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

The Swamp's Energy Circus

1/12/2020

6 Comments

 
Picture
Holy Swamp Circus, Batman!  The House Energy & Commerce Committee is working on a "CLEAN Future Act" that renewable energy industry group ACORE says is based on a report it recently released.

And what in ACORE's report?  This

Picture
I'll sum it up for you in as few words as possible.
  1. Require every state to set a renewable energy standard under federal law.  This will require states to pay increased prices for renewables, even if they are more expensive than conventional sources of energy.
  2. Provide new, perpetual federal tax credits to renewable energy, so it can appear to be "cheaper."
  3. Charge federal penalties to sources of energy that contain "carbon" so that these sources of energy become more expensive than the expensive renewable sources.
  4. Supersize the electric transmission network to provide free transportation for more renewable energy.
Of course, the devil is in the details.  One huge detail conveniently left out of this report is HOW MUCH WOULD THIS COST?  All of ACORE's great ideas come at a huge cost to electric consumers, you and me!  None of this stuff is free or cheap, in fact, it's going to cost us trillions if implemented.

But, the climate, the planet, civilization, for goodness sake!  Oh, the humanity!

How much good would this plan actually do?  ACORE's basis for this is full of holes.
The U.S. accounts for 15% of the world’s total GHG emissions, making it the world’s second largest emitter.
Only 28% of U.S. GHG emissions are attributable to the electricity sector.

Today, 22% of America’s 1,047.6 gigawatt (GW) utility
-scale, electric generation capacity is renewable, while 67% of our electrical capacity produces GHG emissions. In 2050, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that 60% of the generation mix will still produce GHG emissions. Replacing this projected emitting capacity with pollution-free renewable power will require nearly 30 GW of additional renewable capacity each year between 2020 and 2050, a roughly 50% increase above the current growth rate of U.S. renewables.
So, let's see... spending trillions on decarbonizing the electricity sector would result in a 28% reduction to 15% of GHG emissions.  Do you know how small a number that is?  ACORE is also talking about CAPACITY FACTORS.  A generator's nameplate capacity is the amount of energy it could produce if it ran at maximum capacity all the time.  The capacity factor is the actual energy produced, because generators don't run all the time.  The capacity factor of a generator with a continual supply of fuel allowing it to run at maximum capacity at any time is pretty high.  Renewable generators, such as wind and solar, on the other hand, have miniscule capacity factors because they cannot be counted on to run at their nameplate capacity at any time because their fuel supply is variable.  Therefore, in order to produce the kind of capacity factor ACORE is talking about using wind and solar, we'd have to build ten times as much generation.  How cost effective is it to build 10 times the generation you actually need just so you can get a 10% capacity factor out of a renewable generator? I'm really not convinced here.

But wait... there's more!

About those new, permanent tax credits for renewables:
Qualifying technologies should include all current and future resources that meet emissions criteria, including enabling technologies like energy storage and expanded interstate, high-voltage transmission that accesses clean energy resources.
The tax credit recommended in the report is: 
The electricity title of the Clean Energy for America Act (S. 1288) would provide a minimum credit to any clean electricity facility that is at least 35 percent cleaner than the national average, with zero-emissions facilities receiving a production tax credit of up to 2.4 cents per kWh or an investment tax credit of up to 30%, at the election of the taxpayer. The PTC would be available for ten years after the facility is placed in service, and the credit in its entirety would phase out when emissions from the electricity sector fall to 50% below 2019 levels. Additionally, the Clean Energy for America Act would repeal a range of existing preferential incentives for fossil fuel companies, including the expensing of intangible drilling costs, percentage depletion, deductions for tertiary injectants, and credits for enhanced oil recovery and marginal oil wells.

So, 2.4 cents tax credit per kwh  generated for qualifying sources.  And how is that going to be applied to electric transmission?  First of all, there is no such thing as "clean" electrons.  All electrons look the same and get all mixed up in the transmission network, so there is no way to judge whether the electricity on a transmission line is 35 percent cleaner than the national average.  What's the national average of the cleanliness of electricity?  Second of all, how would this be measured?  Measuring the generation of electrons to calculate a production tax credit is simple.  They are measured as they are created.  Once they are transferred to our current AC electric transmission network, they get all mixed up with other electrons and nobody can tell where they go.  Complicating this, a lot of electrons are simply lost along the way.  Is it the clean ones?  Or the dirty ones?  If you measure how many "clean" electrons you add to the transmission system, then you're overestimating because some are lost.  But you can't measure them at the receiving end because they're all mixed up (and some just go around in a circle forever and nobody ever uses them).  Ya know what?  A production tax credit (or investment tax credit) for electric transmission is about the most imprecise and stupid thing I've ever heard.  It can't work.  They'd just be guessing at how much to pay these transmission owners.

And here's the big thing... tax credits for generators and transmission owners mean they pay less taxes.  If they pay less taxes, WE pay MORE taxes to make up the difference.  So it's not like these "credits" actually make the energy any cheaper, we just pay for the energy in our tax bill instead of our electric bill.  The end game here is that electricity will get even MORE expensive.

And just to make sure renewables appear to be "cheaper", let's remove any existing credits for conventional generation, and then add "carbon" penalties to them.

But all this pretend "cheapness" might end up being more expensive for "the poor."  Oh, look, it's Renewable Robin Hood!
Since energy is an unavoidable expense, putting a price on carbon could also, at least initially, have a disparate impact on lower-income households. To prevent that outcome, any equitable carbon pricing program should be designed to avoid economic regressivity. One possible solution is to return revenue from carbon pricing to citizens in the form of a pro-rata carbon “dividend.”
Let's tax the hell out of carbon and make energy really expensive, and distribute that tax revenue to "the poor" so that they can have cheap energy.  Rob from the rich, and give to the poor (because "the poor" have lots of votes!!)

And then let's bring back the NIETCs that big green accidentally killed in 2011 when they were being used to justify new transmission for fossil fuels, except now we'll use them to usurp state authority to site new transmission for our wondrous "clean" energy transmission.
Additionally, Congress should clarify federal backstop siting authority by restoring Congressional intent of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which would encourage and accelerate investment and development of needed transmission infrastructure when that infrastructure is in the national interest and advances the objectives of a comprehensive climate plan.
National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs) were established in 2005.  Essentially, the U.S. DOE can designate these corridors through studies that identify transmission constraints.  Once a corridor is designated, backstop siting and permitting authority shifts to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the event that a state cannot approve a transmission project within one of these corridors.  They tried to do it right after the legislation passed, but the effort failed in the courts.  Ironically, it was the big environmental groups that fought NIETCs in the courts to have them vacated and the backstop permitting authority neutralized.  All a state has to do is simply deny a permit and that nullifies FERC authority.  But now ACORE wants Congress to re-vamp this idea with the requirement that NIETCs facilitate transmission for "clean" energy.

Guess what?  NIETCs didn't work the first time.  They won't work this time, either.  Transmission siting and permitting is state jurisdictional, and that's never going to change.  There's simply nothing ACORE or Congress can do to usurp state authority over transmission.

This report is a swamp clown horror show!  It will make electricity so expensive that we can't afford it.  Well, if we sit in the dark, I guess that will take care of a very, very small percentage of carbon emissions.

We can't afford the "CLEAN Future Act" and we can't afford ACORE's pie-in-the-sky recommendations.  Where's Batman when you need him?
6 Comments

If OMS Is Concerned About The Regulatory Revolving Door, What Should The Citizens Of Missouri Think?

1/12/2020

0 Comments

 
A couple months ago, Missouri Public Service Commissioner and former chairman Daniel Hall left the PSC (and his other job as President of the Organization of MISO States) for a job at the American Wind Energy Association.
The Organization of MISO States "will examine the revolving door policies of its member states after its president departed his position earlier this month to take a job with a wind energy trade association," according to RTO Insider.
The move comes in response to Louisiana Public Service Commissioner Eric Skrmetta’s call to create a code of conduct among OMS representatives — all of whom are state utility commissioners — governing how they transition into jobs in the industry they regulate.
“We’re asking for the OMS to consider adopting a code of ethics or a code of conduct policy,” Skrmetta told fellow regulators during a Board of Directors meeting Nov. 19 as part of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners’ annual meeting in San Antonio.
OMS leaders said the organization will begin the effort by examining state rules on post-employment restrictions before it decides to move forward with developing any policy.

Skrmetta said he was raising the issue after former OMS President and Missouri Public Service Commissioner Daniel Hall left both posts to become the central region director for the American Wind Energy Association earlier this month. Skrmetta said he took issue with the fact that there was no downtime before the transition and that the move wasn’t announced ahead of time.
“The turnaround is instantaneous,” he said. “It’s pretty obvious we have to take some steps.”
If the OMS is deeply concerned about the appearance of bias and impropriety, what are the citizens of Missouri supposed to think?

Former Commissioner Hall was a huge champion of the unnecessary and unneeded Grain Belt Express project.  In fact, the PSC's approval of the GBE project claimed,
There can be no debate that our energy future will require more diversity in energy resources, particularly renewable resources. We are witnessing a worldwide, long-term and comprehensive movement towards renewable energy in general and wind energy specifically. Wind energy provides great promise as a source for affordable, reliable, safe, and environmentally-friendly energy. The Grain Belt Project will facilitate this movement in Missouri, will thereby benefit Missouri citizens, and is, therefore, in the public interest.
And the next thing you know, he finds himself Central Region Director, Electricity and Transmission Policy for the American Wind Energy Association.  Some folks may think it smacks of bias or some sort of impropriety, while others may think it's just a bit of natural kismet, because Hall has always loved the big wind industry.  But how can the public be sure?

They can't.  Not for sure.  Did Hall's love of big wind influence his support for GBE?  Or did Hall's love of GBE influence his support for big wind?  Did AWEA lean on Hall to favor GBE with the idea of future employment in mind?  Did Hall support GBE as a way to curry favor with AWEA to lead to future employment?  Of course, there is no evidence any of these scenarios occurred.  But OMS is concerned.  Maybe the citizens of Missouri should be also?

So, what would Hall be doing in his new, windy position?

“We are excited to have Daniel on our team,” said Amy Farrell, SVP Public and Government Affairs for AWEA.  “His legal and technical expertise, along with his years of experience in regulation at the state level will help us work toward AWEA’s transmission vision of an increasingly connected, national grid.”
 
Hall will be responsible for policy concerning the efficient and affordable integration of wind energy, including consideration of seams issues between Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs), RTOs and similar Independent System Operators (ISOs), are electric power transmission operators that coordinate, control, and monitor multi-state electric grids across much of North America.
 
“Wind energy has been a remarkable growth and success story, especially in our part of the country,” Hall said.  “But for that growth to continue, we need to update America’s electricity grid to meet 21st century needs. I look forward to bringing together state utility commissions, federal regulators and RTO’s to make that happen.”
Sounds like he will be using his connections developed during his stint as a public service commissioner to promote new transmission for wind.  In fact, that seems to be exactly what he's doing in this article, where AWEA believes the cost of new transmission to reliably interconnect new wind farms in remote areas should be shifted from the owner of the new wind farm to electric consumers in MISO.  Instead of these new generators built in areas where their electricity isn't needed having to pay for their own driveway to interconnect to the existing highway systems, AWEA wants everyone in the region to pay for the new generator's driveway.  In exchange, AWEA wants to pretend that these electric customers get some "benefit" in exchange for their payments, such as increased economic activity and payments to landowners.  Much of this new electricity is intended to be exported out of the region, so why should electric customers in the region pay for it?  So they can have their community overrun with oversized wind turbines that make their lives a living hell, along with oversized transmission superhighways that devalue their land on their way out of the region?  And just how far does this crazy scheme stray from Hall's thinking about GBE as a "benefit" to Missouri?

Maybe Missouri needs to take steps similar to those proposed by OMS?
“Avoiding the appearance of impropriety is an important goal for this body,” Skrmetta said. He suggested OMS adopt a recusal mechanism or require members to disclose extracurricular tasks that might conflict with the aims of their offices.

Kentucky Public Service Commissioner Talina Mathews suggested OMS begin the effort by taking inventory and comparing each state’s existing code of ethics on post-employment policies, a task the board assigned to an informal board subcommittee.

Skrmetta said initiating a code of conduct would create protections for OMS and create an “absolute armor plate” for the organization. He also argued that as AWEA’s central region director, Hall was active in MISO states immediately after leaving OMS.

Thomas suggested OMS might add some boilerplate language that directors are bound to their state’s individual code of ethics.


OMS President Matt Schuerger asked the subcommittee to wrap up its research in time for the board’s January meeting.
“It’s a reasonable question that’s been put before us,” he said, promising more discussion.
Regulators, especially politically appointed ones, rarely make a career out of regulating.  Appointments always have a term limit, and changing political winds can guarantee that a regulator may not be reappointed by a elected successor.  So, why would anyone WANT the job of public service commissioner?  Because it's a springboard to riches in the regulated sector.  Former regulators are highly prized within the industries they regulate, or within the law firms that work for the regulated.  Every company wants to own a former regulator or public service employee who has connections that may help them with future proceedings before the regulator.  These former regulators are simply worth more in the employment market AFTER they serve than before.  What's a former public service commissioner to do if he doesn't sell himself to the industry he formerly regulated?

But, we definitely need some sort of cooling off period between public service and private industry so that a former commissioner's new job doesn't cause the kind of stink cloud that's enveloping former Missouri PSC Commissioner Daniel Hall right now.
0 Comments

How To Increase Your Tax Credits Without Hardly Trying

1/2/2020

2 Comments

 
Were you planning a new industrial wind installation to begin construction in 2019 in order to qualify for the reduced 40% production tax credit before it expired for good?

You may now be "frustrated" to learn that your Congress critters and their lobbyist friends have not only extended the PTC into 2020, but also increased it to 60%!  That's just soooo unfair!  Here you were, doing your best to show that construction of your project began in 2019 (even though IRS regs. allow you to qualify without actually constructing anything), when the rug was pulled out from under you.  Stupid Congress!

Production Tax Credit for 2019 = 40%.
Production Tax Credit for 2020 = 60%.

Never fear, taxpayer parasite, these fine folks are here to save your bacon!
Because the revised phase-down schedule actually phases the credit "up" for projects beginning construction in 2020 (when compared to projects beginning construction in 2019), taxpayers who may have taken steps to begin construction on projects during 2019 to secure the 40% credit prior to the ultimate PTC expiration date, are likely to be frustrated to learn that they would have been better off delaying their construction efforts until 2020.
Nonetheless, because the determination of when construction of a project has begun is intensely factual and is subject to extensive IRS guidance, taxpayers overseeing projects that are otherwise on the cusp of the "beginning of construction threshold" may be able, with a careful planning, to structure their project and future transactions, so as to allow construction associated therewith to be treated as having begun in 2020 rather than 2019. Successful planning in this regard could translate to significant benefits associated with use of a 60% PTC rather than a 40% PTC.

That's right, with careful planning by these guys, you can now claim 60% PTC, instead of the lousy 40% you had originally carefully planned for.

Apparently actual physical construction doesn't really matter, it's all about the construction date you plan on paper.  Don't you just love the IRS?

So, what's wrong with this?  It allows industrial wind companies to re-shuffle their papers (plans) to increase their tax credits by 20%.  Corporations pay less taxes.  But the government still needs money to function, right?  So, how does it make up the loss?  Because you pay more!

All those wonderful production tax credits for industrial wind corporations don't grow on trees.  Although the government prints money, it can't just print an extra little bit to cover this 20% increase in the PTC.  Every dollar of production tax credits awarded to these corporations comes out of taxpayer pockets.  If corporations pay less taxes, you have to pay more to make up the difference.

And now they have great firms that can re-shuffle their paperwork to increase the credit.
Picture
2 Comments

"Wolf!", Cried Sierra Club

1/2/2020

1 Comment

 
Ya know how I suspect you don't have a cogent argument?  You make crap up to try to scare people to support your position.  And that seems to be what happened when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ordered a re-vamp of PJM Interconnection's capacity auction.

PJM's markets are a confusing mess that not a lot of folks understand.  Regular people understand pretty much nothing about PJM's electricity markets that supposedly serve their electric needs and provide power at prices that save consumers money.  That's what PJM says anyhow, and since most consumers don't even know that PJM exists in the first place, it's pretty much an "I don't care" situation.  But, in the energy world, PJM's markets are a big deal, a real big deal.  PJM's markets have been gamed and influenced to provide the most profits to energy suppliers forever.  That's why PJM has a Market Monitor to keep an eye on things to try to outsmart the gamers.

Over the last decade, states who have authority over their own electric generation mix, have attempted to encourage the generation source of their choice by providing subsidies.  But when those subsidies interfere with PJM's regional electric market, it becomes non-competitive.  One time, a state wanted to provide subsidies to a new generator that made up the difference between the generator's revenue and the PJM market so that it could offer and be accepted into PJM's capacity market.  The courts said that was not permissible.  State subsidies cannot be tied to PJM's market.  Since then, numerous states have found ways to subsidize their generation of choice without overtly tying it to PJM's market.  But the subsidies DO affect PJM's market, making that generation source "cheaper" so that it can offer a lower bid into the capacity market because the state is covering some of the generator's costs.

You only need a rudimentary knowledge of how PJM's capacity market works to understand this.  Capacity isn't electricity.  Capacity is the ability to produce electricity when called upon to do so.  Generators are paid for their capacity separately from the actual power they provide.  Because PJM has a need for a certain amount of electricity to keep the power on, it has to know that it will be available.  PJM sets its resource number for each year three years in advance, then holds an auction of sorts.  Generators with available capacity submit sealed bids.  PJM stacks the bids by price.  It then accepts bids, starting with the lowest, until it get up the stack to the amount of generation that meets its resource requirement.  All generators accepted in this process are paid the top clearing price.  Say the generator supplying the last bit of capacity bid $50, that means that every generator accepted gets paid $50, even though they may have bid in at a lower amount.  It pays to be a lower bid in the capacity market.  A generator can provide a lower bid because it receives subsidies.  Without subsidies, it would have to bid in at a higher cost, and that could mean that it doesn't clear the auction.  It would also mean that the ultimate price for all the capacity would rise if all generators had to bid in at their unsubsidized cost.  This subsidy gaming of PJM's market has been going on forever, but in such small amounts that it didn't really affect the market.

But in recent years, states have gone wild with the subsidies for renewables and other favored generation, such as nuclear.  With all these new subsidies, the market price tanked and the unsubsidized resources were forced out of the market.  Many have closed.  A market made up of subsidized resources is artificially priced and not really a competitive market at all.

So, FERC has been trying to fix this.  One fix is to strip subsidies from offered resources to make them bid in at a realistic price.  That's what FERC did just before Christmas.  It ordered PJM to revise its MOPR (Minimum Offer Price Rule) to nullify the effect of state subsidies.

And then all hell broke loose.

The self-serving environmental groups and renewable and other generators benefiting from subsidies freaked out.  And this happened.
“Trump and FERC are selling us out to the fossil fuel industry. They are adding billions of dollars in subsidies for coal, oil, and natural gas at the expense of green jobs and our health. They will now be getting over $6 billion a year just from our PJM grid alone, in addition to $15 billion a year in direct federal subsidies and all types of indirect subsidies. These dirty industries cannot compete with cheaper and cleaner renewable energy, so they are looking for a massive subsidy at our expense. This will hurt green jobs and public health,” said Jeff Tittel, Director of the New Jersey Sierra Club.
Honestly, what rubbish!!!  He says that FERC added billions of dollars of subsidies for coal, oil and natural gas.  They did no such thing.  That's an outright lie.  FERC did not give new subsidies to any generators, it simply mitigated the existing subsidies for renewables and nuclear.  If all generators exist on an even playing field, it is not instituting new subsidies.  And then he whines about "federal subsidies."  The FERC order didn't touch federal subsidies, like the production tax credit for new wind generators.  FERC felt it had no authority to nullify federal subsidies, just state subsidies.

The environmental groups have been whining about subsidies for a number of years.  As subsidies for renewable generators took off into a billion dollar industry, environmental groups chose to defend that by pointing to what it calls existing subsidies for fossil fuel generation.  Try to have a debate with any cleaniac about renewable energy subsidies, and they deflect by claiming other generators are getting just as much in other subsidies.  It's not true, but it serves to change the argument to one about dueling subsidies and away from public outrage at the juicy subsidies filling the pockets of renewable energy companies.  There are no overt subsidies of fossil fuel generation that come even close to those provided by the federal government for utility scale wind and solar.  Big Green insists renewable subsidies are no greater than those provided to fossil fuels.

But when FERC removed all state subsidies for all generators, Sierra Club whines that renewables are hurt by it.  If the subsidies are equal, then removing them all doesn't change anything.  Apparently there are more subsidies for renewables than there are for fossil fuels, or renewables wouldn't be hurt by their removal.  Big Green's favorite argument has flamed out.  It no longer has any relevance.

I'm going to guess that the Sierra Club guy crying about shameful giveaways didn't even bother to read the FERC Order before beginning to bellow.  That's pretty shameful in itself.  I actually did read the order, hard as it was to stomach, and I can't find any basis for the nonsense spewing from Sierra Club.  What I find interesting is the whole state v. federal thing.  If states are providing subsidies to certain generators, those subsidies are coming from state consumers and/or taxpayers.  The subsidies are affecting a regional market, not just one contained within the borders of the state.  So, if New Jersey subsidizes nuclear generators and that lowers the regional capacity market price, I would get a price benefit here in West Virginia.  Thanks, New Jersey!  And now, if New Jersey is still providing a subsidy to generators that does not lower prices in the regional market, and market prices go up, New Jersey citizens are sort of paying twice for the same subsidy.  Maybe they should rethink their subsidy, instead of trying to visit it upon everyone else?

Some claim FERC's Order will cause a great exodus from PJM and its regional market.  Buh-bye, don't let the door hit you on the way out.  If a state wants to subsidize certain kinds of generation that fits with its political goals, then it needs to keep that subsidy within its own borders.  Go ahead, subsidize what you want.  That's a state issue.  I could be selfish and parochial here, since New Jersey and other states are subsidizing the regional capacity prices I have to pay, and only worry about my own bottom line.  But the continued (and increased) state subsidies are causing existing generation to drop out of the market as uneconomic.  That's generation that we've all paid for over the years, replaced by new generation that we're all going to have to pay for over the next 50 years.  At some point, this kind of a market is going to explode.  Regional capacity prices will be pure fiction, totally influenced by individual state policies.

So, do we really need a regional capacity market?  Do we really need to know that sufficient generation will be available 3 years from now to keep the lights on, or should we depend on state generation policies to provide adequate generation for their own state?  Or, maybe we should just cross our fingers and hope the lights come on three years from now, when existing baseload generators are all gone and we're depending on a new crop of intermittent generators whose capacity factors are quite small?  Remember, capacity is a generator's ability to generate power when called.  Those coal and gas generators have high capacity factors because they can generate any time from stockpiled fuel.  Wind and solar, however, have very small capacity factors because they rely on the vagaries of weather and sunlight to supply their fuel in real time.  If we add huge battery capacity to create a stockpile, that has a huge additional cost.  Because the capacity factors of renewable generators are so small, we need to hugely overbuild them to guarantee any amount of capacity.  How would this end up being "cheaper"?  State generation subsidies are merely skewing the market for now, with big problems down the road.

Let's see what FERC's Order does to PJM's capacity market, and if we're actually getting some surety from the "increased" costs it imposes.  Today's prices aren't really lower, they're subsidized and being paid outside PJM's market through state subsidies.  What if you added up the current capacity market costs and all existing state subsidies that will now be nullified?  That's the actual true cost of capacity.  This order won't so much increase prices as it will re-allocate who pays the cost of capacity.

The sky isn't falling.  There's no slobbering wolf wandering through town.  It's just Sierra Chicken Little and all his chickie friends telling us once again that the world is ending because they didn't get their way.  Thank goodness there are energy professionals that actually understand these markets and don't base their decisions on a bunch of propaganda and whining.
1 Comment

People Love Wind - Just Not In Their Backyard

11/25/2019

0 Comments

 
I've been waiting at least a decade for offshore wind to catch up with onshore wind.  Finally, it's getting real!

Take a look at a map of wind energy potential in the U.S.
Picture
The blue, red and purple have the most potential.  In addition, offshore wind blows more consistently than land-based wind.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that the best potential is offshore.  But the wind energy industry has been using the wrong map, one that doesn't include offshore wind.
Picture
This makes it look like the best wind potential is located in the middle of the country.  And that's where they've been building it for the past decade.  Except there isn't a lot of demand in the middle of the country.  Electricity usage is highest where the most people are, mainly along both coasts and the Great Lakes.  Serendipity!  That's where the greatest offshore wind potential is located!

Big wind developers have overbuilt in the Midwest, and now they're out of nearby users.  The more they build, the more they need to export, and export to load centers requires billions (or even trillions) of dollars of new electric transmission.  That's expensive!  And it's even more expensive to bury it, so big wind and big transmission developers have been hard at work trying to necessitate big overhead transmission builds that will fly over all those communities between the middle of the country and the coasts.

And now, finally, the populated coastal states have figured out that harvesting nearby offshore wind for their own use, instead of importing it from the middle of the country, makes financial sense.  It keeps their energy dollars in their own state and region and fosters a whole new offshore wind industry in their communities that will provide local jobs and economic development.  Win-win!

Except the people who live there don't want industrial energy infrastructure in their own back yards.  They don't want to see wind turbines on the horizon or have their night views ruined by blinking red lights.  And they certainly don't want their beaches disturbed by new electric cables connecting offshore wind turbines to their already substantial transmission networks.

But they still love wind, just not in their own backyard.
Fenwick Island resident Tom Brennan asked why consideration isn’t given to putting windmills closer to Indian River Inlet, and “continuing the commercialization up there instead of ruining of what we have down here?”
Ms. Dudley Eshback referred to periodic flooding at Fenwick Island State Park. “Should the proposed major power transmission plant be flooded following one of these regularly occurring and increasingly frequent storms imagine the public safety impact. It could be very disastrous,” she said. “We must explore alternative, clean sources of energy. And I’m not an expert on wind energy, turbines or transmission stations but I do know it is folly to consider further developing and destroying what little open space is left.”
And they have plenty of suggestions of someplace else to put it.  Except those folks don't want it either.  Nobody wants industrial renewables in their own back yard!

Well, welcome to the world of industrial renewables, everyone!  The people in the middle of the country don't want it either, especially when they will receive absolutely no benefit from it.  Nobody in the middle of the country wants to have their horizon ruined with turbines and blinking red lights.  And that's not the entirety of onshore wind... they're built so close to existing homes and businesses that the people suffer from shadow flicker and other health effects.

Nobody wants to live near industrial onshore wind installations.  Nobody wants to live near industrial offshore wind installations.  Nobody wants to live near industrial wind installations!

Maybe industrial wind isn't the answer?  Industrial wind actually supplies a very small percentage of our power.  It's impact on climate change is really very small.  However, the big wind industry has been pumping out the propaganda so long, that a lot of Americans are completely brainwashed into thinking that it is the solution to climate change.  And the big wind industry has been making money hand over fist installing its infrastructure across the country.  The intersection of corporate profits and climate change propaganda deserves careful thought.

Industrial wind is an orphan nobody wants.  Instead of pushing it off somewhere else and accepting the sacrifice (as long as it's not OUR sacrifice), isn't it time we all stand up and find another solution that doesn't cause any sacrifice?  The reality of industrial wind is now being revealed to the populated coastal areas, and they don't like it.  Eventually will also realize that it's nothing more than a corporate money-making scam that does little to reverse climate change.

We need better solutions, for everyone!
0 Comments

Transmission Tax Credits Are Dumb

11/23/2019

1 Comment

 
A bunch of schemers who profit from building transmission have announced their "Statement of Principles" for overbuilding transmission.  Big deal.  The "principles" are just so much glittering generalities, such as:
  • Policy makers in the United States and its several states and municipalities and in Canada and its several Provinces, Territories, and municipalities are urged to review and improve the regulation of the infrastructure that comprises the electrical grid, to (1) streamline processes governing economic and environmental reviews of projects where possible, (2) promote economic and energy efficiency, (3) deliver important environmental benefits, and (4) ensure equitable sharing of the cost of needed infrastructure, as appropriate;
  • As applicable, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Department of Energy, and state economic regulators should assess the need to improve upon and revise regulatory processes and corresponding regulations and policies governing the planning and cost allocation of high voltage electric transmission, balancing the public's interest in expedition, cost savings, care of the environment, and an equitable sharing of burdens;
  • U.S. States and Canadian Provinces and Territories that adopt renewable electric generation (fuel) requirements for their domestic utilities and other generators should, at the same time, recognize and take into account the extent to which such policies necessitate the development of additional transmission lines and/or the deployment of advanced technologies;
  • Canadian and U.S. industry leaders and public policy makers must ensure that investment in grid infrastructure in both countries responds effectively to threats from extreme weather and cyber intrusion.
"We want new laws that gut regulation and make it easier for us to do whatever we want."  Why use 1,000 words when 18 will do?  Really, there's nothing in the "principles" that a good lobbyist couldn't cure.

These "principles" were supposedly cooked up at the first "International Summit on the Electric Transmission Grid."  Apparently, it was a frothy good time! 

"This will be a frothy presentation of new planning approaches driven by new technological developments."

WTF?  Frothy?  Who wrote this garbage?  An intern who moonlights at Starbucks?

All the usual suspects were there...  trade groups, unions, and environmental organizations.  These guys will support anything that makes them money or checks a box on a grant deliverable.  Doesn't make it necessary or needed.  Oh, c'mon, quit pretending that your money making goals benefit anyone other than yourselves.

Sounds like this "summit" was a bit of a joke and the only guys there that weren't biased towards more transmission as a money maker or grant deliverable made fun of the other speakers.
“The turf wars and feuds between RTOs are legendary; MISO and SPP, these people, for reasons that are often lost to the mists of time, they don’t really like each other that much, and they don’t work well together,” Skelly said. “So the notion that FERC’s going to pass something that says, ‘Hey, you guys, coordinate and work together’ … come on. It has not happened, and it’s not going to happen.”

In a later panel, MISO President and COO Clair Moeller disputed that, saying, “I’d submit we don’t actually have a planning problem. We have an objective problem. The reason we don’t get the answers that everybody agrees with is that people’s objectives are different.
“Lanny and I had a fistfight in the bathroom because RTOs don’t get along well,” he joked, referring to Lanny Nickell, SPP senior vice president of engineering, who was in the audience. “Well, that’s simply not true. The simple fact is the objectives are different.
Making crap up... and being called out on it.  Way to go, Mikey!  RTOs are set up to serve their own regions.  They're not set up to provide benefits for other regions.  Just because Skelly failed to find any economic need for his interregional transmission projects doesn't mean there's a problem with the RTOs.  There's just a problem with Skelly.  He keeps trying to pin his own failure on everyone else.

Skelly also had this terrible idea:
Skelly also described the confusion that state regulators have to endure when being pitched multiple interstate lines. “We need policy mechanisms so that the RTO shows up and FERC shows up. Somebody needs to show up from some sanctioned body to say, ‘Yes, this makes sense.’”
But FERC commissioners “hate telling state regulators what to do,” Gensler said. “That is a fate worse than death for most FERC commissioners.”
FERC Commissioners hate telling states what to do because they have no authority or jurisdiction to do so.  It doesn't matter what FERC or the RTO thinks about a transmission project.  The state doesn't care.  Its regulators are following state laws and policy.  In fact, the heavy handed interference of FERC and RTOs in state regulatory proceedings can have the same compelling effect as your mother suggesting you wear a hat and boots to school when you're a teenager.  It inspires secret rebellion for rebellion's sake alone.

Lots of "formerly" important people were there, such as former DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz, who got all excited reminiscing about the Paris climate change thing and an "absolutely beautiful" attempted rape of Arkansas.
“For the United States, the integration with Canada, and the opportunities for getting additional carbon-free electricity is absolutely essential” to reaching the targets under the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, said Ernest Moniz, former secretary of energy under President Barack Obama. “We have to get the infrastructure to support it.”

He talked about “an absolutely beautiful case” under Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Clean Line Energy Partners’ Plains & Eastern Clean Line. “It was a beautiful example to implement, and the only problem was called ‘Arkansas.’”

Picture
Maybe it's the hair?  Why didn't Arkansas just submit to Clean Line's advances?  Why did Arkansas think it had any rights to say "no?"  Next thing you know, Arkansas is going to start smoking cigarettes and thinking it should have the right to vote!

But maybe this was all about something else...
As a potential solution, Skelly pointed to Sen. Martin Heinrich’s (D-N.M.) announcement that he would introduce bills to create an investment tax credit for “regionally significant” transmission projects and to direct FERC “to improve its interregional transmission planning process.” Heinrich, however, has been introducing similar legislation since 2015 to no success.
Oh, right, Martin Heinrich, legislative utility pet.  This guy has more electric utility and energy company and environmental group political donors than any fossil fuel company I know.  He could make a Koch brother blush!

But, as RTO Insider tells us, Heinrich's legislation is rarely successful.  Thank goodness for that!  Especially because Heinrich's new "idea" that came out of this ridiculous transmission-lovin' circus is completely unworkable.
“Where this is right now, I have floated this with people across the industry who have done this type of work, and they have said it would make a real difference,” Heinrich told E&E News in a brief hallway interview.
Right.  All the folks at his Transmission Summit never look their gift horse in the mouth.

So, what makes this idea so bad?
Heinrich said the general framework of his bill would enable an investment tax credit for transmission development that meets a “regionally significant” threshold.
Such an incentive, he argued, would represent a more cost-effective way to help promote transmission development than other measures, although the New Mexico Democrat admitted he’s still working out the exact bar for how much the credit would be worth and what projects would qualify.
The need for additional transmission lines to help move power from rural outskirts to more heavily populated corridors has increasingly come to the forefront of energy planning and the push to add more renewable energy onto the grid.
“It could potentially be a game changer,” Heinrich said. “We are going to have to build a lot more transmission to have a completely green grid. You have to be able to move those electrons from where they are generated to where they are used.”

How are we going to define "regionally significant," and who is going to make that determination?  Let's face it, your real purpose is to build transmission for renewable energy.  But the electric transmission grid is "open access" to all kinds of energy, and it is completely impossible to separate "clean" electrons from "dirty" ones.  An electron is an electron.  Any tax credits for transmission will also support "dirty" energy.

As well, lack of investment isn't the problem.  A number of investors wasted over $200M (that's two hundred million dollars!) on Clean Line Energy Partners and never recouped a dime.

Heinrich envisions this working similar to the federal production tax credit for wind energy, where energy produced generates tax credits.  Except we're doing away with the PTC.  It expires at the end of this year.  Why would we need a new tax credit for transmission?

Especially when FERC already administers a generous transmission incentives program that awards all sorts of financial benefits to transmission owners.  At least those incentives are paid for by the users of the transmission in question.  One of the first principles for cost allocation is determination of benefits.  The cost of transmission shall be paid for by those who benefit from it.  Under Heinrich's brilliant idea, all the tax payers in the U.S. would pay for transmission that only benefits a handful of users.

Houston, we have a problem.  This idea is one of the dumbest! 
That infrastructure has hit hurdles, both political and regulatory, that have added years and millions of dollars to development, resulting in the abandonment of more than one high-profile transmission project.
An example is the proposed Plains and Eastern Clean Line project, a $2.5 billion, 705-mile transmission line from Oklahoma to Tennessee to deliver up to 4,000 megawatts of wind electricity. It stalled last year after running into individual state permitting problems.

And what do federal tax credits do to solve state siting and permitting problems?  Actually, nothing.  Less than nothing, because a state is likely to reject a project that is made more costly through added incentives.

Dumb, dumb, and dumber!

What is the solution?  Building renewables closer to load as distributed generation.  No transmission needed.  Ratepayers will save a bundle while the energy supply gets cleaner.  But then again, it wasn't called the Frothy International Distributed Generation Summit.  And none of those people donated to Heinrich's political campaigns.

No matter how badly these people want to overbuild transmission, they will never be successful.  We simply don't need it.  There are much better ideas!
1 Comment

More Of Your Hard Earned Money Drained Away To Enrich Renewable Energy Companies?

10/29/2019

4 Comments

 
Aimee Ghosh, an attorney at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman who has tracked recent pro-storage legislation, said the broad support among interest groups and companies is a major indicator of the potential success of storage legislation.
“You’re seeing a broad coalition outside of Congress with various interest groups, stakeholders in the energy industry, really in agreement that this is needed, good policy and good for America. And you don’t really see, like you would with other types of legislation, anyone who’s overtly opposed,” she said, noting that the legislation is technology- and fuel-neutral.
Aimee, meet Janna.  She's not only anyone, she's someone!
Response from Janna Swanson, President, Coalition for Rural Property Rights:
What has happened in our communities regarding industrial wind is wrong, and it may be getting worse.

We know that industrial wind has signed more easements than they have used, but we were all breathing easier now that the federal production tax credits deadline is coming up. Sorry, but it is still not the time to let down our guard!

We already know they are looking for more tax credits for industrial wind and now there is a lobbying frenzy where companies are looking for taxpayer-funded financial incentives to build large scale battery storage and transmission lines. These projects will blanket the nation!

All these incentives will come from our taxes! Our land will be further covered with 4-5,000 acre solar installations, more industrial wind installations, high-voltage transmission lines, and large scale batteries. Do we know the impacts of these things in real time or in the future? NO!! What we do know is what other countries have already learned, which is that wind and solar are expensive, do not cut CO2 emissions, ruin our homes/land/businesses and kill/disrupt our wildlife.
Picture
We will again be promised money but it is OUR money they are promising. This is ridiculous!!
4 Comments

Big Wind Scheme Shifts Costs To Ratepayers In Order To Keep Costs Low

10/17/2019

1 Comment

 
I like chocolate.  It makes me happy.  When I'm happy, everyone else is happy.  Therefore, providing me with chocolate provides a benefit to others and so they shall pay for my chocolate.

What?  You think that sounds stupid?  Of course it's stupid!  But it saves me money on the cost of chocolate.  The same could be said for big wind's effort to shift the costs of connecting new wind generators onto captive ratepayers that don't need the "benefit" of the wind project, or expanded transmission to serve it.

It's subtle, but I picked it up a while ago, and the fun appears to be only beginning with the latest big wind scam.  North Dakota Public Service Commissioners were recently the targets of this scam at a meeting reported in the media.
The topic came up Wednesday in a discussion involving the Public Service Commission and wind industry representatives, who told regulators that the issue is causing companies to think twice about locating a project in the state.
What's the problem?
Wind companies are having a tough time obtaining approval from grid operators to build new projects. Proposed wind farms -- and other types of power generators -- must first undergo an engineering study to determine their impact on the grid and identify any necessary updates to power lines or other parts of the transmission system.
Sometimes, developers learn that their projects will prompt upgrades with a hefty price tag in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, said Beth Soholt, executive director of the Clean Grid Alliance. The cost currently falls entirely to the developers putting forward the projects, though the upgrades can provide benefits to others.

If you plug something new into an existing system, it's going to affect the system.  The operators of the electric system require necessary studies to determine the effect of plugging in the new generator.  The cost of plugging in the generator is the responsibility of the generator, just as if you built a new home in the middle of the woods and requested electric service.  You would pay the cost of running the service drop from the nearest pole because it's only serving you.  A generator must pay the costs of connecting, plus the costs of any changes that must be made to the system to accommodate the connection and the additional amount of electricity flowing through the system coming from the new generator.  This has been standard procedure for years because it makes sense.  Generators are merchants who sell the power they produce into regional markets.  The cost of producing the power is borne by the generator.  The generator keeps all of its profits.

But now big wind wants captive ratepayers to pay for the cost of upgrades to the grid caused by the addition of new wind generators.  This can amount of hundreds of millions of dollars for a single project.  If big wind can get someone else to pay these costs, then the generator spends less to connect and can therefore discount the price of the power it sells to customers.

Big wind is trying to convince regulators that upgrades to the grid made necessary only by the connection of new wind generators provide some kind of "benefit" to ratepayers.  Because grid upgrades have to be made to connect wind, they believe they can concoct some kind of "benefit" for all grid users.  Not hardly.  It is not a "benefit" if you don't need it, and the grid works just fine without the upgrades caused by connection of big wind generators.  To do this would completely upend the way interconnections to the existing grid are paid for and shift cost from the generator to the ratepayers.  If the scheme is changed so that wind generators don't have to pay the cost of upgrades they make necessary, shouldn't we also extend that to new gas generators, new nuclear generators... even... *gasp* new coal generators?  Of course, it would apply to all.  And it would raise your electric bill significantly.  But what does big wind care, as long as they get their piece of the pie?

But why?  Because big wind is freaking out over the end of the federal production tax credit, which gives them tax credits for all the electricity they generate.  Without that income stream in the future, the price of wind is going to increase... a lot.  Big wind is looking for its next subsidy -- avoiding the cost of upgrading transmission to serve it.  It wants to shift those costs on to everyone else.

Adding insult to injury, much of the new wind generation in the queue is planned for export, however the cost of upgrading the grid to enable the new connection would be charged to ratepayers in the generation region.  The ones using the "cheap" new power in other regions would avoid the costs they would have to pay if the upgrades were the responsibility of the generator and therefore included in the price of their electricity.

Big wind's subsidy gravy train needs to be derailed.  Perhaps they think they're fooling the general public with this hogwash, but are they really fooling regulators?  Probably not, but if none of the general public objects to this nonsense, it could be just a wink and a nod away.
1 Comment

How the Sausage Gets Made at NPR

10/9/2019

0 Comments

 
A couple weeks ago, an NPR producer started contacting opponents to the Grain Belt Express, trying to find someone in Kansas to interview for what was dubbed a story about wind energy in Kansas.  Enthusiasm = zero.  Nobody wanted to waste the time on an NPR story that probably contained bias before it was even recorded.  In addition, it set off my radar that NPR seemed to be looking for a NIMBY to round out its story.  NPR wasn't really interested in GBE, per se, but in opposition to it.

After really stretching to consider "someone who happens to be right on the Kansas/Missouri border," the reporter got hooked up with experienced Block GBE spokeswoman Jennifer Gatrel and visited the ranch she owns with her husband, Jeff, 45 minutes outside Kansas City, Missouri.

And yesterday, this aired.

(Funny, Jennifer seems to also be starring in today's story about rural "brain gain," which was a surprise to Jennifer.)

Jennifer and Jeff spent 2 hours with the reporter at their ranch, which resulted in roughly a 3.5 minute segment in the hour-long story.  The reporter seemed charmed by the bucolic setting and thrilled with the animals, but uninterested in the actual GBE project, except in how it would have personally affected the Gatrels, both by destroying their land and future.  The Gatrels did a fantastic job trying to stay on their talking points.  This isn't their first rodeo, they did the same when the New York Times came to interview them several years ago.  But at least the NYT was actually interested in the project itself.  NPR simply glossed over all the issues with GBE, such as the fact that the project doesn't have enough customers to make it financially feasible, the fact that the project lacks a permit to cross the state of Illinois and has not applied for one, and that it still faces a brick wall in Missouri, with an ongoing legal appeal to the permit and a requirement to get the assent of each county it crosses.  GBE is barely treading water.  Seems like Invenergy doesn't want to waste any money on it at the moment, possibly related to its lack of customers who would finance the project.

So, how did NPR fill the rest of their hour-long show?  They interviewed three guys in Kansas, but that didn't last much longer than the Gatrel's segment.  Interesting that the fellas profiting from Kansas wind turbines state that they would never want to have a transmission line across their own properties, due to its "like eminent domain" nature.  If hosting turbines is voluntary, why is a transmission line to enable the turbine involuntary?  Of course, NPR didn't bother to explain.  It was all about fluff and glitter, not substance.  The story was cleverly designed to appeal to emotion, not logic.

The bulk of the hour was taken up by the pro-wind opinions of Russell Gold, who wrote a fantasy book about Clean Line Energy Partners, and Amy Farrell of big wind trade group American Wind Energy Association.  Our friend Russell kept referencing concern about the Gatrels personally, while stabbing them in the back with statements about how somebody has to sacrifice for energy.  And he was quick to get the word "NIMBY" in at the end of the show for good measure.

Except nobody has to sacrifice at all!  A truly sympathetic transmission line developer could bury new transmission on existing rights of way, such as alongside rail or highways.  But NPR isn't interested in that.  It was too busy trying to convince its listeners that big wind is somehow "necessary."  Preaching to the choir, boys and girls!  NPR listeners don't need to be convinced.  They already believe or they wouldn't be listening.  NPR convinced nobody with that story.  It wasn't true journalism, it was story-telling designed to give an audience what it wanted to hear.  Listen, my children and you shall hear... the biased opinions that you hold dear.

Jennifer and Jeff Gatrel will continue to fight on, even though their ranch is no longer affected.  And so will thousands of others.  Victory is within their grasp, happening in venues ignored by NPR.
0 Comments

Do-It-Yourself Power Plant Proves Expensive

10/8/2019

0 Comments

 
So, there were these people who were disappointed that they weren't selected to host a utility solar farm.  They decided to build their own.

It becomes a cute little media story when you add in some sheep lawn mowers.  However, the story gets lost there.  It was too expensive for this DIY solar power plant to connect to the grid in order to sell its product.  Farming the sun for profit maybe isn't as easy as it looks.

There's nothing stopping these folks from erecting a solar array to serve their own property.  The problem comes from building more than they need and trying to sell it to others via the electric grid.  The freight is too expensive.  I'm not sure what message this story is trying to serve?  The rules for connecting to the grid are bad?

The rules for connecting a new generator to the grid require the generator to pay for the connection and any changes to the grid made necessary to serve their generator.  Who else should pay for it?
"We felt like this is stacked against the little guy because utilities are not willing to invest in infrastructure.”
Oh, utilities!  Utilities are supposed to pay to upgrade the grid so that a new entrant generator can sell its product?  Why?  Where do you suppose utilities get the money they "invest" in building the grid?  Ratepayers, consumers, people who pay an electric bill, that's who.  So what they're really saying here is that other people are supposed to pay for the infrastructure necessary to connect their DIY power plant?  Why?  Not all of those people will even be using the power.

The correct answer is that the customers of the DIY power plant (although I don't see mention of any customers in this article) should pay the cost of connecting in their contract to purchase the power.  But that's going to make the cost of the power too expensive!  And that's why this location is not suitable for a power plant and probably why it was not selected by a utility in the first place.

Utilities do their homework before siting new generators.  The cost to connect (in conjunction with the cost that customers are willing to pay) is a big part of that homework.  They don't just build generators willy-nilly and believe that the connection fairy will fly in with a sack of gold and make connecting free or cheap.

Of course, trying to create a fairy before siting generation in inappropriate places is in the renewable generator toolbag.  No wonder these folks thought there was a fairy.  A group of "clean energy advocates" want MISO to make changes to the way it plans grid upgrades.  One of the changes they want is a re-evaluation of interconnection upgrade cost allocation.  In other words, they want ratepayers to cover some of the costs of new generator interconnections.
But stakeholders for months have been criticizing those estimates as seriously underestimating the widespread adoption of renewables. Several have said the RTO’s predictions are resulting in inadequate new transmission projects and leaving renewable developers with prohibitively expensive interconnection upgrades as system patches.
.................
That existing process is blind to the fact that many others in MISO benefit from interconnection upgrades, she said.
“We all know transmission will bring a variety of benefits to a variety of beneficiaries,” McIntire said, calling for a “more holistic” cost-benefit analysis on interconnection upgrades.

All those "benefits" the ratepayers didn't know they needed!  Because they didn't really "need" them in the first place.  The new generators need them to make money.  If generation is at a level adequate to serve load (and it is), then we don't "need" any new generators!  Add in the fact that many of the new generators being built in MISO are intended as exports to other regions.  The "advocates" want MISO ratepayers to pick up the tab for unneeded new generators that won't even serve MISO customers.  What a fairy tale!

In reality, this will just end up creating higher transmission rates in MISO while lowering the cost of new generation so that it can survive once the federal tax credits disappear.  Do they think MISO is stupid?

The only difference between the DIY power plant's thinking and that of the "clean energy advocates" is that the advocates should know better.
0 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    About the Author

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

    About
    StopPATH Blog

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

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


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

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

    RSS Feed

    Archives

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

    Categories

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

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.