, woulda, shoulda. This is a wish list that is not backed up by facts. The DEIS does not name or study the projects that could use Grain Belt Express to access the electric grid and the DEIS determines they are not reasonably foreseeable actions and therefore are not included in the cumulative effects analysis. (Sec. 4.3.2.2).


Here’s the bottom line. Without signed legal contracts with generators, it cannot be presumed that Grain Belt Express will transmit renewable energy from wind or solar generators. Under its Negotiated Rate Authority from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Grain Belt Express may negotiate contracts with customers who will pay the company to use its transmission capacity, either generators or load serving entities.
Grain Belt Express has not made a compliance filing demonstrating to FERC that is has signed contracts with any generators, in Kansas or elsewhere, therefore any generator may negotiate a future contract, including those that use fossil fuels. It is just as likely that a new or existing gas- or coal-fired generator may sign a contract as a new solar or wind generator. Grain Belt Express may not discriminate against generation types when negotiating contracts and cannot evaluate connection requests using generation source as a factor. All sources of generation must be allowed to negotiate contracts under open access transmission rules.
Because potential generators have not signed contracts with Grain Belt Express, it simply cannot be determined that Grain Belt Express will reduce greenhouse gases as required to qualify for the loan. Furthermore, without signed contracts with generators, Grain Belt Express is just a transmission line. Transmission lines, by themselves, do not reduce greenhouse gases. A transmission line that is not connected to a generation source is just like an extension cord that isn’t plugged into anything. Grain Belt Express does not reduce greenhouse gases and therefore it is not eligible for the proposed loan.
And then let's think about GBE's merchant transmission status a bit, shall we?  Merchant transmission is a speculative, supplemental transmission project that is not needed by consumers for any reliability, economic, or public policy purpose.  No regulator or grid planner has ordered the building of GBE.  Therefore, its owners are speculating that it might become useful in the future.  Because there is no need for GBE, it must fund itself.  Transmission that is actually determined to be NEEDED is paid for by captive consumers, however GBE isn't needed and must be fully funded by private investors.  Those private investors speculate that voluntary customers for GBE will materialize at some point in the future and provide enough revenue to pay for the transmission line and create a profit for the investors.  If there are no future customers, then the cost of speculating on GBE becomes the responsibility of the investors who willingly took on the risk of building a project with no customers.

Why is the federal government backstopping this investment risk for private investors to the tune of $4.9B?  Merchant transmission projects can only put risk on their investors, not captive electric consumers, therefore why are the captive American taxpayers suddenly shouldering the risk of this project?  It's too risky for any captive group, whether it's electric consumers or taxpayers, and that explains why it is a speculative venture of voluntary investors.  If it doesn't provide any benefits for consumers, then it's not our responsibility to pay for it.  It's strictly a for-profit speculation for private investors.

As we know, the U.S. Department of Energy hasn't done such a great job vetting speculative ventures in the past.  One of the most famous may be Solyndra, who presented fake contracts to back up its DOE loan and then couldn't produce any revenue to repay.  The taxpayers ended up giving Solyndra $500M in monopoly money to build a factory that never produced a single thing.

News Flash!!!  Grain Belt Express does not have enough signed contracts to make its project financially viable.  The DOE should not be gambling on this historically unsuccessful project to the tune of $4.9B!

And why did the DOE Loans Program Office give GBE a "conditional" approval right after the November election?  Obviously GBE had not completed the required steps to be out right approved, so why was "conditional" approval necessary?  And why is that even a thing in the first place?  It's either approved, or it's not.  Conditional approval doesn't mean a thing, especially when applied in a baldly political context.  Grain Belt Express is not ready for a taxpayer backed loan and its prospects for repaying are slim to none.

Grain Belt Express must be DOGEd.
1 Comment

Did NIETCs "Unlock" Transmission?

12/20/2024

0 Comments

 
Picture
When it first proposed creating a process to carry out new authority to designate National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors as enabled by changes to Sec. 216 of the Federal Power Act contained in the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, the DOE envisioned this:
DOE is considering this process for designating NIETCs in recognition of the fact that such designations would occur in areas experiencing the greatest need for immediate transmission development and would unlock new financing and regulatory tools to spur investment in those areas. The recently enacted Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (“IIJA”) and Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”) contain new public-private partnership and loan authorities that DOE can use to spur construction of transmission projects in NIETCs. In addition, section 216(b) of the FPA, as amended by the IIJA, allows the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) to issue permits to site transmission facilities within NIETCs when certain statutory conditions are met.
At that time, DOE thought NIETCs were the key to everything transmission.  DOE got so enamored of  keys and locks that it began claiming that in order to feed at the tax money buffet Congress had created, a transmission project needed to be in an NIETC.  Then DOE created "guidance" (aka quasi-rules that have no legal effect) that said:
In many cases the solution will be constructing new transmission facilities, and the NIETC designation can unlock key federal financing and permitting tools to facilitate such transmission infrastructure. 
A clear message was sent to greedy transmission developers by the DOE -- request a NIETC or you're not getting into our buffet.  So, they did.  They requested 10 NEITCs that covered a hundred thousand acres of private property across the country.  When it released its preliminary list, DOE reiterated the necessity of NIETC designation as a ticket to the buffet:
A NIETC designation unlocks critical federal financing and permitting tools to spur transmission development, including direct loans through the TFF program, public-private partnerships through the Transmission Facilitation Program, and Federal siting and permitting authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in certain limited circumstances. Developers and state and local siting authorities may also be able to leverage the environmental analysis conducted by DOE as part of the NIETC designation process to complete local siting and permitting processes, which could ultimately accelerate siting and permitting for transmission projects in these targeted, high-priority areas. 
Transmission developers took DOE at their word and admitted their only purpose in seeking NIETC designation was to get in line at the buffet.
Invenergy’s primary interest in securing NIETC designation for the Midwest-Plains corridor is for Grain Belt Express to be able to access additional federal financing options that support competitive rates for energy end users. Efficient and attractive financing sources are important as Grain Belt Express is a merchant transmission project principally funded via bilateral negotiated contracts with willing offtakers and not automatically via RTO, ISO or transmission owner cost allocation to ratepayers. As such, access to competitive financing supports the provision of lower-cost, competitive rates to prospective customers.

​The DOE’s Loan Programs Office is currently conducting federal loan guarantee and environmental reviews for Grain Belt Express Phase 1. Invenergy’s interest in accessing the Transmission Facility Financing program, enabled by NIETC, is to support Grain Belt Express Phase 2. However, given the inherent uncertainty in any regulatory permitting process, Invenergy supports designation of the full Midwest-Plains corridor to secure additional financing pathways for both Grain Belt Express Phase 1 and Phase 2.​
Grain Belt Express admitted that it needed that NIETC to be able to unlock the buffet.

But then the DOE cancelled GBE's NIETC, along with 6 others that were never needed but had been pursued in order to get a seat at the buffet.

Why is DOE still continuing GBE's "conditional" loan guarantee now that the NIETC has been cancelled?  I thought the NIETC was the key to unlock the buffet?  Missouri Senator Josh Hawley asked DOE to cancel that guarantee recently.  Hawley mentioned that GBE doesn't have any customers.  Without customers, GBE doesn't have any means to repay a $4.9B DOE loan.  And why is the government giving a low cost loan to a privately owned electric toll road that will charge its voluntary customers a market-based fee to use its line?  A DOE loan won't lower the costs that customers would pay to use the line, it only increases Invenergy's profits that go into uber-rich owner Michael Polsky's pockets.  The electric transmission market that would set the market based rates for voluntary customers isn't going to change because Grain Belt Express paid less interest on its loan.  For a different kind of transmission project that is paid for by captive ratepayers, paying less interest goes back into the regulated rates the transmission company charges.  But for a market-based project like Grain Belt Express, paying less interest means the project is cheaper to construct, although the rates the market will allow GBE to charge won't change.  The amount of profit Grain Belt Express can create for its owner is the delta between what the project costs to build and the market rate for transmission.  DOE might as well put that $4.9B directly into Polsky's pocket. 

​Grain Belt Express has to provide a more economic option for transmission capacity than our existing public electric grid, or it won't attract any customers.  And that's just the problem... Grain Belt Express never has attracted any customers, aside from a gaggle of uninformed Missouri municipalities who signed a non-binding contract to purchase "up to" about 4% of GBE's total capacity.  If GBE was actually an economic option, a good idea, a needed project, it would have customers lining up to use it.  Instead... crickets.  And the DOE thought that was a good candidate for a $4.9B construction loan?

Perhaps that's because the DOE is fraught with corruption and most of its employees are scattered and goofing off.  A recent Inspector General report found that DOE does not enforce the rules against conflict of interest and treats taxpayer money like "monopoly money".
​The Federal Government prohibits conflicts of interest to safeguard the taxpayers against selfdealing, collusion, and fraud by Government officials and Government contractors. In the private sector, each party has a “baked in” economic incentive to watch, track, and account for its own dollars. That economic incentive does not exist in the public sector, where Federal dollars are more likely to be treated as “monopoly money.”
The report reveals that DOE is very lax about preventing conflicts and that it exercises absolutely no oversight over the third party "experts" that provide much of the documentation that becomes the basis for a decision to proceed with a loan.  Since the applicant for the loan (the company) pays for these third party experts that do the DOE's work to investigate the loan application, the DOE thinks it is prohibited from looking for conflicts of interest there.  Let me get this straight... the applicant is paying the salaries of the DOE contractors who process their own loan application?  Why doesn't DOE have impartial employees to carry out such an important task as safeguarding the hard-earned dollars of American taxpayers?  Why is it all farmed out to third party contractors who may have conflicts of interest?  This is outrageous!  Remember when Josh Hawley questioned Loan Program Office director Jigar Shaw in a committee hearing?  Seems like another session is desperately needed!

And if the NIETCs are supposed to "unlock" federal financing tools, it seems like Invenergy has another problem.  Invenergy's Cimarron Link merchant transmission line across Oklahoma filled its plate at the DOE financial incentives buffet.  Cimarron Link was awarded a $306M capacity contract just a few short months ago.  A capacity contract is just what Grain Belt Express is missing... a customer who will pay to use the merchant transmission line.  If a merchant transmission project doesn't attract any voluntary customers, that means it is not needed!  End of story!  But Congress gave the DOE authority to serve up our tax money in the form of a fake contract with Cimarron Link.  Oh, the money is real... Cimarron Link will receive $306M for use of its line over a period of up to 40 years, but DOE won't actually *use* the project.  It's paying for a contract it won't use so that Cimarron Link doesn't have to actually provide any service at all.  It's getting federal welfare paid for by all of us to construct a project that has no customers.  So, if Cimarron Link's NIETC has also been cancelled, does that mean it takes the capacity contract with it?  Someone needs to demand some answers!

The DOE is a corrupt political agency that has no business messing around in the reliable delivery of electricity.  We have plenty of regulators already whose actions actually do make sure the lights come on when we flip the switch.  DOE is a politically motivated chef, using our tax dollars to serve up a buffet of free Monopoly money to favored energy corporations.  And DOE isn't even very good at it... it makes up the rules as it goes, wastes an incredible amount of tax money, and in the end has nothing to show for it.  I dare you to name just one DOE transmission program that has successfully produced some benefit for the American people over the last four years.  Can't do it, can you?

DOE is engaged in the business of giving your money to energy corporations, it's not engaged in doing anything that actually helps you.
0 Comments

Biden's Parting Gift to Grain Belt Express

11/27/2024

0 Comments

 
Picture
The Biden Administration and its clean energy clowns have officially run out of time.  After spending the last 4 years giving away our tax dollars to a parade of marginal projects that aren't viable on their own, Biden's DOE has finally reached the pinnacle of waste by creating the next Solyndra on steroids.

While the original Solyndra only wasted $500M in taxpayer funds, Biden's Grain Belt Express debacle has been given the green light to waste nearly $5 BILLION.  That's right... FIVE BILLION of your hard earned dollars collected from you by your government and gifted to private investment company Invenergy.

Solyndra was a proposed solar panel company that went bankrupt in 2011 after receiving $535 million in federal loans from the Obama administration.  Turns out that after spending all that taxpayer money, Solyndra really didn't have any customers or revenue to pay back the loan.  Turns out that Solyndra fudged information about having contracts and customers and DOE employees processing the loan were ordered to look the other way.  The DOE loaned taxpayer funds to a company that didn't have the means to pay it back.

On Monday, Biden's Department of Energy issued a "conditional approval" of a loan or loan guarantee in the amount of $4.9B for the Grain Belt Express.  Said "conditional approval" is contingent upon proof of contracts (or just fudged up crap about fictitious contracts apparently) along with completion of GBE's Environmental Impact Statement.  

In fact, GBE is still "in process" on a bunch of prerequisites for approval of its loan guarantee, but yet the DOE "approved" it anyhow.  That's not exactly legal.

This is what GBE's FAST-41 permitting dashboard looks like today:
Picture
Estimated completion date for the environmental review and permitting is April 2, 2026.  But somehow DOE approved it this week before they had finished the environmental review and permitting.

Grain Belt Express has a special website for its Environmental Impact Statement process, which was begun several years ago with "scoping" meetings and comments where you told DOE what environmental impacts to study.  Afterwards, DOE took a nice, long nap and nothing has been done.  DOE still has to publish a draft EIS, present the draft to the public, and take another round of comments before publishing the final report.  DOE must then wait at least 60 days before issuing its Record of Decision.

See GBE's EIS website fact sheet for these tidbits that the public was told about GBE's EIS and Loan Guarantee application:
 In making a decision on the application, DOE LPO is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

 DOE is using the NEPA process to assist in determining whether to issue a loan guarantee to the Applicant to support the Project.

​To understand the effects of the Proposed Action, the EIS must also analyze the No Action Alternative, allowing for a baseline for comparison. Under the No Action Alternative, DOE LPO would not provide federal financial support (a loan guarantee) to the Applicant for construction and energization of the Grain Belt Express Project, with the assumption that the Project would not be constructed. By comparing the Proposed Action with the No Action Alternative, the EIS will transparently demonstrate the effects of the Proposed Action on the environment.
DOE and GBE thought they would have another 4 years to stretch this process out.  Whoopsie!  Tick tock, time is nearly up!

Instead of following the law and the process that it laid out for the public, DOE has just gone ahead and approved the loan guarantee without finishing the EIS process.  Pretending that the approval is only "conditional" upon completing the EIS a couple years down the road presumes that DOE will approve that EIS before it's even finished.  At least we're now being transparent about the fact that the environmental review is so much busywork with a predetermined conclusion.

DOE thinks it can skirt the law by making up a "conditional" approval process.  Sorry, but that's not what the law says.  The recent Supreme Court decision that overturned Chevron will prevent DOE from making up regulations that have no basis in law.  Of course, this will require landowners and taxpayers to hire lawyers to appeal this travesty.  DOE is hoping you won't.  DOE and GBE hope you just give up now and let them have their way when you're so close to your own victory.

Contact your federal elected officials and see how they can help.
0 Comments

$1.3B Taxpayer-funded Giveaway To Merchant Transmission Begins

11/2/2023

1 Comment

 
The children running the U.S. Department of Energy are out of control.  Buoyed by legislation that never made sense, the DOE announced the other day that it was giving away $1.3B to purchase capacity contracts with three specially selected merchant transmission projects.

Many of you are familiar with how merchant transmission operates if you've been reading this blog.  Unfortunately, Congress, DOE and the mainstream media have no idea.  No idea at all.  Congress included a provision in the IIJA (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act aka Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill) that grants DOE the ability to borrow up to $2.5B to facilitate construction of new transmission.  One of the new authorities allows DOE to enter into capacity contracts with transmission developers for up to 50% of the project's capacity for a period of up to 40 years.  These contracts provide taxpayer-funded revenue for merchant transmission developers that is supposed to enable them to get loans necessary for construction.  Congress and DOE think that the government's support will "encourage" other customers to sign up and that DOE can escape without spending any money before the project goes into operation.
Picture
If you believe this you are extremely naive.  The mechanics of negotiated rate authority for merchant transmission prevent this from happening.  If these merchant projects want to sell to the government, and any other entities, they have to follow the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's negotiated rate policy.  First they have to apply to use the authority in the first place, then make compliance filings demonstrating how they followed the policy afterwards.  Alternatively, they can just submit a whole package of junk afterwards and hope they did it right.  I haven't seen the second option used... who wants that kind of uncertainty?

Once negotiated rate authority is granted, the developer must make broad announcement that it is selling capacity so that every interested entity gets an equal chance to bid on capacity.  The developer can then negotiate with respondents based on criteria that would be approved by FERC.  If you want to make up your own criteria without FERC approval you introduce uncertainty that it may not be approved after the fact.  FERC requires the applicant to accept all market risk for its project.  This means NO CAPTIVE CUSTOMERS who would be required to pay for a project, such as U.S. taxpayers.

The basic premise of negotiated rates is that the market rate for transmission capacity serves as a cap to keep rates negotiated just and reasonable.  Nobody is going to pay more for merchant transmission capacity than they can pay for transmission capacity elsewhere.  However, DOE selecting a merchant project and promising them a capacity contract for the express purpose of providing enough revenue to get the project financed is not competitive.  While DOE pretends it will only pay "market" prices, where's the market?  Where's the competition?  And why is DOE's negotiation taking place completely outside any open season negotiations with other utilities?

Of the three projects guaranteed capacity contracts, only one has approved negotiated rate authority from FERC.  That project received authorization in 2015 but never completed the steps to have its negotiated rates approved by FERC.  Probably because it couldn't find any customers.  That company is going to have to start fresh because its whole project, corporate structure and investors have changed.

But DOE's announcement says it will have its contracts that commit to buying capacity before the project begins construction in place early next year.  How could that be fair?  What other entities are being offered capacity on these projects at this time?  How does DOE know that it even needs to enter these contracts if the project has not yet offered its service to the market?  This whole scheme doesn't work and makes little sense.

DOE thinks that just by announcing it will buy capacity on transmission projects that it will create a flurry of interest in the projects.  DOE Pollyanna believes that it won't actually have to spend any money because customers are going to be chomping at the bit to buy capacity from the selected projects.  We're not painting Tom Sawyer's fence here.  If merchant capacity was a good deal for utilities, they would buy it in the first place without DOE's encouragement.  If it's not, they're still not buying it.  In that case, the DOE is stuck using taxpayer funds to pay for a transmission project that nobody will ever use for 40 YEARS.  In addition, it is likely that DOE will overpay for capacity and make the project even less cost effective.  The only way DOE is going to get out of these unnecessary capacity contracts is to give the capacity away.  Taxpayers are still out the cost of the overpriced contract for 40 years, with only pennies on the dollar recovered.

The DOE seems to be counting on an ignorant media to spread the word about this program.  The stories are so completely ignorant that I'm not even going to comment on any particular one.  Ignorant eco-warriors and poor little rich kids who moonlight as annoying climate activists don't buy capacity on merchant transmission.  The only entities that would buy capacity are sophisticated utilities that probably think the DOE is dumber than I do.  This program is on the fast track to failure.

DOE is buying something that it doesn't need and won't ever use, but will put a lot of money in the pockets of private investors who otherwise would have no buyers for their overpriced service.  Can I just say "I told you so" in advance?  This program is wasteful, illogical, and unfair.

Merchant transmission is a market-based alternative to regionally planned cost-of-service transmission necessary for reliability, economic, or public policy reasons.  There is no actual need for merchant transmission.  It's strictly for profiteers who think they can fill a need that market participants will pay for.  When there is no market need for merchant transmission, it fails.  This new program is supposed to prevent these merchants from failing due to lack of market need.  Why are taxpayers paying for this speculative profiteering when they are also paying for the regionally planned projects they actually need to keep their lights on?  Giving DOE a pot of money with which to undermine our transmission planning and ratemaking system is simply adding layers of chaos that will ensure that nothing beneficial is ever constructed.
1 Comment

Grain Belt Express Asks For Loan From Shady DOE Office

10/22/2023

2 Comments

 
During a hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last week, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley questioned Jigar Shah, Director of the U.S. Department of Energy's Loans Program Office.  Senator Hawley's questions revolved around Mr. Shah's apparent conflict of interest in attending pay-to-play invitation-only industry conferences where he was accessible to companies that wanted to get loans from his office.  At one point, Senator Hawley rendered Mr. Shah speechless.  Watch this brief exchange here:
Senator Hawley's questions stemmed from this Congressional report which revealed that Mr. Shah founded a clean energy trade group called The Cleantech Leaders Roundtable  before he was appointed Director of the Loans Program Office.  Once he was appointed, he continued to attend and speak at the group's private functions.  These are the paid conferences that Senator Hawley was referring to.  The Cleantech Leaders Roundtable is a shady organization that keeps its membership secret, and its functions are invitation-only for members.  Who attends these functions in order to hobnob with Mr. Shah, who controls the purse strings of billions of dollars of taxpayer-backed government loans?  Do you think Grain Belt Express parent company Invenergy is a member?  It would be odd if it was not.

After Mr. Shah went from CleanTech Leaders to the DOE's Loans Program Office, the organization made this social media post:

Picture
It appears to me that this group was positively chortling over its good fortune to have one of its insiders in charge of doling out billions of taxpayer dollars for "clean energy" loans.  Hundreds of Billions $$$$$$ of your tax dollars!  

Senator Hawley was spot on with his questioning.  But what Senator Hawley seemed to miss was Mr. Shah's connection to something happening in the Senator's own backyard in Missouri.  Grain Belt Express has applied to Mr.  Shah's office for a government-guaranteed loan for up to 80% of its cost to build the project.  With GBE's costs estimated to be around $7B, this means a $5.6 BILLION dollar loan to Grain Belt Express backed up by your tax dollars, if Mr. Shah approves.

Furthermore, Grain Belt Express currently only has one customer for less than 5% of its project capacity, and that customer received below-cost pricing.  Grain Belt Express does not currenty have the revenue needed to make necessary payments on a government-backed loan.  

Senator Hawley should demand that DOE make sure that Grain Belt Express has the necessary signed customer contracts to provide enough revenue to pay back any loan it receives, and under no circumstances should the DOE loan money to GBE before it has sufficient revenue in place in the form of signed and verified contracts.

If DOE loans money to GBE based on its PLAN to sell its service at some time in the future it could turn into a nearly $6B boondoggle, 12 times worse than Solyndra!

While Senator Hawley's questioning of Jigar Shah made great theater, it is up to you to make sure he takes the next step to tie Mr. Shah to the loan application of Grain Belt Express that is currently under Mr. Shah's review.  Help Senator Hawley make this connection by contacting him here or by calling his office at 202-224-6154.
2 Comments

Nobody Asked Me

9/7/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
...and I'm betting nobody asked you either, but Big Green has now proclaimed that
If care is taken to make sure that host communities benefit in the short and long term from the energy projects in their backyards, they will be less inclined to oppose them, leading to faster timelines for clean energy and transmission projects. 
Of course, this is a baseless statement.  There has never been a transmission project where "communities" received so much benefit that they dropped their opposition (or never started opposition in the first place).

Nevertheless, these Big Green blowhards are courting Congress to pass more legislation greasing new transmission, wind and solar projects.  And they're pretending they speak for impacted landowners.  Their bold new plan has been issued as another tedious "report".

The report says the craziest stuff, like:
​
Community opposition to large-scale wind and solar projects is growing across the United States. There are many reasons for this trend, including misinformation about renewable energy, concerns about project impacts, and concern that most of the benefits flow outside of the community while the burdens fall within. Communities often see hosting renewable energy projects and transmission (which touches multiple communities) as an impediment to their goals, such as preserving community identity, land preservation, and in some cases ensuring ecosystem conservation. While some landowners see these projects as a potential source of revenue from leases, others worry that the projects will reduce the value of their land. Finally, in many communities, while there may be both supporters and opponents of clean energy projects, the opponents are often more vocal, better resourced, and more passionate than the supporters. Because of all these factors, an alarming number of communities are adopting restrictive zoning and land use ordinances that effectively ban the siting of clean energy projects.

​This rise in opposition highlights the importance of ensuring that developers and local officials disseminate accurate information about potential projects and that the permitting process allows engagement from a broad range of voices so that decision-makers can accurately assess the environmental impacts as well as benefits of projects. Furthermore, it is important to ensure that host communities share in the benefits of projects in their own backyards.
Misinformation you say?  All the misinformation is coming from project developers and proponents.  Nobody trusts them because they are in hot pursuit of the almighty dollar, not local interests.  The "information deficit" ploy has never worked.  Minds are never changed no matter how much nonsense the developers spew.  We're not stupid, uninformed bumpkins that just need to be "educated."  Is this going to become a free speech issue where "misinformation" is outlawed and the developers are judge, jury and executioner of misinformation?

We're NOT better resourced than deep-pocketed developers.  We're just speaking the truth.  Truth still matters in rural communities.
Several states, including New York, California, Illinois, and Washington, have enacted laws that improve the siting process for large-scale renewable projects and provide potentially powerful models for similar legislation in other states. Among other things, these laws modernize the permitting process and explicitly provide benefits to host communities via mechanisms like utility bill discounts. States should be encouraged to adopt model siting and permitting laws that expand community engagement while limiting the ability of localities to unreasonably ban all wind and solar projects.
The LAST thing rural states want is to be like California or any of those other states.  We live here for a reason... because it's NOT California.

But the best part of this idiotic paragraph is the statement that we can EXPAND community engagement while LIMITING the actions the communities can take.  That's not engaging the communities... it's oppression.
​Bringing communities from opposition to support—or at least to open-mindedness—is a major challenge to renewable energy growth that needs sustained effort, engagement, and thought. Our recommendations provide a starting point.
And also an ending point because rural communities aren't going to fall for any of your B.S.  It is IMPOSSIBLE to undo opposition to big energy projects that benefit far away cities.  Build your own power plant in your own backyard, you sanctimonious morons.
Coalitions should work together to build support for well-sited projects that benefit the host community. In cases where developers have done their due diligence as outlined in the preceding recommendations, environmental and conservation groups, labor groups, local landowners and businesses, and other stakeholders—including, where relevant, environmental justice and tribal groups—should form coalitions and work together to support the project. A key part of this support should be highlighting the community benefit agreements, payments in lieu of taxes or other mechanisms for benefit sharing, the creation of local jobs, and addressing other ways to compensate local landowners for any perceived or actual diminution in property values.
Coalitions of the unaffected?  Utilities have been trying this for decades without success.  These coalitions have always been outed for the greedy, paid off schills that they are.  We don't need these idiots to advocate for "benefits" for us because these "benefits" are really for them.  There is no benefit that can outweigh having a new transmission line in your back yard or across your prime farmland.  What these coalitions actually try to do is simply outshout community opposition and collect benefits for themselves.  It's a tactic that never works.  Regulators aren't stupid, you know, and they've seen this a thousand times.

This new report is complete garbage.  However it has now been made crystal clear exactly which idiots are writing all the new clean energy legislation.  It's not your elected representatives.  It's private interests.
0 Comments

How To Profit Off The Misery Of Others

9/4/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
As I wrote in February, the U.S. Department of Energy has $760M burning a hole in its pocket.  The Inflation Reduction Act created the Transmission Siting and Economic Development Grant Program, which intends to give your tax dollars away to get new transmission built faster.  The program proposes to give grants to state and local siting authorities (your state utility commission) for the purpose of studying new transmission proposals, creating public engagement, and approving them lickety split.  But that's not all... the geniuses have also come up with "economic development" grants for "communities" affected by the construction and operation of new transmission projects.  The grants are available through your local government.  If you want to make some quick cash for "economic development" projects, just form an organization and ask your county to assist you in applying.

But the DOE forgot to define an "affected community."  Who is "affected" by new transmission?  Is it the landowners who are coerced to grant easements for the project under threat of eminent domain?  Is it adjacent landowners who won't have easements but may still have to look at it every day?  How far out from the center line of the new transmission project does an "affected community" spread?  What if it is on the other side of the county, where they won't see or hear any construction or operation?  Is it a nearby city or town that also will not see or hear it?  What is an "affect"?  DOE somehow fails to say in its wordy rules for applying for one of these grants.
Either DOE is going to be flooded with applications from governments and organizations who have only a tertiary relationship to an "affected community" but a huge appetite for government cash, or it is not going to get ANY applications at all.  Landowners and persons living on or near new transmission lines won't be forming organizations and begging for taxpayer cash.  They simply want the transmission project to go away... maybe it can go in the backyards of the grant recipients?  Wouldn't that be ideal?

DOE is holding another one of its ridiculous webinars that almost nobody attends to explain to the public how its new TSED program works and how to apply.  The webinar is scheduled for September 14.  You can sign up here.
Ask them who is eligible, and how "affected" your community must be to receive a grant.

This is nothing but taxpayer funded bribery.  Pretty amusing that DOE will prohibit using any of its grant funds to lobby federal elected representatives (Congress) but has no prohibition on lobbying your state elected officials, your state public service commission, or any other entity that must approve the project before it can be built.  Don't they realize that these grants ARE lobbying at the local level?

And how are these grants to unaffected organizations going to speed up the siting and permitting of new transmission projects?  They won't.  No landowner in his right mind would support a transmission project across his property in exchange for bribe money given to an unaffected person or organization.

This program is headed nowhere but to court, however it's going to waste millions of your tax dollars on the way.  But don't worry, it's reducing inflation, don't ya know?
0 Comments

Hawley Grills Invenergy About Grain Belt Express

8/1/2023

0 Comments

 
Everyone's a bit excited over the video that's currently circulating that shows Missouri Senator Josh Hawley grilling Invenergy representative Kelly Speakes-Backman.  No information is provided about where or when this exchange took place.  It looks like Congress, but what was the topic?
First of all, who is Kelly Speakes-Backman?  You've probably never heard of her, but I have.  She used to work for the U.S. Department of Energy in the renewable energy department.  But she was hired away from there in December 2022 to work as Invenergy's Executive Vice President of Public Affairs.  Check out her linked in profile to see her rise to chief government schmoozer for a governmental office she once worked for.  Nice connections, Kelly, such as the Director of Loans Program Office at the DOE.  This just so happens to be the same office where GBE applied for a guaranteed, taxpayer funded loan to construct its project in December of last year.  Coincidence?  What is that smell?  I think it might be the stink of regulatory capture.  Government employees are highly prized in the private sector so that they may leverage their recent relationships with former co-workers in the government to get favorable treatment for their new, private-sector employers.

First, Kelly tries to pretend that Grain Belt Express will be bringing energy to all the communities through which it passes and "keep the lights on." 

WRONG!  GBE is a high voltage direct current line that needs a very expensive DC/AC converter station to connect to our AC grid.  Only three of these will exist... one in Kansas to convert AC to DC and load it on the line, one in Missouri to convert DC to AC to serve to customers in Missouri, and one in eastern Illinois to convert DC to AC and load it onto lines headed for the east coast.  Currently, there is only one customer for less than 5% of the line's capacity and that customer is paying less than it costs GBE to provide the service.   Because Grain Belt Express is a MERCHANT transmission project, it can only sell its transmission service to voluntary customers at market based rates.  Nobody in Missouri will be getting electricity from GBE unless they sign a contract with GBE to buy transmission, along with a separate contract with a generator in Kansas to supply the energy that would be transmitted on the line.

Kelly also tries to blather on about how Invenergy is all about "community engagement" and forming relationships with the landowners it crosses.  Senator Hawley isn't buying that for one second... he knows GBE is legally condemning the land it needs for its project.

Kelly doesn't seem to really know much at all about Grain Belt Express, except she tries to blow a lot of smoke around the room pretending she does.

Of course, Hawley doesn't seem to know much about GBE either, so the discussion kind of reminded me of Dumb and Dumber.
Picture
If he did, he'd be asking Kelly about GBE's application to her former co-workers at DOE for a guaranteed loan for up to 80% of GBE's $5 BILLION dollar cost.  That's a taxpayer guaranteed $4B loan to build a project that doesn't have enough customers to make revenue to repay the loan.

That's exactly what happened with Solyndra, when DOE loaned the company $500M to build a solar factory based on bogus contracts.   DOE employees said they were under enormous political pressure to approve the loan and not look too closely at Solyndra's contracts with fictional customers.  There never were any customers for Solyndra, and the company went bankrupt after spending all that taxpayer money building a factory that never produced anything.

The parallels between GBE and Solyndra are stunning.  GBE is in line to become Solyndra 2.0, only this time taxpayers stand to lose $4 BILLION, not just $500 Million.  That's 8 times the loss!

Maybe Senator Hawley should open an investigation into what's going on between Invenergy and the DOE regarding a $4B loan guaranteed by taxpayers so he could prevent the next Solyndra.

Publicly arguing with Kelly makes great theater, but ultimately it doesn't solve anything.  I'm sure we'd all love it more if Senator Hawley stepped up to take action on the Grain Belt Express issue.
0 Comments

Pot Calls Kettle Black in Ironic Twist

6/30/2023

1 Comment

 
Hit it, Alanis...
Clean energy and environmental justice saints are pointing the finger at natural gas companies for ghostwriting letters of support for their project that were signed by local big wigs.

Isn't it ironic?  These very same groups also engage in a little astroturfing of their own.  I am always coming across form letters in FERC dockets orchestrated by environmental and social justice groups that are indisputably form letters, such as this letter of support signed by 17,923 clueless petition signatories or these 10,905 form letters submitted by the National Wildlife Federation.  Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

It seems like the sanctimonious blowhards didn't have much trouble getting biased media to point fingers and make it seem like gathering letters of support are something new.

Shopping around "letters of support" for an energy project (or a FERC rulemaking) has been going on for decades.  There's no law against it.  It's just plain, old annoying and it's not fooling any regulators at this point.  Why do they continue doing it?  Because energy companies are like vintage Titanics, sailing along on yesterday's public relations schemes. 

Perhaps the opposition groups are just ticked off that the gas company was able to get the signatures of more important people than they were.  Really, none of it matters.  Form letters are never read past the first one.  Nobody cares.  They don't even keep little score sheets of the number of comments for or against.  It's complete nonsense.

However, shopping around form letters does become a problem when the company uses public or ratepayer funds to pay for its public relations schemes.  I don't see where these whiners even bothered to investigate whether that's happening in this instance.  Why do any hard work when the media eats up your BFD allegations?

Of course it's annoying when the opposite side uses underhanded tricks to drum up fake support for their position. 
“I think that really, really rankles people here in Port Isabel, to see somebody from another city writing a letter saying, ‘hey, you know what? You ought to hurry up and put this polluting, dangerous facility in somebody else's town,’” Port Isabel City Manager Jared Hockema told TPR.
And a particularly bitter pill to swallow when that support comes from unaffected individuals that may have had their hands out for some quid pro quo.  It's not  uncommon for the company to offer some "donations" or "campaign contributions" or other one hand washes the other kind of "help" in exchange for letters or public comments of support.  When they can't build support honestly, they buy it.

How would these folks like it if the ghostwritten letters and handfuls of cash were coming from the federal government instead of the private sector?  Congress has unwisely set aside a $760M pot of taxpayer money to fund "economic development" and "grant" payments to "communities" affected by new electric transmission projects.  Nevermind the fact that transmission is a linear project whose "community" is linear, the government is eager to dole out your tax money to some other town to pay for your misery living with a transmission line on your property.  The only thing these other towns must do is make sure the project gets approved. 

I suppose they'll sign some ghostwritten letters.
Picture
1 Comment

Are You Ready To Rumble, Missouri?

6/4/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
The Missouri Public Service Commission's evidentiary hearing for the Grain Belt Express Tiger Connector (and other big changes to GBE's permit) begins at 9 a.m. Monday morning.  You can either show up at the PSC in person, or watch the festivities online.  If you show up in person, be aware that this is a formal court-like proceeding.  The audience must use their court room manners (no shouting, clapping, or disruptions of any kind.)  Also, there is no opportunity for the audience to participate, they are silent observers.  Have all the stare down contests you like, but keep your lips zipped.  If you watch online, like I do (either live or on replay), it's a lot less stressful because you can shout the most appropriate insults at the biggest idiots you encounter with absolutely no harm done.  If I was more industrious, I'd make a video out of it, similar to those folks who draw huge audiences making videos while they play video games.  Who wants to watch a video of me ad libbing insulting tunes at PSC witnesses?  Insults are so much nicer when you sing them.

All the parties have filed their position statements.  It's a short listing of what the party believes the evidence will show to the Commission, and how the party believes the Commission should decide.  Rather than plow through the mountains of filings at this point, this is where you should start.

Missouri Landowners Alliance says the project should be rejected because it is not economically feasible and there is no proven need for it.  GBE has not even sold the full 500 MW it first offered in Missouri, so why would it need to increase the capacity to 2500 MW?  In its Order approving the project several years ago, the PSC said GBE was economically feasible only because it could sell capacity at a higher price to utilities on the east coast.   Now GBE wants permission to build just the Kansas and Missouri portions of the project, with the portion that goes to the east coast coming later, maybe.  Also, GBE has filed a complaint against regional grid operator MISO at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission contending that MISO did not include a completed GBE in its future planning scenario, even though the rules say MISO should not.  To summarize this problem, GBE is mad that MISO's future transmission plan competes with GBE, therefore GBE seeks to stop MISO from planning and ordering other transmission lines.  Being made obsolete is a natural development for a merchant transmission line that stalls for more than 10 years.  MISO cannot depend on GBE being built because GBE can always cancel its project at its own initiative, even today.  MISO needs to plan a reliable transmission system.  It cannot plan around speculative projects.  MISO is going to build its new projects anyhow, and all ratepayers will be responsible for the cost of those reliability projects.  It's undeniable that GBE has jumped the shark -- other options have become available, and they are not carrying GBE's huge debt baggage that has accumulated over the last decade so they are certainly going to be cheaper.  As the MLA said, "If Grain Belt is attempting to eliminate competition from MISO, there is reason to question Grain Belt’s financial viability."  The MLA is opposing the separation of GBE into two "phases", where it builds the Kansas-Missouri section independently from the Illinois section.  The MLA says, "Several Grain Belt witnesses contend that its proposed phasing plan would expedite the benefits of Phase 1 for Missouri.  Yet not one of their witnesses mention that the plan would also expedite the collection of Grain Belt’s profits."  BINGO!  MLA opposes changes to the landowner compensation for the Tiger Connector.  GBE wants to change 110% fair market value (FMV) plus a big payment for each structure on your land to 150% FMV without structure payments.  This simply does not work out to higher compensation for every landowner, as GBE contends.  It depends on the value of your property and the number of structures.  It could mean a decrease for certain large landowners.  MLA says landowners should be given their choice of which compensation package is more beneficial to them.

The Missouri Agricultural Associations have a different take on things.  Maybe they're still trying to make up for that disasterous eminent domain legislation they negotiated on behalf of landowners last year.  That whole thing reminded me of former Gov. Jay Nixon "negotiating" a landowner protocol with GBE on behalf of landowners that he never actually consulted.  Personally, I have had enough of unaffected groups negotiating on behalf of disenfranchised landowners.  At any rate, the Ag groups say not only should the original permit not have been issued, it should not be amended now.  "Relocation from Ralls County
and/or constructing the project in two phases will not change the fact that this project will only be viable by selling power at a price that no one is willing to pay."  The Ag groups say GBE should comply with the legislation it negotiated with GBE, and it wants to give away something else on behalf of landowners now.  I haven't even heard a landowner mention this, and nobody seems to know about it.  Came right out of left field, like most of the giveaways in last year's legislation.  "The Agricultural Associations would also support modifications that require Grain Belt Express to offer landowners ongoing shares of ownership in Grain Belt Expressand/or Invenergy as an alternative to cash compensation to give landowners an opportunity to share in the profit stream generated from land taken by Grain Belt Express."  WHAT???  INSTEAD OF cash compensation?  Sorry... no.  It should be IN ADDITION TO cash compensation.  Why would any landowner give his property away for a share in a company that he hates?  This is what happens when you don't consult the people you supposedly "represent."

The Staff of the PSC is another party with a position.  Although the Staff is part of the Commission, it is the professional part.  It is the engineering and legal staff that evaluate applications that are filed and make recommendations for the appointed Commissioners.  The Staff are the people with actual education and experience regulating utilities.  The appointed Commissioners often don't have any experience at all with utilities and often are nothing more than political creatures rewarded with a cushy job and high salary.  It's not what you know, it's who you know.  Commissioners are not obligated to listen to the wisdom of their professional staff, who try diligently to keep the Commissioners from making huge mistakes.  But the call of politics often overwhelms common sense and the Staff is batted aside as an inconvenience.  What a thankless job they have!  The Staff's main position is that the phasing of the project should be denied.  It's either the whole project from Kansas to Indiana, or no project at all.  Staff also wants GBE to either follow the Eminent Domain legislation negotiated by the Ag Associations last year, or not.  GBE cannot pick and choose whether to follow it or not based on what's beneficial to GBE.

Grain Belt Express wants everything... it wants Tiger Connector approved so it can take land from new landowners in Audrain and Callaway Counties.  It wants to build only part of the project before committing fully to the whole thing.  It wants to pick and choose how it treats landowners to be most beneficial to GBE.

The Missouri Energy Commission (formerly MJMEUC, and not to be confused with the Public Service Commission) believes GBE's permit modifications should be approved.  It mentions that in it's sweet deal for "up to" 200 MW of transmission service on GBE and a separate contract with a wind farm in Kansas for actual energy, that it has managed to re-sell 136 MW of service to Missouri cities.  It forgets to mention that that 136 MW number has not changed since 2015/16.  Even though MEC can resell another 64 MW of GBE service, there have been no takers in 6-8 years.  I'm pretty sure there are no other takers.  Contemplate, PSC, contemplate.

The position of the "Clean Grid Alliance" (formerly American Wind Energy Association but then they got chummy with big solar so they created a big alliance for all their big subsidies) sort of gives away the secret we've been wondering about for a while.  CGA says Tiger should be approved because, "The r
equested amendments and potential for more solar resources using the project provide more benefits to Missouri; increasing the Certificated Project’s public interest benefits."  Wait... more solar using the project because of Tiger Connector?  I don't remember that being anywhere in GBE's testimony.  So, Tiger Connector is being built for the express purpose of exporting new solar generation from Callaway County to the east coast?  Tiger is not for the purpose of importing energy from Kansas?  Or Tiger is for importing renewable energy from Kansas while simultaneously exporting renewable energy generated right there in Callaway?  Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper for Callaway (and Missouri as a whole) to actually use what they produce, instead of paying a bunch of transmission fees to supposedly move the energy around?  Isn't that what is actually going to happen?  If GBE injects 2500 MW of electricity in Callaway and withdraws 2500 MW of electricity in Callaway, who's to say any energy actually went anywhere?  Plenty of dollar bills will go in Invenergy's pocket, but the electricity is a complete wash.  Electrons are all the same.  You can't tell one from another.  There aren't any tiny license plates that say "Kansas" or "Missouri" on the back of them.  P.T. Barnum would be so proud!

Sierra Club's and Renew Missouri's positions are nothing more than boring cheerleading and unsubstantiated claims that GBE is the second coming of their clean energy god.  What is annoying though is where they may take a position that GBE's landowner compensation is reasonable.  Stay in your lane, bloviating turbine huggers.  Your opinion about landowner compensation means absolutely NOTHING.

Same could be said for Associated Industries of Missouri (aka the unions).  The unions took the same position on each separate issue. "The
evidence supports each of the amendments to the CCN currently held by Grain Belt Express and such amendments are in the best interest of the public and necessary and convenient for the public service. The Commission should approve the amendments."  What do the unions know about any of this?  Nothing.  They just support the project because they think it will provide jobs for their members.  But, is that speculation or actuality?  I don't remember a project labor agreement being announced.  What guarantee is there that Missouri union members would be given jobs building GBE?  And, even if they were, is a temporary job for a union member a good reason to take private property from another citizen?   The unions even attempt the same position on GBE's landowner compensation package.  Again... stay in your lane, union workers!

So, what happens now?  A judge will preside over a court-like proceeding where opening statements will be made, witnesses will be cross examined, evidence will be introduced, and briefs will be written.  The judge will make a recommendation to the appointed Commissioners.

Then the Commissioners do whatever they want and pay back their own political favors.  Although supposedly "independent" after being sworn in, they still owe a debt to the one who appointed them and who may reappoint them after their term is up.

You might be interested to find out just how hard Invenergy is lobbying for transmission at the federal level.  It had a hand in both the "Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill" and the "Inflation Reduction Act" that have usurped state authority to permit transmission and supercharged federal authority over transmission.  There's probably a Missouri Elections Commission counterpart that shows how much Invenergy has been spreading around to Missouri politicians.  All that money will be working hard for Invenergy next week in Missouri.  Another lesson in sausage making!

0 Comments
<<Previous

    About the Author

    Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.
    In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history.

    About
    StopPATH Blog

    StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project.  The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

    StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view.  If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty.  People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself.  If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

    Got something to say?  Submit your own opinion for publication.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

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

    Categories

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

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.