FirstEnergy has been swirling round and round the bowl for the past few weeks.

Now the wheels have come off FirstEnergy's poorly executed plan to dump antique coal-fired electricity plants on it's West Virginia customers.

Despite FirstEnergy's desperate pleas for the WV Public Service Commission to approve the company's transfer of coal plant assets from their unregulated (company financed) Ohio subsidiaries to West Virginia's regulated (ratepayer financed) subsidiaries before early May, the PSC issued an order on Feb. 11 setting a procedural schedule that won't hold hearings until the end of May.  A decision won't come until several months later.  FirstEnergy needs to transfer these plants between their subsidiaries to raise over a billion dollars cash that the company desperately needs to pay down its debt.

It's not "to help ensure reliable power for our Mon Power and Potomac Edison customers in West Virginia for many years to come," it's to raise desperately-needed corporate cash that West Virginia's captive ratepayers will be stuck repaying for years to come.  Let's at least be honest about it, shall we, FirstEnergy?

Last week, Fitch cut FirstEnergy's ratings.

On Monday, FirstEnergy reported a loss for the fourth quarter.

Yesterday, FE's stock was downgraded.

Today, FirstEnergy announced a tender offer to buy back some of it's high interest rate debt.  The scheme here is to offer a premium to holders of these high interest rate bonds FE issued so that they will sell their bonds back to the company.  To finance this buy back, the company will borrow money at a lower interest rate than they would have paid the holders of these bonds.

Kind of reminds you of watching sick water buffalo flounder and drown, doesn't it?

Research for another project turned deja vu this morning when I ran across this phrase:

“Awarding a downward-biased ROE by hewing only to a ‘knee-jerk’ application of recent precedent would result in a regulatory ‘gotcha’.”

Now where have I heard that bumptious phrase lately?  Could it be in PATH's "case-in-chief?"

"Now that investors are captive, awarding a downward-biased ROE would result in a regulatory “gotcha” that would violate regulatory standards and undermine the Commission’s own incentive policies."

Yup, same "expert."  How many times will AEP pay this guy to theatrically yell "wolf?"  As many as necessary, since they're using ratepayer funds to pay this "expert" to say the same thing over and over on different cases.

Quick, someone grab a violin, FERC is single-handedly destroying our economy!  *shudders in horror*

I wonder if the Commission's eyes also roll back in their heads every time they read "regulatory 'gotcha"?  Maybe they have a sort of office football pool going where they make bets on when Avera will pop up wailing "regulatory 'gotcha'" in a case.  If not, they should consider it.  Might be fun.  At least more fun than reading Avera's billowing opinions over and over again.

It's not rocket science.  The longer the distance between generation and load, the more unreliable the "grid" becomes.  Long haul transmission lines provide opportunity for all sorts of failure... or mischief.

Apparently the Chinese military is hard at work compromising the security of the U.S. electric grid.  No big surprise.  Investor-owned utilities don't want to waste precious shareholder pennies on silly stuff like cybersecurity when there are memberships to The Duquesne Club to be purchased instead!

No matter how much the industry insists that it can regulate itself on the honor system, there is no honor among thieves.  Looks like Congress is going to have to intervene and bestow authority to FERC to regulate cybersecurity of the grid.  Just imagine how much this is going to cost when the obvious solution is so much cheaper and quicker -- stop "expanding" the grid and making it more vulnerable.  We don't need a whole bunch of new transmission, and a bigger, more interconnected grid exposes larger and larger geographic areas to one massive failure instigated by the click of a single key somewhere in China.

Thanks, Jimmy!

If you've been following PATH's abandonment recovery case at FERC, here's the latest.

PATH filed what it called its "case-in-chief" last week.  Not sure why PATH couldn't have filed its case when it applied to recover its abandonment costs on September 28.  I guess PATH was seriously expecting the Commission would rubber stamp that dreadful mess it filed last year so PATH wouldn't actually have to go to the trouble of filing a case?

At any rate, some of it may be worth a read.  The testimony of Archie Creepyfreak and Snidely Whiplash is worthy of a scoffing snort or two.  The testimony of the accounting ladies and Milo  -- eh, probably over the average person's head and not worth your time.

Don't miss the testimony of PATH's hired ROE "expert," Dr. William Avera because it's the most amusing part of this whole 500+ page filing.  Now, keep in mind that PATH is paying this guy a pretty penny (from YOUR piggy bank, little ratepayer) to blather on for 78 pages about PATH's ROE during the 5-year amortization period.  78 pages!  Plus 24 more pages of exhibits!  One hundred and two pages to say what can be simply paraphrased as:  When we do the DCF analysis, the median that the Commission usually uses is 9.1%.  We even tossed out a bunch of low numbers while keeping in the high ones, but that was the highest we could get it.  But we want 10.4% *stomps feet*!!!  Therefore, the Commission should abandon their usual approach (that provides regulatory certainty) and just give PATH what it wants.  PATH needs a higher number because this ROE is going to be be in place for five whole years, during which time they expect that the cost of equity is going to rise.  Gee, I didn't hear this guy talking about the longevity of PATH's original 14.3% ROE when the cost of equity went down in following years.  PATH's "expert" comes up with several other ways to twist and massage numbers and make crap up that would give the Commission an excuse to award PATH the 10.4% ROE it wants.  And if that doesn't work, Dr. Avera is going to try to confuse you or bore you to death with his financial diarrhea.  I'm betting his testimony (102 pages!) cost more than PATH stands to gain by maintaining the 10.4% ROE, however, you're paying the bill!

Don't bother with the last 350 pages or so.  PATH actually tells the truth for a change when it characterizes the Period I and II data as useless and "trying to fit a square peg in a round hole."

And now parties to the abandonment case have less than two weeks to go through all this before the first settlement conference on Feb. 26.  Happy reading, everyone :-)

This short little news blurb quite effectively epitomizes how and why opposition to transmission projects develops.

It's because the utility shows up with a fully formed "plan," then goes through the motions of "consulting with the community," but completely fails to allow the community any meaningful role in determining its own destiny.

In the example, AEP wants to put up some taller, metal towers on one of its easements.  The affected townspeople want to be involved in concocting a plan that would satisfy any genuine need for this work.  Because a true community consultation process could change the process undertaken to reach a common goal, AEP is resisting the involvement of the town in any actual planning.  AEP's idea is that it alone concocts a plan, then "consults" with the community by informing them of AEP's plan and expecting the community to buy-in and support it.

This will never happen.  Approaching a community with a front-load fait accompli plan is a recipe for creating opposition.

Here's a better method:  Approach the community with a goal.  Present several ways to reach the goal.  Accept and truly consider other ideas contributed by the community during the consultation process.  Allow the community to participate in the decision making to select an alternative that both the community and the company can live with.  Receive community buy-in and support of project.  Build project.  Retain community respect and goodwill.  Simple.

However, it's apparently much too complex a lesson for an arrogant industry with control-freak tendencies to ever learn.  When a community is prohibited from participating in decision-making, there is no buy-in, only resistance.  Stasis or momentum... ultimately the choice is the utility's.

It looks like Clean Line Energy Partners' opposition denial honeymoon is so o-ver!

In addition to the active and vocal BlockRICL opposition that has been giving the Rock Island Clean Line headaches in the states of Illinois and Iowa, now citizens of other Midwestern states, like Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri, are questioning the Grain Belt Express and Plains & Eastern Clean Line projects and beginning to organize to oppose those projects.

Silly Clean Line, you can't build a transmission line without opposition.  It's not about whether the transmission line is transporting "clean" or "dirty" energy, it's about need for the transmission line.  Affected landowners will always question the determination of need for a new transmission line.  And what does Clean Line have?  "Wind" energy must be transported to east coast states so that wind developers in Kansas, Oklahoma and Iowa can get rich?  Its not about farmers or landowners cashing in, it's all about private, for-profit corporations and their investors making a whole bunch of money off the backs of what they arrogantly consider to be uneducated rube farmers and environmentally conscious but sadly oblivious east coast consumers who are easily fooled by the green-washing Midwest "wind" scheme.

Let's examine some of the propaganda and empty promises Clean Line is utilizing in a rather sad, transparent attempt to build false advocacy for its project with the hope that it will be enough to influence state siting approvals.

1.  Hold "open houses" for local businesses and "collect their information" and tell them they will be notified to bid on project supplies and labor when the time comes.  By making these kinds of empty promises to local businesses, Clean Line buys their support and advocacy for free!  By the time these local businesses realize that there's no role for them in building one of these "clean" lines, it's too late.  The Texas shysters will already have their state approval to take property by eminent domain and build their money-making transmission line with imported labor and supplies.  The fact is that building high voltage transmission is a highly specialized industry and labor will be imported for the duration.  The only "local" jobs may be a few fast food servers or motel housekeepers to serve these professional transmission builders for a few weeks while temporarily housed in your locality building the line.  Supplies and components will be contracted from a handful of large corporations, many of them manufactured in other countries.  If you don't believe me that Clean Line's promises to local businesses are empty, try getting Clean Line to sign a supply or labor contract with your local company today.

2.  Holding "open houses" for landowners and pretending that Clean Line is interested in answering questions and receiving information from affected landowners.  This is a ruse used by the company to evaluate the possibility of opposition and give the appearance of community consultation.  It is also set up to divide and conquer landowners individually by suggesting that cooperation could push the line over onto a neighbor's property *wink, nod.*  Landowners come away with more questions than answers, but most likely the magic has already happened, despite Clean Line's best obfuscating efforts.  The ones who will lead the opposition to the project have already self-selected and made important contacts with like-minded individuals over plates of free Clean Line ham.

"One landowner came with a plastic sack and took about a two-inch width of slices of ham. I looked at him and he said, 'I've got cats,' " Nelson said. "Everybody else was saying, 'We might as well eat. That might be all we get.' "

3.  Pretending that the transmission lines will carry 100% renewable energy desperately wanted and needed in east coast states and that the cost of the lines will not be end up in local electric bills.  These "clean" lines will also carry electricity generated by fossil fuels because the maximum capacity for a variable resource like wind is somewhere around 35%.  Also, federal regulations prohibit Clean Line from banning fossil-fuel generators from buying capacity on the line.  While Clean Line is telling the public that it is a merchant, or privately-financed, enterprise, Clean Line has asked federal regulators to approve broad socialization of merchant lines to those who do not consume the renewable electricity, claiming that new transmission lines create regional "reliability" benefits simply by existing.  If Clean Line and other "renewable" energy benefactors are successful in socializing the cost of their projects across entire regions, we're all going to be paying to transport renewable energy from coast to coast, whether we consume any of it or not.

4.  Bullying of landowners, consumers, citizens and government agencies by Clean Line personnel.  The prospect of a huge profit can make corporate lackeys do despicable things.  Compare this photo of Clean Line President Michael Smelly (in the cast - let's not even think about how that might have happened) "observing" the interaction between the public and federal environmental impact statement personnel during a public scoping meeting with these photos of PATH Transmission personnel "observing" the interaction between the public and federal environmental impact statement personnel during a public scoping meeting.  "Observation" easily degenerates into intimidation when things aren't going to the transmission line company's liking.  Don't be intimidated!

It's time for Texas-based, Wall Street-financed, Clean Line Energy Partners to quit denying its opposition, and come "clean" with the public.  Fact is, Clean Line is applying to states for the right to condemn right of way for its private, for-profit, project through eminent domain.  But, Clean Line hopes you rubes will be good sports and allow yourselves to be taken advantage of by its hired, professional land sharks, err, I mean "land agents," and sell your land early and cheaply.  Don't be foolish, always seek your own legal counsel before signing any agreements.  Your attorney will tell you that the longer you resist land sharks, oops, I mean "agents," the higher the price of your land climbs.  Land owners who resist eminent domain grabs receive, on average, 5 to 6 times the original offer by holding out and settling on the court house steps just before a hearing.

And while you're holding out, you might as well explore whether organized and intelligent opposition can halt the transmission project in its entirety.  Yes, it can.  We killed the PATH project.


Don't get me wrong, I like clean energy as much as the next guy.  However, I'm not expecting Midwest farmers and other electric consumers to sacrifice their land and their money to allow me the privilege of believing that I'm somehow helping the environment when I turn on my centrally generated "green" electricity.  Clean Line is nonsense.  If you want to help the environment, how about making your own personal sacrifice to supply your own, locally-generated renewable power, such as installing solar panels on your own roof?  It is not sustainable to destroy prime farmland to meet your own personal renewable goals. 

The east coast doesn't want or need Clean Line's overpriced "wind" power.  Just say no to Clean Line.

So, if you're asking yourself -- do we really need these "clean" lines for renewable energy (no!); is there other opposition to these projects that I can join (yes!); and can opposition cancel one of these projects (yes!!), you've come to the right place.

Get in touch with the folks at BlockRICL, or email us for more information.

What was it I said last week?  It's going to get worse, much worse?

Tammy "something extra" has now listed all but one of PATH's River's Edge properties in Loudoun County for sale.  Here's how much these deals will cost you, assuming PATH receives full list price for the properties (which is never going to happen).

PATH purchased this property in February 2009 for $689,000, 98% of Loudoun County's assessed fair market value at that time.  It's on sale today for only $630,000.

PATH purchased this property in April of 2009 for $418,000, 102% of Loudoun County's assessed fair market value at that time.  It's on sale today for only $400,000.

PATH purchased this property in April of 2009 for $910,000, 110% of Loudoun County's assessed fair market value at that time.  It's on sale today for only $735,900.

And the big, big loser is this property that PATH purchased in March 2009 for $1,175,000, 246% of Loudoun County's assessed fair market value at that time.  It's on sale today for only $459,000.

Looks like Loudoun County's assessor was a lot more accurate about fair market values than PATH's appraiser back in 2009.  But yet PATH expects ratepayers to pay the difference between purchase and sale price and make the company whole.  Right now, the difference between PATH's purchase prices in River's Edge and their current list prices amounts to $1,021,300.  That's over a million dollars that ratepayers stand to lose on PATH's unnecessary and premature "investment" in real estate, and there's still one PATH-owned River's Edge property that has yet to hit the market, for which PATH paid 123% of market value in 2009.  Ouchies, little ratepayers, ouchies!!!

Let's take a look back at PATH's antics in River's Edge.  Now PATH adds insult to injury of these homeowners and dumps a whole bunch of real estate in their neighborhood at bargain basement prices, which is going to have a significant effect on their own home value and equity.  PATH -- the gift that just keeps on giving.

And PATH is so not done yet... they've still got to unload those substation properties they purchased for millions more than fair market value.  Get out your wallet, little ratepayer...

Corporate America is never satisfied when there's a buck left on the table that could be in its own pocket instead.  That's why the corporations who stand to profit financially from building hundreds of billions of dollars of new high voltage transmission lines from coast-to-coast are constantly attempting to tinker with laws and regulations put in place to protect the consumers who fund new transmission.  No matter how many times their ambitious plans to preempt state authority with federal control are foiled, corporate America bounces right back like one of those inflatable punching clowns.

This time it's The BiPartisan Policy Center banging corporate America's greedy drum with a new report:  Capitalizing on the Evolving Power Sector: Policies for a Modern and Reliable U.S. Electric Grid.

The report is being pushed on the public by well-compensated industry spokespuppets Rick Boucher and Curt Hebert, who are joined by environmental patsy Allison Clements to recommend:

"Proposing an improved federal backstop siting authority for interstate transmission lines to replace the authority provided in EPAct 2005 – the authority is linked to transmission lines chosen through an Order 1000-compliant planning process, ensures states have a more significant role in determining the outcome of proposed transmission lines, and provides adequate protection of federal lands."

But here's what the Clueless "report" actually says:

"Congress should replace the existing backstop siting
authority in § 216 of the Federal Power Act with a
new, targeted backstop siting authority. In particular,
this new authority should provide that FERC may
grant a requested federal permit approving a
multistate HVDC or 765+ kV AC transmission project
within a state if: (1) the state siting authority (a) has denied the project without offering an alternative
route that is consistent with relevant state law, or
(b) has not issued a decision within 18 months
of receiving a completed application, or (c) has
insufficient authority to grant such an application;
and (2) the project has been approved by a state
siting authority in another state."

This isn't giving states a "more significant role in determining the outcome of proposed transmission lines," this is preemption of state authority in its entirety.  Under this proposal, states have only one choice -- issue a permit or have the federal government do it for them.  But this is nothing new.  Former FERC Commissioner Suedeen Kelly said it quite succinctly in her 2007 dissent:
 
"The authority to lawfully deny a permit is critically important to the States for ensuring that the interests of local communities and their citizens are protected. What the Commission does today is a significant inroad into traditional state transmission siting authority. It gives states two options: either issue a permit, or we’ll do it for them. Obviously this is no choice. This is preemption."

Notice also that the Clueless recommendation only includes bestowing FERC backstop authority over HVDC or 765kV AC transmission lines.  Why do you suppose that is?  It's because the "task force" was stacked with American Electric Power executives, and AEP is the only company who builds 765kV lines.  HVDC lines are favored by fake "renewable" transmission projects proposed by green shysters Clean Line Energy, whose "clean lines" will also carry fossil fueled electricity masquerading as "clean" energy.  Clueless "environmental" organizations like NRDC have taken a big, long, drink of Clean Line's kool aid and think that by assisting corporate America in preempting regulation in order to build a whole bunch of new transmission will usher in a 100% renewable energy future.  Not going to happen, so get out of bed with the devil.  How did Obama's "Rapid Response Transmission Team" to ramrod the building of "renewable" transmission lines work out for you environmental groups?  Aren't you all suing the National Park Service over its dirty decision to destroy the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area with a 500kV transmission line?  How many times are you cleaniacs going to get duped by a greedy, dishonest industry before you wise up?

And how about this recommendation featured in the Clueless report:

"FERC should issue policy guidance clarifying
that regional transmission expansion plans may
appropriately include – and provide cost allocation
for – projects with capacity that will not be utilized
immediately if such projects: 1) enable the efficient use
of scarce rights of way, or 2) serve location-constrained
generation, and the projects will provide regional
benefits (including transmission access for future
renewable development) over their lifetimes."

So, the Clueless think that consumers should finance an overbuilding of transmission, just in case there's a need for it later?  CONSUMERS CAN'T AFFORD THIS!  How about you all "enable the efficient use of" existing rights of way by rebuilding and increasing the capacity of existing transmission lines all within existing rights of way first before building new lines on new "scarce" rights of way?  And don't give me that "location constrained renewables" line either.  Why is there absolutely no mention of offshore wind in your Clueless report?  Why does your version of the wind map not include offshore resources?  Is that because development of offshore wind doesn't require the building of a whole bunch hugely profitable new transmission lines by corporate America?  Right.

The Clueless also refuse to examine a clue that's right under their noses.  We may not need ANY of this new transmission they're in such a hurry to permit and build.  In a 2012 "report" of its own, Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Electricity Infrastructure, the American Society of Civil Engineers said:

“Anticipated future changes regarding the feasibility and implementation of distributed generation and smart grid technologies also add uncertainty about what future infrastructure system will look like. As the  cost-effectiveness of small-scale generation equipment increases, there is a potential for more ‘distributed generation,’ with ‘microgrids’ that can reduce the need for future investment in large central generation plants and associated transmission lines serving them. As sophisticated 'smart grid' computer systems become more available to digitally monitor and instantaneously shift demand or reroute power (to offset equipment failures or other sudden supply and demand changes), there is also a potential for change in future needs for transmission and distribution investments.”

Or perhaps we should focus on the Clueless love for a bigger, more fragile grid to integrate huge quantities of unreliable, variable resources.  Bigger does NOT mean more reliable.

So, what do others think about the Clueless report?  The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) issued a press release stating:

“NARUC strongly opposes the recommendations calling for the expansion of the federal government’s authority to site transmission facilities. The report recommends that Congress give federal regulators permission to overrule a legitimate State decision determining that a power line is unnecessary if a nearby State with different needs and resources says that it is. Essentially this policy would give one State de-facto siting authority over another, which is certainly against congressional intent. Moreover, where current law limits the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s backstop authority to power lines in so-called ‘National Interest Electricity Transmission Corridors,’ the report recommends greatly expanding FERC’s authority nationwide. Therefore, this recommendation abandons the existing law’s goal of improving the efficiency of the transmission network by reducing congestion in favor of policies that increase rates for retail customers who receive little or no benefits, without necessary and proper oversight by the States."

NARUC also stated that they do not endorse any of the recommendations of the Clueless report.  The real shocker here is that NARUC was included as a "contributing organization" to the report, but its advice and recommendations were completely disregarded by the industry and "environmental" sycophants who wrote the report.

NARUC failed to drink the kool aid and should be commended for standing up for the rights  and wallets of the consumers they represent, who are the ultimate financiers and supposed beneficiaries of all this proposed new transmission. 

NARUC says we don't need the Clueless recommendations.  State authority to site transmission projects is NOT broken and the states are the ONLY ones looking out for the interests of consumers.

PATH properties.... get yer PATH properties... in the market for some dirt-cheap but poorly maintained real estate, or maybe some completely useless land with a burned out trailer or falling down shack?  PATH's real estate agent can help you with that, and she "offers something extra!"  I can't imagine what that "something extra" might be, but I'm sorta frightened by the offer.

PATH went ahead and listed some of its property for sale, despite the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's November 30, 2012 Order that set the disposal of property for hearing:

"Because PATH has not completed the sale and transfers of land and other assets, we cannot determine based on the record whether self-dealing or cross-subsidization will occur as a result of these future transfers to  affiliates, and whether the proposed prices for sales to third parties are reasonable. As part of the hearing and settlement proceedings, we therefore direct parties to consider the reasonableness of such transfers and sales, including whether future transfers and sales of real property should be reported in periodic reports that identify the parties, date and price of each transaction. Parties in the hearing and settlement proceedings may also consider whether the formula rate should be modified to include such information, which would allow review of the asset sales and transfers under the  formula rate annual update process."

So, how "reasonable" are PATH's "fair market value" sale prices compared to "fair market value" amounts PATH spent purchasing each property?

PATH purchased this property for $50,000 in April of 2010.  It's on sale today for only $9,000!

PATH purchased this property for $64,000 in April of 2009.  It's on sale today for only $12,000!

PATH purchased this property for $307,185 in March of 2009.  It's on sale today for only $229,900!

Let's add up the difference between PATH's purchase price and PATH's sale price, because that is the amount PATH wants YOU to pay for its little unnecessary and overly generous property buying spree:  $170,285!  Even if PATH sells these properties at list, that's how much of a loss PATH expects ratepayers to absorb for just these three properties.  And it's going to get worse, much worse.

Bargain basement prices for unneeded properties - get yer worthless PATH properties today - and if you find out what Tammy's "something extra" is, do let us know.

The transmission industry, safely ensconced in its self-congratulatory echo chamber dream world, continually perpetuates poor performance, execution mistakes, and bad ideas.  In the real world where the rest of us live, successful "public participation in transmission line siting" is based on successfully interacting with the public to convince them that a project is needed, and to maintain  effective communication with the public as a project proceeds through approvals.  It's all about what the public deems successful, since they are the ones who are "participating" in said project information sessions.  It really does no good for other deaf and blind transmission owners to judge whether their transmission-owning peer's transmission projects are successfully participating with the public.  This blind leading the blind self-contratulatory echo chamber reaches a pinnacle every year with EUCI's (that's Electric Utility Consultants, Inc., whose sole existence is derived from getting the utilities to participate in its continuing "education" seminars) Public Participation in Transmission Siting Conference.  During this conference, utility employees make presentations crowing about their "success" participating with the public, even when the reality is that said utility employees are piloting a rapidly sinking Titanic of a failed public relations program.  For example, PATH's PR laughing stocks presented this little gem just 6 short weeks before withdrawing project applications and giving up, after being thoroughly trounced by that "entrenched opposition":

LEVERAGING LESSONS LEARNED

Tom Holliday, Director of Communications Services, American Electric Power

Doug Colafella, Manager, External Communications, Allegheny Energy

American Electric Power and Allegheny Energy are applying best practices to help gain approvals for the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH), a 765-kV project extending 275 miles through West Virginia, Virginia, and Maryland. Learn how the two companies are working together to apply successful strategies for grassroots outreach, community involvement, and public education while contending with project delays, entrenched opposition, and the economic downturn.

So, what are participants at EUCI's conference really learning?  How to congratulate each other for failure, apparently.  Yee-Hawwww!

This year's conference upped the fun factor by adding a special award to the festivities:
 
EUCI will debut the EUCI Excellence in Public Participation in Transmission Siting Award! The 2013 award will focus on the most engaging, creative, and useful websites. Websites serve as a foundation for sharing project information with the public. EUCI wants to recognize and share the industry's most engaging transmission line siting websites. Finalists will present at the conference and winners will be chosen by the conference attendees.

Wowzers!  It's almost like winning the lottery, huh?  In addition to this great honor, tell the audience what the winner will receive, Rod Roddy...

Rod Roddy:  Winners will receive:

Highlight of website and award announcement in EUCI Energize Weekly newsletter

Web banner recognition for winning website

Award Plaque for your office !!!

What do you get when you combine a bunch of self-congratulatory airheads taking nominations for their website award with two successful transmission opponents who never miss a chance to tell the industry the fearful truth?

Ta-Daaaaa!

We thought our entry would be immediately tossed in the cyber trash, after all, we didn't attempt to hide anything.  It was just a little laughter over a couple of beers.

Apparently there's dumb and then there's EUCI dumb.

I do have to hand it to them for running a "fair" contest and making sure all "entries" were judged inside the self-congratulatory transmission echo chamber by public relations shysters in denial:  a panel of industry experts to include RES Americas, PEPCO, American Transmission Company, Allegheny Energy, Southern California Edison, and The Wilderness Society.  Just a little FYI observation... some of the transmission project judging species are much dumber than others...

So, did we win?  Of course not!  EUCI and their transmission owner stable don't want to feature and award any "public participation" that actually got its hands dirty participating with the public (to stop an unnecessary transmission project).  Therefore, in the spirit of EUCI's self-congratulatory echo chamber, we hereby award ourselves the FIRST ANNUAL EFFECTIVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE REAL WORLD TRANSMISSION PROJECT OPPOSITION WIN! Award.

It's just as valid and just as satisfying as any award from EUCI's echo chamber, and best of all, the industry stays safely separated from any real world truth so they can keep making the same "public participation" mistakes that doom transmission projects.

So, which websites won the "contest" and were judged "most engaging, creative and useful for the public?"  I can't speak to three of the nominees, but one of the websites nominated was Clean Line Energy's Rock Island Clean Line website.  Useful?  Creative?  The last time I checked, Clean Line was busy deleting comments from and banning "the public" from participating on their websites.  Not very "effective" participation with the public in my book.  RICL's opposition seems to be doing a better job here and here.  Maybe I'll make Block RICL its very own special little website ribbon to compete with RICL's... sort of a People's Choice Awards vs. The Oscars thing.  

Thanks for the laughs, EUCI, your organization plays a great straight man!  And thanks for sending "Allegheny Energy" our contest entry so that our little coal fella could have a panicked moment wondering if his peer judges were laughing at him (and yes, indeed they were!)  And thanks for making sure that none of that nasty ol' reality confronts any of your precious transmission owners and makes them question their bag of stale "public participation" best practices that are easily neutralized by reality-based opposition.