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

Offshore Wind Would Require Little New Transmission

2/24/2017

1 Comment

 
A study released by the University of Delaware and Princeton University found that the east coast PJM grid can handle huge injections of offshore wind.
The UD and Princeton team showed conservatively that, with some upgrades to transmission lines but without any need for added storage, the PJM grid can handle over 35 gigawatts of offshore wind—that’s 35 billion watts—enough to power an estimated 10 million homes. They also found that the PJM grid could in the future handle twice that amount, up to 70 gigawatts, as wind forecasting improves, allowing the power operator to better predict and harness more wind.
That's really not surprising.  PJM has been looking at offshore wind for years.  What is new is the buy-in of eastern states to make it reality.

Coastal cities have a strong network of transmission that has been bringing them fossil fuel energy from the Ohio Valley for the past century.  The new report says that network should be upgraded to support reverse flow, that is from east to west, instead of west to east.  Sure sounds like a better plan than to build a new, expensive, gigantic network of transmission from the west to move an inferior terrestrial wind resource to the coastal cities.

And with the operation of the first offshore wind farm in Rhode Island well underway, eastern cities are also realizing the economic growth that comes with new industry.  A thriving offshore wind economy will breathe new life into eastern ports... where those receiving the benefits of the offshore energy will also receive the economic benefits of creating it in the first place.  It's a way for eastern cities to keep their energy dollars at home in their own communities.

Even with some minor transmission upgrades, the beneficiaries of the offshore wind transmission will also be those affected.  A plan to ship wind energy from the Midwest causes burden on Midwestern landowners who receive no benefit from the transmission, and this is what has delayed plans to build "clean" lines for the purposes of meeting some imagined eastern "need" for Midwest renewables.

Offshore wind is a win-win idea for eastern cities.  The only ones clinging to last decade's bright idea of shipping Midwestern renewables coast-to-coast are transmission builders, terrestrial wind companies, and Midwestern state governments who thought they saw a huge tax benefit from producing energy for export.  However, state tax benefits intended to encourage the building of energy for export have gone just a bit too far, as states like Oklahoma and Wyoming have had to roll back tax credits and impose new production taxes on wind generation in order to balance their budgets.  Becoming the "powerhouse" for other states isn't all it's cracked up to be.  The companies who own the energy infrastructure are the ones who end up with all the money, and the citizens are often left at the alter with broken economies and a wasted environment.

Every region has its own renewables, and developing local renewables is a much smarter choice than importing them from other regions.

We really don't need billions of dollars of new transmission lines to power the east coast with wind.  By using what's available locally, the east coast will make the switch to cleaner energy better, faster, and without requiring outlandish sacrifice from other regions to serve eastern needs.
1 Comment

Clean Line Making its Ego GREAT again!

2/14/2017

5 Comments

 
We're going to build huge transmission lines!  It's going to be great!  It's going to be the greatest transmission build ever!  And we're going to make the American people pay for it in their monthly electric bills!  It's going to be GREAT!
Perhaps the new mantra is “we’re going to make transmission great again,” Skelly said.
Oh, puh-leeze.  Transmission is already great in this country.  In fact, we have federally regulated transmission planning and reliability organizations that plan and operate the greatest transmission system in the world.  These organizations carefully monitor our transmission system to ensure that it serves electric consumers reliably, economically, and meets public policy mandates.  It's already GREAT!

And the planning and reliability organizations have never found a need for thousands of miles of expensive, invasive "clean" lines.  That's why Clean Line Energy Partners is a merchant transmission company, proposing to build new transmission outside our regulated system and shoulder all the financial risk that nobody may find its lines useful, economic, or necessary to purchase.  We don't need Clean Line to "make transmission great again."  Our transmission system never stopped being great, but if it did, regulated planners would propose additions to the system to ensure it remained great.

But Clean Line needs our regulated transmission system to make itself great.  It needs volunteer customers to provide a revenue stream that would make its proposal profitable for its filthy rich investors.  And when that did not happen voluntarily, Clean Line now seeks to use the federal government to force electric customers into captivity to finance its projects.

Clean Line and its environmental sycophants, along with transmission industry profiteers, gathered together last week to scheme up a way to force legislators and governmental regulators to usurp state authority to site and permit new transmission projects.  And hilarity ensued.

Considering that there was only one news report of the event, and the front group that organized it didn't bother with social media engagement, it more closely resembled a closed echo chamber that nobody cares about.  So even though Clean Line president Michael Skelly shamelessly sucked up to the political party in power, nothing of any import happened.  Except I laughed!

Conference organizer "Americans for a Clean Energy Grid" has been trying to make itself relevant for years, but their execution is lame and conference attendees may randomly crap on all their ideas.
The organization, an initiative of the Energy Future Coalition, has held regional transmission conferences, but this was its first national event.

The coalition was formed in 2002 by former Sen. Tim Wirth, a Colorado Democrat; Republican C. Boyden Gray, who served as White House counsel to President George H.W. Bush; and Democrat John Podesta, a former aide to Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama who chaired Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
So this is really a political organization trying to masquerade as an industry or regulatory organization.  And even when they can manage to get important sounding participants to show up, the participants may not share the organization's rabid support for building new transmission outside current regulated planning processes.
“I’d love to have more load growth. It ain’t going to happen,” Craig Glazer, PJM’s vice president for federal government policy, told the gathering.

Weak load growth will make it more complicated to finance upgrades for aging transmission, and the lack of a federal carbon tax or renewable mandate is making it difficult to integrate renewable generation, Glazer said.
Gosh, that really doesn't sound like a glowing endorsement for building new merchant transmission to serve PJM consumers, which seems to be Clean Line's target market.

And when the organization's dream of taking away state authority to site and permit transmission was brought up:
Hoecker and Brown discussed FERC’s inability to gain “backstop” siting authority, saying it’s still very difficult to prevent individual states from blocking a project. The Energy Policy Act of 2015 amended the Federal Power Act to give FERC the authority to site electric transmission lines blocked by states, but court rulings have blocked the commission’s attempts to use it, prompting some in Congress to propose additional legislation strengthening FERC’s authority.

Brown said that Order 1000 hasn’t really helped SPP much with large regional projects.

“We need to decide what we want this grid of the future to look like,” Glazer said. For example, should it be a “localized grid” that can harness distributed generation? he asked. “There’s an added complication; it’s not even clear who is in charge,” Glazer said. FERC, state utility commissions and governors all have a say in siting decisions, he said.

If each governor is asked what infrastructure projects they want, the country will end up with a lot of state-based projects, not interstate ones, Clean Line Energy Partners President Mike Skelly said.

Perhaps the new mantra is “we’re going to make transmission great again,” Skelly said. The power to select infrastructure projects should not be taken away from transmission planners and placed in the hands of Congress, he said.

Skelly and others cautioned the Trump administration not to skimp on project reviews or stakeholder input. The key is that all projects must have “timelines” for regulatory approvals to avoid infinite delays, he said.

The executive director of the AFL-CIO’s Industrial Union Council, Brad Markell, said the labor movement agrees with the need for “hard timelines” to shorten the permit process.

Markell said that labor unions have been in contact with the Trump administration on potential infrastructure efforts.

“From our point of view, more power for the federal government and less power for the states [on electric infrastructure] would be a good thing,” he said.

Others deemed that unlikely. “I think we’re stuck with the system we have,” Glazer said.
But, wait a tick, the Skelly chameleon has actually participated in a federal process that skimped on technical project review and stakeholder input in order to usurp state siting authority for one of his "clean lines."  It seems to me that this is a top-down approach to forcing regulatory approval, instead of a fair and open review of proposed projects.

And then the environmental groups weighed in and things got a lot sillier.
Mary Anne Hitt, executive director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign, said that — contrary to what conference participants may have heard — her organization doesn’t oppose all power lines, only those that appear aimed to “prop up fossil fuels.”

The environmental group opposed the abandoned “coal by wire” Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) project in PJM. On the other hand, it has backed the Plains and Eastern Clean Line Project, designed to move renewable energy from Oklahoma to Tennessee.

Hitt said she was concerned that President Trump’s nominee for EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, opposed Clean Line in 2015 as Oklahoma attorney general.
Right... the Sierra Club should be the sole adjudicator of whether transmission projects "appear aimed to prop up fossil fuels."  And this subjective determination can really filter out bad projects.... I guess she doesn't know that her favorite Clean Line projects are being marketed as an arbitrage opportunity to ship fossil fueled electricity between regions, and that "clean" lines can't actually exist because all transmission is open access regardless of fuel source.  I guess that's what happens when you have a bunch of environmentalists meddling in things they don't really understand.

And an ineffectual time was had by all.  But, hey, the political posturing was exquisite!

And speaking of political posturing, here's some political posturing from E&E News regarding a real Washington, D.C., organizational conference with clout - the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners winter meeting.  The members of this organization actually regulate utilities, they don't just talk about it.  E&E complains:
Curiously, there are no sessions scheduled there addressing the unsettled question of whether the federal government has any legitimate interest in transmission siting.
That's probably because this question is NOT "unsettled."  It's quite settled.  It's been settled for years.  Decades.  States have jurisdiction over electric transmission permitting and siting.  The federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 attempted to shift permitting to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission if a state failed to act within one year on a permit for a project in a federally designated "national interest electric transmission corridor.  That has never happened, so who's to say its ineffective?  What was ineffective was a misinterpretation of this statute (Sec. 1221) that ended in a couple of hugely expensive federal court battles.  The EP Act also allows the U.S. DOE to "participate" in transmission projects financed by third parties, but reserves siting authority to the states.  Again, misinterpretation of the statute by the government has resulted in a federal court battle, still in progress.

This "question" isn't unsettled.  It's written in black and white.  But for those who want to misuse statute, it becomes an "unsettled question" kicked into federal court.  Just because an entity doesn't like the law does not make the law open to interpretation.  The law does not allow the federal government any authority over,  or interest in, transmission siting.  Transmission siting is state jurisdictional.

While it's oftentimes hard to tell a useful and influential Washington conference from a useless and ineffectual one, remember that not all Washington gatherings have the same amount of clout.
5 Comments

Dominion's Boogeyman Fails to Scare Tidewater

1/13/2017

0 Comments

 
Dominion upped the ante on its Surry-Skiffes Creek transmission project this week.  Because it has not been successful in overcoming opposition to an aerial crossing of the James River, it introduced the blackout boogeyman in the form of a remediation plan for the area, filed with regional grid operator PJM.
The so-called remedial action scheme Dominion prepared and presented this week to PJM Interconnection, the operator of the 13-state electrical grid Virginia is plugged into, would cut power to Hampton, two-thirds of Newport News, Poquoson and eastern York County if there are faults on two of the dozens of components in the Peninsula's high transmission network.
Oh no!  Blackouts, you say?

The people of the Tidewater said, "meh."
They say Dominion's been using scare tactics when it has said there could be as many as 80 days a year in which rolling blackouts are possible. Dominion says that's the number of days when demand is so heavy that faults in the system could force it to cut some customers off in order to avoid a widespread blackout.

"It appears that Dominion Virginia Power would rather continue their campaign to frighten consumers and threaten to close their Yorktown power plants," said James Zinn, a trustee with the Save the James Alliance, who argues that federal law allows the U.S. Department of Energy to order a power plant to operate in an emergency.
Well, gosh, PJM better get to altering its transmission plans in order to avoid emergency, because that's just not acceptable, and it doesn't appear that the opposition is going to fold on this one.
"If nothing else, this is consistent with their continued inflexibility to consider less intrusive alternatives for their construction of towers over the historic James River," he said.
So, what could they do instead?  Bury the line underwater?  Ya think?  Honestly, Dominion, you're behaving like a 5-year old.  "I'm gonna hold my breath until I die!"  Stop being a pimple on the ass of progress.
0 Comments

Pavlov's Energy Markets

12/6/2016

0 Comments

 
What's the difference between a generator over-forecasting its output in order to collect DAMAP payments from MISO when their day-ahead schedule is higher than their actual real-time output, and an electricity market trader making trades designed to collect MLSA transmission credit payments from PJM?

It sure looks like it's based on pre-conceived notions of the "goodness" of the recipient of the regional transmission organization payments.

A recent article in RTO Insider details a report to MISO's market subcommittee by Market Monitor David Patton, which revealed "
some wind generators appear to be deliberately over-forecasting their output to inflate their revenues."
Two-thirds of MISO’s $7.5 million in DAMAP payments to wind resources in 2015 and 2016 was because of over-forecasting and only $2.5 million was spent on curtailment, Patton said. “Most of our wind DAMAP payments are unjustified,” he said.
DAMAP payments are described like this:
The purpose of DAMAP is to provide an incentive for Market Participants to be flexible in their offers in the real-time market.

The DAMAP compensates suppliers when (i) the real-time dispatch of a resource is reduced below the day-ahead schedule's level, and (ii) the market participant would have been financially better off in real-time had it operated at its day-ahead schedule.

Read the whole article for an explanation of how DAMAP can and is being manipulated by wind generators to receive higher compensation payments. 

This is complicated stuff!  Regional energy markets are extremely complicated, to the point that they are nearly incomprehensible to the regular folks who fund millions of dollars in "market compensation" payments every year in their electric bills.  But don't feel too bad, it appears that energy markets are also complicated for the experts who create and police them to try to prevent manipulation by traders and other participants.  Every regional electric market would be well-served by a couple of whip-smart analysts whose only job is to continually test the market by attempting to find ways to manipulate it for profit.  Obviously the creators and monitors of these markets are completely blind to the opportunities they create that allow participants to unwittingly "push the money button" and be rewarded by compensation payments.  To expect Pavlov's dogs to immediately report the unexpected reward they received, instead of continuing to push the button and feast at will, is unnatural.  If the creators and monitors of energy markets expect an unnatural response, they need to provide a compensatory reward for it.  In lieu of having staff dedicated to and capable of rooting out flaws, market monitors should look at providing the stimulus necessary to find volunteers within the market participants.

So, how did the MISO Market Monitor propose to solve this problem, once discovered?  He proposed changes to the market, instead of punishing the wind energy dogs who had been pushing the money button that brought it to his attention.  He chose to stop ringing the bell.

But how did the PJM Market Monitor propose to solve a similar "money button" problem that developed in his own market?  He worked with FERC to punish the traders who pushed the button and brought it to his attention.  He beat the dog.  In fact, FERC has proposed fining the traders somewhere in the neighborhood of $35M.

Why the disparate treatment?  Is it because the general public looks disparagingly upon "Wall Street" (and therefore traders big and small) as the root of all evil?  Is it because wind energy is looked upon by the same public as a "clean" and "good" struggling industry?  I've got news for you, general public.  Big wind is a hugely profitable industry whose greed knows no bounds!  What may have started out as a cottage industry predicated upon selfless environmental gains has morphed into a gigantic subsidy- and compensation-gobbling monster that fills the pockets of foreign investors with your gold.  Years of environmental propaganda has conditioned you to behave just like Pavlov's dogs when you hear the words "clean energy."  You may believe anything with a "green" label must be "good" and therefore more valuable, without examining any actual benefits to you.

Energy markets will only work if they are consistent.  Allowing one group of participants to escape the punishment heaped upon another group isn't consistent.  What kind of bell are they trying to ring?

Oh, and big wind is ripping you off... big time!
0 Comments

Constructability Calamities

8/10/2016

1 Comment

 
Who comes up with the "constructability" summaries for PJM's transmission projects?  Do they hire a professional blackjack player to study the odds of approved projects pissing off the wrong people?  Where's the surety in spinning the wheel to determine whether a project is "problematic," when actual results depend entirely on circumstances beyond PJM's control?  The human factor is going to get them every time.

So, PJM's eternal Artificial Island project has been "suspended."  It's ever-changing scope and price tag have affected its "constructability."  The states of Maryland and Delaware were outraged that PJM's cost allocation assigned the majority of the project's costs to them, when they would receive little benefit.  "Suck it up, buttercup, we'll do better next time," said PJM.

Oddly enough, PJM's suspension of Artificial Island didn't even mention the cost allocation issue.  But nevertheless, the states are claiming victory.

Lesson:  With enough opposition, even PJM can change its mind.  And as the Delaware Public Advocate reminded PJM, this isn't the first time.
The DPA is not asking PJM to do something it has never done before. PJM has reevaluated
projects in the past. After reconsideration, PJM canceled the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway ("MAPP") and the Pennsylvania-Allegheny Transmission Highway ("PATH") projects.

While the reasons for cancellation may be different in this case, the fact of the matter is that simply because PJM has approved a project does not mean that it gets done come what may. In cancelling the MAPP and PATH projects, PJM acknowledged that changed circumstances had caused it to reevaluate the projects; unfortunately, however, ratepayers are paying significant abandonment costs. We ask PJM to re-evaluate this Project before LS Power and PSE&G incur costs that will ultimately be recovered from ratepayers of all PJM members.

The DPA asks PJM to remember that end-use customers are ultimately the ones that pay
for projects such as this. Indeed, neither PJM nor its member companies would exist if not for customers. And those customers are not a wallet from which PJM and its member utilities can obtain unlimited funds.

Stop making poor "constructability" choices, PJM!

Speaking of... PJM approved a bunch of new projects yesterday.  Among them is a scheme to construct two new greenfield transmission projects across the Maryland/Pennsylvania border.
Picture
Sorry, but the PJM-supplied project map really is that crappy and devoid of recognizable locations.  PJM's world revolves around a map of substations and transmission lines.  Ringgold is really a place though, so that narrows down the approximate location of the western line.  Furnace Run is a town in western Pennsylvania, but the eastern line on this map begins south of York and Lancaster and probably ends somewhere near Towson, Maryland.  But don't worry about the lack of any recognizable places, because PJM's constructability summary has determined this project "is located on undeveloped land" and therefore the only likely obstacles may be bats, acquiring easements on Pennsylvania state land, and a few permitting hurdles.  No human factors acknowledged.

But I'm pretty sure people own that "undeveloped land," and those people probably will mind having a transmission line constructed on their property.  What remains to be seen is how big a squawk they can make about it.  Because, as PJM has demonstrated numerous times already, its planning isn't infallible, and when approved projects run into a buzzsaw of opposition, PJM has no choice but to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better project.

1 Comment

An Infographic of PJM Ineptitude

7/15/2016

6 Comments

 
Who is PJM?
PJM Interconnection is a regional transmission organization (RTO) that coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity in all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.

Acting as a neutral, independent party, PJM operates a competitive wholesale electricity market and manages the high-voltage electricity grid to ensure reliability for more than 61 million people.

PJM’s long-term regional planning process provides a broad, interstate perspective that identifies the most effective and cost-efficient improvements to the grid to ensure reliability and economic benefits on a system wide basis.

An independent Board oversees PJM’s activities. Effective governance and a collaborative stakeholder process help PJM achieve its vision: “To be the electric industry leader – today and tomorrow – in reliable operations, efficient wholesale markets, and infrastructure development.”
We're all depending on these guys to keep the lights on and operate an electric market.  And that requires a lot of advanced mathematics.

Infographics tell a story.  They are graphic visual representations of information, data or knowledge intended to present information quickly and clearly. They can improve cognition by utilizing graphics to enhance the human visual system's ability to see patterns and trends.

This helpful infographic is prominently displayed in PJM's lobby, ostensibly to inspire visitors to think about how PJM's hard work to manage electricity supports everyone's creature comforts.  It's an attempt to "dumb down" electricity to make its awesome power easily understandable and relevant to the hoi polloi who shuffle daily between PJM's conference rooms and tasty M&M bar.  PJM has lots of important visitors to impress!  So, grab a handful of M&Ms (plain or peanut!) and wander through the infographic gallery for a snacking good time!
Picture
Except it looks like PJM took the "dumbing down" a little too seriously and ended up with just plain dumb.

What can one megawatt hour of electricity do?

It can power:

600 Super Bowl parties (300 kWh)
5,556 iPhone charges (100 kWh)
Power a traffic signal for 3 months (200 kWh)
1,200 pots of coffee (100 kWh)
Download 133,320 songs (50 kWh)
Cool a refrigerator for 3 months (150 kWh)

The infographic informs that one megawatt hour (MWh) equals 1,000 kilowatt hours (kWh). 

What does all that add up to?

It's not 1 MWh.

It's 900 kWh.

Go ahead, add it up.  You probably won't even need one of those nifty scientific calculators PJM probably uses to manage the electric grid.  Any second grader can do it.

But PJM can't.

C'mon, PJM, less free nachos and danish on the snack bar and more math that we can rely on!

Perhaps PJM's mathematicians consider this infographic saved by the tiny disclaimer on the bottom?
Based on a variety of sources.  Numbers are estimations and may be rounded.
Rounded to the nearest thousand?  Is that the kind of magic math PJM uses to manage the electric grid?

I'm frightened.

If that infographic is intended to impress me with your electric grid prowess, you've failed.  Miserably.

So, now the fun begins!  How many blog readers that visit PJM regularly can find this infographic in the lobby and photograph it before it's removed?  How many visitors can snap a photo of the empty space left behind after its removal?  How many visitors can snap a photo of its eventual replacement (and fact check that one)?  How many visitors can inspire PJM to institute a "no photographs in the lobby" policy to save it from further embarrassment?

Be sure to help yourself to a complimentary snack while you're there.  Maybe the missing 100 kWh is powering the M&M dispenser?
6 Comments

R.I.P. Big Transmission, We Hardly Knew Ye

6/2/2016

1 Comment

 
I'm late for the funeral!  Ran across this article yesterday when searching for something totally unrelated, but it speaks so much truth, I couldn't dismiss it.  Back in September of last year, utility rag Fortnightly ran an article headlined, "The Rise and Fall of Big Transmission:  The alternatives may make more sense."  Author Steve Huntoon chronicles the big transmission building phase that was created by Congressional action to provide incredible financial incentives for Big Transmission.  In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress tasked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with creating a system to award incentives to transmission builders, such as double digit returns, the ability to collect project costs in rates during construction, guaranteed recovery in the event a Big Transmission project was abandoned, and many more (I'm not going to list them all here because only utility rate geeks would understand them all without lengthy explanation).  Creating incentives to build more transmission was a Congressional knee-jerk to the 2003 northeast blackout.  Nevermind that a complicated, expansive transmission system was to blame for the blackout, industry lobbyists spun the blackout its clients created through mismanagement into a huge financial windfall.  And the Big Transmission building boom began.

Huntoon walks the reader through the bad ideas that sprang from utility greed, analyzes why many of them failed, and applies his analysis to the remaining Big Transmission bad ideas to demonstrate why they, too, must fail.

And he does it in an entertaining and easily understood fashion.  Big Transmission becomes a proper noun, a name for an entity that took on a life of its own for a brief period in utility history.  But, in the end, Big Transmission had to die.
Picture
The author explains six points that make Big Transmission fail:
Big Transmission never did and never will make sense. Let’s look at a half-dozen reasons why: 1) the laws of physics, 2) higher reliability risk, 3) stricter contingency limits, 4) lumpiness and investment risk, 5) rigidity of source and sink, and 6) better alternatives.
 Concise explanation of each point is in the article, so I won't belabor them here.

But the purist in me simply can't overlook a couple of glaring errors.  First, the Figure 2 national transmission overlay map is mislabeled.  Existing and New 765kV transmission have their colors reversed.  The Existing 765 system is red on the map, and the New 765 system is green (the legend in the upper right is incorrect).  It makes a great, big difference when studying the map to figure out which lines are new Big Transmission and which lines are incremental existing builds.  Second, the author places the PATH project on the wrong line in the Figure 1 Project Mountaineer Map.  He says, "PATH was essentially the western half of the #2 project in the overall Project Mountaineer plan."  No, PATH was the western half of the #3 project in the Project Mountaineer map.  PJM's original Project Mountaineer called for a Big Transmission line from the John Amos power station to the Deans substation in New Jersey.  PJM combined several proposals into the Frankenstein monster that became PATH, and then cut it off at Kemptown, with plans to build a separate Big Transmission project from Kemptown to Deans at a later date.

But, other than those two mapping boo-boos, the article gets the demise of the PATH project exactly right.  The demise of PATH has been wrongly portrayed by many people, with claims covering everything from reduced demand to coal plant retirements.  In his note 29, the author correctly notes that the demise of PATH was a combination of factors:
It is difficult to apportion the demise of PATH among reduced load growth, the Mt. Storm-Doubs alternative, new generation, and sophisticated statelevel opposition. However, it is fair to observe that reduced load growth had only postponed PATH in the past (three times). What was different in 2010 was the emergence of the Mt. Storm-Doubs  alternative, and the focus of a state regulator on that alternative.
That's right... every factor, except Mt. Storm-Doubs, simply delayed the PATH project.  Mt. Storm-Doubs, and the "sophisticated statelevel opposition's" overwhelming support of this alternative to change the political climate supporting the PATH project, is what killed PATH.  Better, cheaper alternative that the people support?  It's the winning PATH of least resistance!

The realities of the "need" for PATH, and its opposition, merely delayed the project long enough for Dominion Virginia Power to step onto the stage with its proposed rebuild.  But even that wasn't simply about a better idea... the Mt. Storm Doubs line's existing towers were built out of a certain kind of steel that had not stood the test of time.  The tower bases were deteriorating and patchwork fixes were no longer effective.  The towers needed to be replaced before they started falling down.  And while they were replacing the towers, everything else got an upgrade that increased the line's thermal capacity 65% (allowing it to carry more power).  Dominion smartly took advantage of the PATH debacle to get its line rebuilt with minimal opposition, and even the outright support of affected landowners.

Would this situation repeat itself to kill other Big Transmission proposals?  Probably not.  But it does support the idea that incremental transmission projects and rebuilds are much easier to build than Big Transmission.  So, why does the utility industry continue to propose and/or support Big Transmission?  Because it comes with Big Profits and they're willing to risk protracted planning and permitting processes in order to increase their profits.  It's not about building reliability, economic benefits for consumers, or even "cleaner" power...  and all the risk of Big Transmission ends up on the backs of consumers.  What's not to like for them?  The facts in this article -- Big Transmission must fail.

There's even some hard truth about the last of the Big Transmission projects that have yet to realize they're dead.  Clean Line Energy came up with its idea to build thousands of miles of Big Transmission to ship renewables from coast to coast in 2009, when Big Transmission was in its heyday.  But, unlike utility proposals where risk and cost is shouldered by ratepayers, Clean Line has spent millions of dollars of private investment cash to keep its idea alive.  Once Clean Line gives up, its investors lose everything.  There is no federal guarantee to recover sunk costs on speculative, market based Big Transmission.  And Clean Line, itself, will die along with its projects, and its executives currently living high on the hog of private investor cash, will be in the unemployment line.  This is what keeps Clean Line on life support long after it's been pronounced brain dead.  And here's why Clean Line will never happen:
But certainly when Big Transmission is dependent upon market conditions the lumpiness and risk factors are all the more daunting. Big Transmission somehow needs to bring together generation resources and market demand – to the exclusion of alternatives – to forge a level of commitment that will last for many years. That’s a prerequisite for financing. So the entities at each end need to perceive such a compelling business proposition that they will forego other alternatives and cast their fate with Big Transmission. That’s a tough sell.

FERC requires that utilities interconnect all new generation. So a new generator is assured of being able to interconnect its project to the utility serving the territory it is located in; the issue is solely how much money and time it will take for the interconnection. Given this legally assured ability to access the grid through the resident utility, market-based Big Transmission is effectively competing with that utility and thus must offer substantial value added.
And there is no value added by a Clean Line.  Clean Line stupidly demonstrated just this point to the City of Hannibal, Missouri, earlier this year with its chart of wind options for the city.  The Clean Line prepared (and tweaked) chart showed that wind delivered over the existing incremental transmission system was just as cheap as wind delivered over a "clean" line.

Why would any company buy capacity from a risky new transmission line when existing lines are just as cheap?  This probably explains why Clean Line has no customers.  And without customers, Clean Line's Big Transmission will also fail.
1 Comment

Would You Trust This Guy?

5/23/2016

2 Comments

 
James V. Fakult needs to work on his communication skills.

I get lots of notices about new transmission proposals, but this one was so poorly done, it made me laugh out loud.  According to this article, liespotting is an art.  Watch out for number 6 when reading the quotes from Fakult.
Liars overemphasize their truthfulness. “To tell you the truth…” “Honestly…” “I swear to you…” Oh, if only it were so! When people use these bolstering statements to emphasize their honesty, there’s a good chance they are hiding something. Learning to baseline someone’s normal behavior is important in situations such as this:  You want to listen for normal or harmless use of such phrases. There’s no need to add them if you really are telling the truth, so be on guard.
Now listen to Fakult:
"The growth has been in some fits and starts, but we're at a point now where this is an essential project to continue to provide, really, the type of service, the level of service, that our customers expect from us," Fakult told the Asbury Park Press. "It reinforces the system in that area. It allows us to, again, provide better, more reliable, resilient service."
Really, James?  Really?  What was the purpose of sticking that word into your statement, except to bolster your statement that the people really need your project.  And you repeated yourself there at the end, hoping it would give more credibility to your proposition.  Clearly, he doesn't even believe it himself.  Maybe if he repeats it a couple dozen more times it will become true?
"The time is now," Fakult said. "It just needs to be done now."
Perhaps Fakult is attempting to tread carefully, since a substantially similar project was attempted many years ago but failed due to public opposition.
Nearly 16 years ago, the utility scrapped plans for a 6.5-mile transmission line, to be run on 60-foot high steel poles, along the railroad tracks from Matawan to Middletown, after intense community opposition. Residents and some town officials, fearing a reduction in property values and worried about health risks, fought the project for a decade.

"To me, it is nothing but a resurrection of precisely the same plan that we fought and stopped," said state Assemblywoman Amy Handlin, R-Monmouth, a vocal opponent years ago. "It's the phoenix rising from the ashes, it's the ghost of battles past. It's not different."
I don't think the people have forgotten.  Looks like opposition will be swift and fierce.  So, what's changed this time?
This time, the utility proposes to run the wires atop slender single poles that average 140 feet tall rather than bulky towers used in the past, spokesman Ron Morano said.
Who says the public likes monopoles any better than they like lattice towers?  Did AEP tell you that?
AEP isn't the public.  Truly aesthetic transmission is underground.  You should have started there, James.  Since everyone (214,000 ratepayers, according to the article) is going to benefit from the project, everyone should pay the increased cost of undergrounding it so it doesn't become a hazard or a burden to adjacent landowners.  You're always going to have opposition when you propose that a few should sacrifice themselves for the many.  Beneficiary pays.
The use of the NJ Transit corridor, which is already designated for public use and has existing electric infrastructure, as well as the slimmer monopoles, will help to minimize the disruption on the community, Fakult said.
Transmission lines are NOT like Lay's potato chips.  Just because someone lives near invasive infrastructure does NOT mean they want or deserve more of it.  Look at it this way -- those folks living in close proximity to existing infrastructure have already paid their dues to society.  Isn't it someone else's turn?
Morano, the JCP&L spokesman, said the utility follows all safety and heath guidelines and will have an electromagnetic fields expert available at open house sessions. "We are successfully building transmission lines in other (areas) without any issues," she said.
EMF health-related issues are entirely perceptual.  Your "experts" and selected 30 year old studies don't convince anyone.  How about putting your money where your expert's mouth is, FirstEnergy?  How about offering the landowner a written guarantee to cover the health care costs of any individual who can prove their illness was related to living in close proximity to your transmission line?  Your wallet clearly doesn't believe your "science."

So, next FirstEnergy plays its trump card to claim that PJM has determined the project to be necessary.
PJM Interconnection, the organization that oversees the electric grid in 13 states and Washington D.C., has identified the Monmouth County Reliability Project as a necessary project to reduce the length and frequency of outages in Monmouth County, the utility said.

If not built, "over the long term, you start to see issues emerge," Fakult said. "When you start to see peaking conditions, you just don't have the contingencies that you need to run the system reliably."
PJM?  The organization that "answers to no one?"  But your press release said YOU were proposing it, FirstEnergy.  Which is it?  Who first "identified" this project as a necessity?  Was it PJM, or was it FirstEnergy, looking to "energize" its profits by building transmission it believes necessary to meet future demand:
As noted in the fact sheet, Energizing the Future is a transmission initiative through 2017 that involves upgrading and strengthening the grid to meet the future demands of customers and communities. Key factors driving that investment include enhancing system reliability by replacing existing equipment with advanced technologies; meeting projected load growth; and reinforcing the system in light of power plant deactivations, the fact sheet added.
Fakult thinks he can do things differently this time:
The company plans to hold three open house events in neighborhoods near the proposed project to share information with the public and gather feedback. The company also is setting up a website at www.monmouthreliability.com.
You're going to hold three events guaranteed to thoroughly piss off the communities and give the opposition an opportunity to meet and greet and build mass, FirstEnergy?  You've really learned nothing at all over the years, have you?

Your talk about "need" really isn't convincing.  Did the utility "need" this transmission project the first time it was proposed, 16 years ago?  Obviously not, since it never happened and the lights still come on in those communities when people flip the switch.  Adding words like "really" this time isn't going to help you.

Once again, FirstEnergy puts its cart before its horse by presenting a community with a transmission project as a fait accompli.  Presuming the project is "needed" and it's only a matter of how to build it and where to put it will never be accepted at face value by a community.  First, you have to convince them that a need for something exists, and then you consult with the community to determine an acceptable solution.

That's true "community consultation."  Really.
2 Comments

Clean Lies About Iowa Ratepayer Benefits

1/13/2016

0 Comments

 
Do you often make a typo that turns "Clean Line" into "Clean Lie?"  Me, too.

Clean Line has a new shtick that claims Iowa ratepayers will benefit if the IUB allows it to change the process to make it less costly for its investors.  Clean Line's claim can be paraphrased like this:

If you don't make it easy for us to build the Rock Island Clean Line (RICL) using the merchant model that charges customers in other regions for the cost of the project, then the Midcontinent Independent Systems Operator (MISO) will order new transmission just like RICL and make Iowa ratepayers pay for it.

Clean Line must really think Iowans and their Utility Board are a bunch of rubes.  This argument fails on so many levels, and the reality is that building RICL could actually increase electricity costs for Iowans.

First of all, this is an apples to oranges comparison.  RICL is not at all like the transmission projects MISO may order to be built.  RICL's stated purpose is to export electricity from the MISO region to the PJM Interconnection region.  MISO generally serves midwestern states, while PJM generally serves eastern states.  RICL proposes to move large quantities of electricity generated in MISO into PJM, where it may be used by "states farther east."  RICL is not proposing to serve any customers in MISO, particularly in Iowa.  Contrast that to the transmission projects MISO orders.  MISO is concerned only with serving customers within its own region.  Therefore, any transmission projects MISO orders will be for the purpose of moving electricity around the MISO region for use by MISO consumers.  MISO would never propose a transmission project for the express purpose of exporting electricity to another region, and then turn around and expect MISO consumers to pay for it.

Independent System Operators and Regional Transmission Organizations (which are generally identical constructs) are quite parochial.  They are utility member organizations that exist to serve their own regional interests.  Interregional planning is extremely fragile, to the point of being non-existent.  This is because an ISO/RTO will generally utilize its own resources first, from a cost and reliability standpoint, before importing resources from another region.  RTO/ISO members would never agree to pay the cost of export to another region, and moreover, this rubs against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Order No. 1000, that ensures that only beneficiaries pay the cost of transmission built to serve them.

Therefore, the building of RICL would have NO EFFECT on the transmission projects MISO orders to serve its consumers.  MISO will still order the transmission it needs to serve consumers in its region, including Iowa.  RICL is no substitute for MISO-ordered transmission because it would not serve any consumers in Iowa, or anywhere in the MISO region.  At best, RICL is agnostic about costs to Iowa ratepayers.  It certainly won't save them any money.

RICL may actually cost Iowans higher electricity prices.  Think of electricity produced in Iowa as a reservoir.  As long as supply is plentiful, prices remain cheap, and cheap energy is dispatched first to Iowans.  However, RICL would turn on a gigantic tap that drains that reservoir and sends the water (or electricity) to other regions with higher prices.  This creates an imbalance between supply and demand, where Iowa electricity buyers must now compete with other regions to buy the cheapest Iowa-produced electricity remaining in the reservoir.  Transmission lines levelize prices between electricity's source and sink (consumers), lowering prices in other areas by making cheaper energy available to new users, while raising prices at its source by increasing competition for the newly-limited supply.  Exporting a plentiful supply of anything raises local prices by lowering supply.  It's the simple principle of supply and demand.

Clean Line has come dangerously close to violating its negotiated rate authority granted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  FERC based its grant of authority, in part, on the following:

To approve negotiated rates for a transmission project, the Commission must find that the rates are just and reasonable. To do so, the Commission must determine that the merchant transmission owner has assumed the full market risk for the cost of constructing its proposed transmission project.

Rock Island meets the definition of a merchant transmission owner because it assumes all market risk associated with the Project and has no captive customers. Rock Island has agreed to bear all the risk that the Project will succeed or fail based on whether a market exists for its services.
What RICL proposed in Iowa is a shifting of risk to Iowans.  RICL believes it should not be subject to the financial risk presented by Iowa's long-standing permitting process that requires it to negotiate voluntary easements or prepare time-consuming Exhibit E material before being granted a permit.  Instead, RICL believes Iowans should be subject to a confusing, inconvenient, and more costly bifurcated permitting process in order to absolve RICL of any financial risk during the permitting process.  This is a shifting of financial risk to Iowans.

In its application to FERC, RICL talked big about sharing the risk with its customers, the load-serving entities (LSEs) that would buy its capacity.
Rock Island also argues that wind generators, whose energy the Project will likely transmit, present numerous risks that transmission project developers and investors must overcome. For example, Rock Island states that wind energy projects are typically constructed with shorter lead times than other generators and are less willing to commit to large transmission projects well in advance of generator construction. Rock Island argues that pre-subscription of capacity with creditworthy anchor customers can reduce financing obstacles because lenders demand to see a secure source of revenue as a predicate to project financing.
Here, it appears that RICL is suggesting that it can sell its capacity to LSEs before the project is built.  These entities with a guaranteed spot on RICL's wind highway would later buy electricity from wind farms connected to RICL.  Not only would it lower RICL's financial risk by providing the company with capital before its project is online, it would also provide a future revenue stream that wind farms could use to secure their own financing.  Perhaps RICL should be looking to share its financial risk in Iowa with its potential customers by pre-subscribing its capacity to LSE customers at this time?  Let the LSEs pony up the funds necessary to negotiate voluntary easements or create Exhibit E materials.  That would shift the financial risk from RICL to its customers, where it belongs, instead of to Iowans.

Except RICL doesn't have any customers.  Potential customers have been unwilling to shoulder any of RICL's financial risk during the permitting process.  Chicken/egg.  This demonstrates why Clean Line's business model will never work unless states agree to shift Clean Line's risk onto their own citizens by permitting a project that has no customers.  Iowa said no on Monday.  Arkansas said no in 2011.  Missouri said no last summer.

In order to hide its failure to share risk with its own customers, RICL whined that the Iowa process is flawed and must be changed to shift risk from RICL to Iowans.

I'm not buying it.  How about you?
0 Comments

Clean Power Plan Does Not Require "A Tangled Mess of Hulking, Long-range Transmission Lines"

1/12/2016

3 Comments

 
The Pittsburg Post-Gazette's "Power Source" energy news believes the Clean Power Plan will require "a tangled mess of hulking, long-range transmission lines."  Not true, and the report's "facts" are fallible.

The reporter seems to rely on energy platitudes, pasted together with quotes from people who should have been asked about the conclusions the reporter made.

Such as:
Opponents used some of those arguments to successfully derail the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, a 290-mile line from Putnam County, W.Va., to Frederick County, Md., proposed by Allegheny Energy in 2008. The Greensburg company, acquired by FirstEnergy in 2011, suspended the project after it could not convince regulators the line was necessary.
This guy calls up Steve Herling, but doesn't bother to ask him why PJM terminated the PATH project.  It's not that "opponents" proved there was no need in any state regulatory process.  It's that PJM first suspended, and later terminated the PATH project because
PJM staff reviewed results of analyses showing reliability drivers no longer exist for the project throughout the 15-year planning cycle. The analyses incorporated the continued trends of decreasing customer load growth, increasing participation in demand response programs and the recent commitment of new generating capacity in eastern PJM.
This reporter also seems to be under the impression that all transmission opposition comes from "citizens groups" who oppose transmission due to environmental reasons.
While citizen groups have fought transmission projects — often successfully — by attacking the developer’s need to build them, the environmental regulations could usher in more projects and complicate opposition.

Changing drivers of transmission
In the past, environmental groups have glommed onto transmission battles and used citizen group opposition to fuel the push on environmental grounds.  Those days are over.  This reporter seems to be the last to find out, but environmental groups are the newest and biggest fans of transmission lines.  Numerous environmental groups have intervened in favor of big, new transmission lines that the wrongly believe are "for wind."  Transmission lines are open access and it's not possible to segregate "clean" electrons from "dirty" ones.  The citizens are on their own here and that's just fine... nobody needs or wants a hypocritical environmental NGO championing eminent domain for "clean" transmission lines while simultaneously using the same issue as a reason not to build "dirty" pipelines.  Nobody takes these fools seriously anymore.  Without an army, the environmental groups are simply Don Quixote.  Tilting at their beloved windmill fantasy, but getting nothing accomplished.

It's still about need though.  And the transmission poster child the reporter chose to use is not part of any regional transmission plan and therefore has not been designated "needed."
Transmission companies see big potential for new projects, particularly from sparsely populated areas that generate wind energy to urban areas. “Just as trains carried cattle and other goods from the rural areas to urban centers, the Plains & Eastern Clean Line will carry renewable energy from the Plains of the Southwest,” states the website of one developer, Clean Line Energy of Houston, Texas.

Clean Line expects federal approval for its 700-mile Plains & Eastern Clean Line, designed to carry 4,000 megawatts of power from wind farms in the panhandle of Oklahoma. The line will terminate near Memphis, Tenn. Clean Line has four other projects in the pipeline.

“We anticipate a very busy 2016,” said company president Michael Skelly. 
And that's why Clean Line is attempting to use an untested part of the 2005 Energy Policy Act to usurp the siting and permitting authority of states and ram its project through using the federal eminent domain authority of federal power marketers.  Except that statute requires a need for the transmission in the first place.  And there is none.  Clean Line elected not to participate in the regional transmission planning processes that determine need for transmission projects.  Clean Line is nothing but a gamble -- the investors are gambling that a need for the project will develop if they can build it... but Clean Line hasn't been successful in signing up any potential customers... because they can't get their project built... because there is no need for it.  That's the real chicken/egg the reporter should be examining.

I do hope Mr. Skelly is very busy in 2016... polishing up his resume and looking for new investors for his next get rich quick scheme.

The reporter longs for
...some wind mills and solar farms in areas with constant breeze and abundant sunshine
But he's looking in the wrong place.  Even though he had a conversation with Scott Hempling about non-transmission alternatives, none of that seemed to sink in.

There's an area with "a constant breeze" located much closer to Pittsburgh than the Great Plains.  It's called the Atlantic Ocean, where wind potential is much greater.  Best of all, very little "
tangled mess of hulking, long-range transmission lines" would be "necessary to bring that renewable power from the point of generation to utilities for local distribution."

Why can't eastern states boost their own economies by harvesting renewables close to load?  The days of centralized generation are over.  Also, sunshine is abundant anywhere -- no transmission lines needed to slap some solar panels on your own roof.

This reporter needs some education.

1.  Transmission opposition by "citizens groups" won't change because of the Clean Power Plan.

2.  Speculative transmission projects for which there is no need shall not be granted state eminent domain authority to take property for rights of way.

3.  Clean Line is a merchant transmission project, not part of any transmission plan and completely unlike most other transmission projects.  Therefore, it should not be lumped in with them or used as an example of anything transmission-related.  If the CPP requires transmission, it will be planned and ordered by regional transmission organizations so that there is some surety that it will actually be built.  Clean Line is not needed, may never be built, and is driven by anticipated profits selling energy into more expensive markets, not by the Clean Power Plan.

And stop drinking the big wind koolaid.  There are no facts in it.
3 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    About the Author

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

    About
    StopPATH Blog

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

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


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

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

    RSS Feed

    Archives

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

    Categories

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

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.