Lots of new transmission projects in the PJM region due to PJM's Window 3 that needs to import electricity into Baltimore and Northern Virginia due to the closing of the Brandon Shores and Wagner coal-fired power plants, and the building of new data centers in Northern Virginia and Frederick County, Maryland. They have been in the works for over a year, but are just now being rolled out to the public, and they are sprouting like weeds!
Do you think that the utilities could respect the impacted communities and just tell them the truth without varnish and propaganda? Do they think we're all idiots who can be easily led to love our own destruction?
Introducing.... "Good Energy At Work" on BGE's "Good Energy In Progress" website. Couldn't the PR team agree on what the "good energy" was doing? Branding fail!!!
What kind of corporate hubris compels BGE to believe it can avoid all community opposition with such a simple branding effort?
What is "good energy?" And furthermore, what is "bad energy," and how shall we make a comparison? Good vs. bad... the sheeple will pick "good" every time, right? Except it's just too damned simple, unlike the community that will be impacted. It's supposed to make you love these transmission projects without digging any further than knowing that they are "good" because the utility tells you so. Sorry, BGE, when the impacts from these projects begin to happen in the impacted communities, the people will feel like they've been lied to. What's good about transmission construction? It's a major project that will severely impact all abutters to the existing easements. Construction noise, workers coming and going to (and within) the easement. Large equipment being brought in, and trampling everything in its path. Helicopters and cranes. Whup, whup, whup, beep, beep, beep, *kablam* (if explosive splicing is employed). Is such a simple word as "good" going to blot all that out?
Bad energy must be the existing transmission system that the community has grown used to and spends little energy contemplating. Bad energy is using electricity from a local coal-fired power plant.
So, good energy must be community impacts from new transmission meant to supply electricity from another source. What source is that? It's not being produced in Maryland. It's coming from Pennsylvania's fleet of gas, coal and nuclear power plants.
How is dirty energy produced in Maryland bad, when dirty energy produced in Pennsylvania and imported to Maryland over expensive and invasive new transmission lines is good? That's right, your new "good energy" is going to cost you more, and it's no cleaner than the electricity you were using before.
Good? I suppose it's all in the propaganda used to lead the sheep to believe these new transmission projects are somehow "good" for them. It probably won't work.
It is so simple, it's insulting. They're treating the impacted communities like toddlers. But it's not like it's the first time a transmission company tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the impacted community with silly branding slogans. Not too long ago, a transmission company in the Midwest tried something similar with the branding slogan "Positive Energy." It failed, in a hilarious way. This one will, too.
I wonder how much ratepayer money was tossed to a PR company to come up with such a silly proposal? And what's next in the "good" department?
Do you think that the utilities could respect the impacted communities and just tell them the truth without varnish and propaganda? Do they think we're all idiots who can be easily led to love our own destruction?
Introducing.... "Good Energy At Work" on BGE's "Good Energy In Progress" website. Couldn't the PR team agree on what the "good energy" was doing? Branding fail!!!
What kind of corporate hubris compels BGE to believe it can avoid all community opposition with such a simple branding effort?
What is "good energy?" And furthermore, what is "bad energy," and how shall we make a comparison? Good vs. bad... the sheeple will pick "good" every time, right? Except it's just too damned simple, unlike the community that will be impacted. It's supposed to make you love these transmission projects without digging any further than knowing that they are "good" because the utility tells you so. Sorry, BGE, when the impacts from these projects begin to happen in the impacted communities, the people will feel like they've been lied to. What's good about transmission construction? It's a major project that will severely impact all abutters to the existing easements. Construction noise, workers coming and going to (and within) the easement. Large equipment being brought in, and trampling everything in its path. Helicopters and cranes. Whup, whup, whup, beep, beep, beep, *kablam* (if explosive splicing is employed). Is such a simple word as "good" going to blot all that out?
Bad energy must be the existing transmission system that the community has grown used to and spends little energy contemplating. Bad energy is using electricity from a local coal-fired power plant.
So, good energy must be community impacts from new transmission meant to supply electricity from another source. What source is that? It's not being produced in Maryland. It's coming from Pennsylvania's fleet of gas, coal and nuclear power plants.
How is dirty energy produced in Maryland bad, when dirty energy produced in Pennsylvania and imported to Maryland over expensive and invasive new transmission lines is good? That's right, your new "good energy" is going to cost you more, and it's no cleaner than the electricity you were using before.
Good? I suppose it's all in the propaganda used to lead the sheep to believe these new transmission projects are somehow "good" for them. It probably won't work.
It is so simple, it's insulting. They're treating the impacted communities like toddlers. But it's not like it's the first time a transmission company tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the impacted community with silly branding slogans. Not too long ago, a transmission company in the Midwest tried something similar with the branding slogan "Positive Energy." It failed, in a hilarious way. This one will, too.
I wonder how much ratepayer money was tossed to a PR company to come up with such a silly proposal? And what's next in the "good" department?
RSS Feed