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

Big Wind Mouthpiece Crashes and Burns on Grist

7/30/2013

1 Comment

 
A friend sent me a link to this article on Grist yesterday.  The five most important names in renewable energy that you’ve never heard of not only improperly ends a sentence with a preposition, but the author just plain, old makes crap up.  While waxing poetic kissing the rear ends of FERC Commissioners current and future, Bill White,  manager of the National Clean Energy Transmission Initiative for the Energy Future Coalition, contends that only Big Wind can save us:

But only the acceleration of utility-scale renewable energy projects can take us where we need to go.
This, of course, is incorrect, but still an arguable opinion (and it is, read the comments).  However, next Bill demonstrates his mastery of FERC finance:
As you might imagine, the higher the ROE, the more incentive there is to build transmission. A company would never invest in our grid if the maximum ROE was 1 percent — meaning it would take 100 years to recoup the costs of a project. And if it was 100 percent, we would end up building much more transmission than we need and sticking consumers with the bill.
What an idiot (and you will notice he gets called on his misunderstanding of ROE in the comments as well)!  ROE = Return on Equity = the percentage of yearly return (interest) investors earn on their equity (investment) in transmission projects.  It has nothing to do with how long it would take to recoup the costs of a project.  That's called depreciation, Bill.  The two have only a cursory connection in that depreciation pays back a portion of the investment every year, plus interest (ROE) on the outstanding balance.  The length of time it takes to recoup an investment is directly tied to its depreciable life.  Investments should be paid for during their used and useful life.  I'll do Bill a favor and stop there without even mentioning salvage value.

Now, don't you feel stupid, Bill?  You should.  You should also feel stupid about all those other brainless things you said in your Grist rant, like the fact that state regulators, who are complaining about FERC returns, are "misguided." What makes a financial genius like you qualified to judge the actions of professional regulators?

Yup, ol' Bill just doesn't know what he's talking about.  Crash and burn.
1 Comment

Potomac Edison's Charm Offensive is Out of Whack

7/27/2013

0 Comments

 
In the wake of the WV PSC's refusal to dismiss its investigation of billing practices, FirstEnergy subsidiaries Potomac Edison and Mon Power have now mounted what's known as a charm offensive.  A charm offensive is a public relations campaign designed to build trust and mollify a perturbed public in order to repair a company's image.  In FirstEnergy's case, the company is  trying desperately to sweep away the mess its former Allegheny Energy subsidiaries have made of billing and meter reading in the wake of their merger with FirstEnergy in 2011.

Unfortunately, FirstEnergy's charm offensive is being carried out by a squinty-eyed, loquacious fabulist who is not well-liked, either by the public or the media.  Our friend Todd is carrying too much flaming baggage from the PATH project, and other dubious claims he has spun for the public in recent memory.  Nobody believes a thing Todd says anymore.  Looks like FirstEnergy is going to have to find a more charming spokesperson.

Here's what Todd told WV Metro News the other day:

"Customers started complaining to the PSC several months ago after meter readers with both companies fell behind following Superstorm Sandy. Meyers said they were helping with the power restoration efforts. Bills were estimated for some customers for consecutive months and the estimates were based on the previous mild winter. When the actual readings took place, customers received very expensive bills."

Customers have been complaining for a lot longer than "several months," although Potomac Edison has only acknowledged some of the complaints in recent months, after the PSC opened an investigation in response to public outrage and legislative anger.  The company's problems started following the "superstorm" of the 2011 Allegheny/FirstEnergy merger, and the ensuing spending cuts and stunning incompetence that brought bi-monthly meter reading to a screeching halt.  The PSC has called foul on Todd's excuse that meters were not read because personnel were "helping with power restoration efforts," or that estimates were made based on any logical process at all and were not, instead, made up out of whole cloth.

Todd insists that Potomac Edison should be granted more time to actually do the job that you're paying them to do every month, and that you should overlook continued erroneous billing and skipped meter readings while they "work through the issues individual customers have with double billing and estimated meter readings."

I don't think so, Todd.  Potomac Edison has had months already to clean up its act, and years to have gotten it right in the first place.  The public is done being patient.  The public has become quite bloodthirsty and a sacrifice must be made to appease them.  How about we start with Todd and his "out of whack" charm offensive?
0 Comments

WV's 5-Year Energy Plan:  A Circus of  Fantasy and Denial

7/24/2013

0 Comments

 
Apparently WV's Director of Energy, Jeff Herholt, showed up at legislative interims yesterday to talk about WV's 5-Year Energy Plan.  Hilarity ensued.

A story in The Journal says:

Coal production has fallen by about 25 percent since 2001. The closing of coal-fired power plants has played a significant role in this decrease, Herdolt said.

"We don't struggle over whether our state should use coal or not," Herdolt said. "Other states, that's not the case."

Coal's inability to compete with the price of natural gas has also affected production; however, Herdolt added, there is not a "compelling drive" for utilities to completely abandon coal for natural gas.


And then a clown car roared into the meeting and several legislators poured out:

Sen. Ron Stolling, D-Boone, questioned why coal isn't lucrative enough for even power plants inside West Virginia to use the state's product. Herdolt said price is the problem. About 50 percent of the coal-fired power plants in the state use coal from other places, according to Stolling.

"It's all price," Herdolt said. "We had a lot of coal in storage. We had a mild winter last year, (and) we had a storage buildup."

Some lawmakers were concerned by what they heard at the meeting. Sen. Craig Blair, R-Berkeley, said he wanted to hear more about utilizing coal for energy by way of liquification. Referring to a TransGas coal-to-liquid plant in Mingo County, Blair said he wonders why the state isn't promoting it more.

"We're talking about a lot of jobs in West Virginia, but we're also talking about lower energy prices," Blair said. "Low energy prices give opportunity for the ability to attract businesses to the state."

Sen. Art Kirkendoll, D-Logan, said the state should be more proactive with projects like the coal-to-liquid plant.

"We're sitting on our thumbs waiting for these investors to come in with $2 billion," Kirkendoll said. "Why don't we go get the investors?"


In the next act, a daring trapeze act was attempted by someone with a brain:

The commission also heard from John Christensen, a member of the Berkeley County Economic Development Authority and employee at Mountain View Solar in Berkeley Springs. Christensen was there to make a case for fostering of the solar industry in West Virginia.

Christensen referred to HB3080, which would provide a 1 to 1.5 percent carve-out for solar technology in the state's energy portfolio.

"All the states that have this carve-out are doing great," Christensen said. "We want to be big. ... We want to be involved bringing more jobs to West Virginia."


But it wasn't enough to deflect attention away from the continual capering of the clowns:

But lawmakers questioned the worth of solar with its lower energy production in the state and its cost. Blair, who said he is supportive of renewable energy, said there should be a significant return on investment from the state, and he said it's just not there with solar.

"When government gets involved, and they start issuing tax credits ... you're subsidizing something," Blair said. "It should be cost-effective to start with."

While the Eastern Panhandle doesn't have a direct role in much of the state's energy production, Delegate Paul Espinosa, R-Jefferson, said he believes residents should know about energy issues.

"It's certainly something I think we need to be informed about and be supportive of an energy industry that can be profitable for our state," Espinosa said.


And the music played on...
0 Comments

The Transmission Tipping Point

7/23/2013

1 Comment

 
I routinely get requests for assistance opposing other transmission projects, but I received one today that comes from the other side of the world.  The theme and message is the same, however:  powerful forces that stand to make a bundle of money are running roughshod over the people who are expected to make the ultimate sacrifice for others by giving up their home to make way for new transmission.  When the actual "need" for the project is mired in controversy, some people dig in and take a stand.  The people are connected with the land they have nurtured (and that has nurtured them) for generations, and they will not give up easily.  This is an old story that never changes, however the character of the resistance is changing as people come together in solidarity.  We reach out over state lines, across regions, across borders, across cultural and language barriers.  The people ultimately will not be denied.

Watch this powerful video and ask yourself just how far away we are from a similar moment in the U.S.?
How far are we from the transmission tipping point?  It's coming faster than you might think...
1 Comment

How FirstEnergy is Systematically Dismantling the Former Allegheny Energy

7/21/2013

5 Comments

 
Interesting article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  It seems like the locals are a bit miffed at the way Ohio-based FirstEnergy has been slowly cannibalizing former Pittsburgh energy star Allegheny Energy.

That echoes an anonymous sentiment I saw in an online forum yesterday, where it was said that FirstEnergy is wrecking what used to be a good company.  It's all about the stockholder dividends anymore.  FirstEnergy doesn't give a damn about its customers, or the communities where it does business.

FirstEnergy made all sorts of glittering promises to regulators and communities in order to get its merger approved, and has been systematically violating its promises ever since.

FirstEnergy just doesn't care if you don't like it, little customers.  The company has a monopoly in this state, step in line and take what you are served.
But, FirstEnergy's monopoly state franchise isn't irrevocable.  Look what's happening in another town that got fed up with a different out-of-state utility conglomerate...
5 Comments

What is Market Manipulation?

7/20/2013

1 Comment

 
Electric market manipulation is becoming mainstream news lately.  In the comments section of my post about renewal of the PJM Market Monitor's contract this week, manipulative banksters JP Morgan and Barclays were mentioned.  Just to be clear, JP Morgan and Barclays have been accused of manipulating electricity markets in California, other western markets, and midwest states.  They have not been accused of manipulation in PJM (at least not in these big, high profile cases).  Is that a good thing or a bad thing?  Does it mean that these banksters haven't been playing games and skimming on PJM's electricity market, or does it simply mean that they haven't been caught yet?

The Wall Street Journal had a big, splashy article about market manipulation the other day.  It's got some really great graphics that explain one way that these banksters have manipulated the market in such simple terms that anyone can understand it.  Bankster offers electricity in the next day market at a really low price, then jacks up the price when it comes time to actually sell it.  The buyer decides not to buy it after all, because it's too expensive.  Bankster collects what's known as a "make-whole payment" from the buyer in exchange for being ready to supply power.

Maybe the WSJ's graphic designer needs to go work for FERC or Monitoring Analytics to make their reports and explanations of market manipulation sexy enough for water cooler chat, too.

Here's FERC's attempt to be scary with talk about fraud and attempts to deceive.  Any ordinary consumer reading this would still have no idea what market manipulation really is.

Here's the PJM Market Monitor's 2012 State of the Market Report.  Boring!  You'd have to be a real geek to even enjoy flipping through it.  But wait, Monitoring Analytics has produced a "Press Briefing" version that includes some explanation of what they do and what happened in 2012 as represented by a bunch of graphs!

Where's the comic book version?


There isn't one.  Therefore, if it wasn't for our friendly, neighborhood banksters, we wouldn't even be discussing market manipulation in the first place.  And market monitors and regulators wouldn't be today's pop culture rock stars.  And try though they may, FERC and Monitoring Analytics seem to be incapable of dumbing this stuff down enough so that the average consumer can understand it, much less find it interesting.

The WSJ article explains one scheme that was uncovered.  There are probably hundreds more going on right now, and hundreds more being devised.  As soon as the regulators close one loophole, the banksters start manipulating another.  It's a never-ending battle.

Deregulation and competitive markets don't benefit consumers.  It actually costs them money.
1 Comment

WV PSC Refuses to Dismiss Potomac Edison Investigation and Orders Monthly Monitoring, Public Comment Hearings -- Punitive Fines a Future Possibility

7/19/2013

0 Comments

 
The WV PSC issued an Order today refusing to dismiss the Potomac Edison/Mon Power general investigation of billing and meter reading practices as requested by the companies.

The PSC was unconvinced by the companies' claim that the matter has been resolved and should be dismissed.  The Commission believes the data Staff and FirstEnergy filed indicate the need for further investigation and do not justify dismissing this matter as resolved and therefore FirstEnergy's request to dismiss is denied.

The Commission made the following FINDINGS OF FACT:

1. The Commission opened a general investigation into the meter reading, billing and customer service practices of FirstEnergy. June 7, 2013 Commission Order.
2. FirstEnergy reported that 5.3 percent of its customers received two consecutive estimated bills and a further 2.2 percent received three consecutive estimated bills in the May 2013 billing cycle. July 1, 2013 FirstEnergy Filing at 8.
3.  Approximately 44 percent of FirstEnergy customers in West Virginia were unable to resolve a billing problem in their first customer service call in 2013. Id. at 12.
4. Staff reported that it has received an increasing number of informal complaints regarding FirstEnergy billing practices. July 15, 2013 Staff Reply.


The Commission was unconvinced by FirstEnergy's desperate posturing attempting to show that everything is hunky dory, and tells the company who's boss:

"The Commission also takes this opportunity to emphasize that the purpose of this proceeding is to ensure that FirstEnergy takes the steps necessary to provide reliable service and accurate billing. The Commission will not prematurely rush this matter or
close the proceeding until FirstEnergy demonstrates that its billing accurately reflects customer usage on a consistent basis and has implemented responsive service practices.
"

The Commission intends to stop FirstEnergy's reign of terror, therefore FirstEnergy must now be monitored like a wayward teenager:

"In this case, the Commission believes that it should immediately begin collecting data to allow it to monitor certain aspects of FirstEnergy customer service. This data will assist the Commission and the parties in this proceeding by generating a statistical benchmark for determining improvement or decline in service quality and providing empirical data that demonstrates whether the problems have been resolved as contended by FirstEnergy."

Beginning August 15, 2013, and continuing for one year, the required monthly submissions should include the following information:

1. Current customer contact center metrics collected by FirstEnergy.
2. The number and percentage of customers with two or more consecutive estimated bills rendered.
3. The current number of budgeted meter reader positions and the current number of meter readers employed.
4. The current status of the project to re-number meters and adjust meter routes.
5. The steps taken to adjust or improve the current enhanced estimation algorithm.
6. The number and percentage of meter rereads.
7. The number of complaints handled by the customer contact center with a breakdown by complaint type.
8. The number and percentage of customer complaints resolved on the first call to the FirstEnergy call center.
9. The number of customers placed on a deferred payment plan and note the percentage of those with two or more consecutive estimated bills
.

The Commission also ordered:

"Further, Staff must review the reports FirstEnergy will file and promptly submit an analysis of the new data after three and six months of those filings. The Commission, however, expects Staff to continue to investigate this matter beyond the analysis prescribed by this Order and recommend further steps as needed.

The Commission will monitor the monthly filings and expects FirstEnergy to demonstrate improvement consistent with its representations in the July 1, 2013 filing that the underlying problems are resolved. The Commission will determine the need for further action after approximately six months of statistical filings and will issue a subsequent Order that may either call this matter for an evidentiary hearing or prescribe an appropriate alternative. The Commission will also hold public comment hearings in the FirstEnergy service areas after it receives and reviews the first two monthly reports."


The Commission reasserts its authority and hopefully strikes a little fear in FirstEnergy's flippant little corporate heart by reciting possible future outcomes:

"The Commission cannot at this time conclusively determine what future action might be necessary if
current trends continue, possible future interventions may include (i) requiring more costly monthly meter reading instead of bimonthly readings, (ii) fixing minimum meter reading staff levels and practices, (iii) creating financial rate penalties tied to statistical performance or (iv) requiring FirstEnergy to retain a consultant to revise its integration process."


The Commission has even issued a press release.


It's time to stop playing around now, FirstEnergy, quit denying there is a problem, and get down to the serious business of making amends with your customers.
0 Comments

Clueless Blogger Silverstein Pretends He Knows What Consumers Want

7/17/2013

6 Comments

 
The arrogant energy industry and their paid media pimps continually pretend they know what consumers want.  They believe that if they write and publish enough lies that consumers will start to believe them.

Not.

Forbes "contributor" Ken Silverstein tells us that "Utilities would have an easier time building transmission lines if it were not for a feisty public, which generally feels that those ugly lines ought to be built somewhere else."

Really?  This guys bills himself as "editor-in-chief for Energy Central's EnergyBiz Insider. With a background in economics and public policy, I've spent two decades writing about the issues that touch the energy and financial sectors. My EnergyBiz column has twice been named Best Online Column by two different media organizations."  However, his NIMBY name calling merely showcases his complete ignorance of the dynamics of current transmission policy debate.  Is he really this clueless, or is he merely posturing for the crowd to parrot power company propaganda?

Let's take a look at just a few of the facts Silverstein gets wrong:

1.    "...the transmission grid is aging and it needs to be updated and expanded so that it can fulfill the needs of consumers — many of whom don’t want those unsightly lines near them."

WRONG!  The transmission grid was not designed to wheel energy from coast to coast to fill the pockets of greedy traders.  The industry is not spending enough capital "upgrading" for any real need, but has been banging its head against a brick wall attempting to "expand."  Let's look at just one example:  While PATH was shooting blanks attempting to get its new build project approved, Dominion slipped in and quietly punked AEP/FirstEnergy with the rebuild of an existing line that completely obviated the PATH project.

Consumer issues center on NEED and COST.  It's not about NIMBY anymore.  How loud do you suppose Silverstein would squeal if someone routed a transmission line through his own backyard?  Silverstein loves new transmission... as long as there's no personal sacrifice on his part involved and it's not in his backyard, therefore, Silverstein is the real NIMBY.

2.    "Inevitably, disputes emerge that typically center on the potential ecological harm that a given line may take. In other instances, the arguments are that the development is occurring in states that will not get the benefit of the added electricity, or that it would increase the usage of coal.

Such was the case when American Electric Power and FirstEnergy Corp. tried to build the so-called Potomac Appalachian Transmission High-Line, which would have stretched 275 miles from West Virginia into Maryland. The PJM Interconnection, which coordinates the transmission planning for the MidAtlantic states, has now withdrawn the project. It has done the same for Pepco Holding’s Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway, although both concepts could get resurrected once the economy is in full swing."


WRONG!  PJM cancelled the PATH project because it was not needed, not because of cost allocation, environmental or coal-related issues.  The opposition to PATH was ALWAYS based on the fact that the project was not needed. 

PATH and MAPP are not going to be "resurrected," and neither is an energy-wasting economy that increases energy demand.  Consumers in the PJM region are already on the hook for the quarter billion dollars wasted developing the unneeded PATH project, a project that will never provide consumers with any benefits.  None.  Zero.  PATH and MAPP were part of an industry money-making scheme named Project Mountaineer and were never needed for reliability or market efficiency.

3.    "While the concerns and the subsequent legal battles are well intended, they oftentimes perpetuate uncertainty. That is, investors are skeptical because they can make more money in alternative investments while the delays impede reliability. And if brownouts or rolling blackouts occur, the financial toll can mount."

WRONG! Brownouts and blackouts?  I haven't heard that kind of fear-mongering since PATH got shelved.  Get a grip, Silverstein.  You and I both know that is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.  Silverstein goes on about new transmission needed for renewables and then tosses in the blackouts invective?  Sorry, but the lights will not go out if renewables can't be transported coast-to-coast. 

Investors are salivating at the prospect of plunking their dollars into transmission investments making double-digit returns, despite the industry's "the sky is falling" whining.  As well, transmission projects can and do request formula rates and incentives that provide them with a continual return during the development and construction period.  There's absolutely no risk to transmission investors.  None.  Zero. 

Maybe Silverstein should do some research before he approaches a keyboard in the future.  There's plenty of information to be had on this website.  Maybe Silverstein could learn a few things about his topic here?  And maybe, just maybe, he might want to consult a consumer before writing more folderol about what they want.


6 Comments

WV PSC Smells a Potomac Edison Rat

7/16/2013

1 Comment

 
The staff of the West Virginia Public Service Commission filed their comments and initial staff memorandum yesterday regarding the general investigation of Potomac Edison's and Mon Power's billing and meter reading practices.  You may read the memo here.

The staff gets really, really close to determining the probable cause of the most recent problem. 
Of particular note is that on about April 1, 2012 MP and PE changed over from the prior Allegheny Power billing system to the billing system of FirstEnergy. 
Within the eleven months prior to the initiation of the general investigation, customers of the Companies filed  approximately 750 Requests for Assistance (RFAs) related to billing practices in addition to nearly seventy formal complaints.
Staff noted a significant increase in RFAs concerning the Companies' billings beginning in January 2013, particularly RFAs directly related to estimated bills.
Ut-oh, FirstEnergy!  Maybe the company should tell the PSC what happened now, before the staff figures it out for itself?  Maybe the staff needs just a little help?  The longer this goes on, the harder it's going to be for FirstEnergy to admit to the real problem and create a story for why it's being covered up. 

The PSC isn't convinced that all the problems are "in the rearview mirror."
A major Staff concern is the future impact on MP and PE customers affected by recent problems whether storm related, related to meter reading staffing problems, or route renumbering projects that have been unreasonably billed. Since both estimation methods generally rely on historical usage data, how is MP, in the customer example of Attachment 3, going to produce reasonable usage estimates for that customer in the forthcoming "winter heating season" given the obviously bad usage data that has been generated? How for all other similarly affected MP and PE customers?

Staff is very concerned that the unreasonable billings sent to  customers who previously received bills based on unreasonable estimates will be  self-perpetuating. As both the estimation methods generally rely on historical usage data, it seems likely that MP and PE will produce unreasonable usage estimates in the future because they are relying on historical bad usage data the utilities based on bad estimates. Staff does not currently agree that the Companies' recently implemented initiatives, set forth on Page 14 of its report, are sufficient to resolve this proceeding without further investigation.
The staff isn't buying FirstEnergy's storm-related excuses for not reading customer meters:
The Companies report that it reassigned meter readers to assist in storm restoration after Super Storm Sandy caused damage on October 30, 2012, which would account for MP averaging 27% of customers receiving consecutive estimated bills in November 2012 and PE averaging 23%. In December 2012, PE
continued to average 23% of customers receiving consecutive estimated bills and MP
averaged 31%.  While Super Storm Sandy went through West Virginia on October 30, 2012 FirstEnergy's responses and responses to individual complaints indicate that meter readers were reassigned to assist in storm restoration which presumably accounts for the November 2012 27% for MP and 23% for PE, but fails to explain why December 2012 was even greater for MP at 31% and the same for PE at 23%.
Technical Staff believes the trends shown on Attachments 1 and 2 are indicative of problems with the Companies' billing practices and cannot be attributed solely to the Summer 2012 Derecho and Super Storm Sandy.  The foregoing table and Attachments 1 and 2 indicate that MP and PE have current billing problems that are not likely to  disappear because the causes of those problems occurred in the past such as from the Derecho and Hurricane Sandy.
The PSC staff wasn't convinced by FirstEnergy's billing fish story, so the investigation will continue.
After reviewing the Companies' report and their responses to discovery requests, Staff believes it requires additional information in order formulate final recommendations in this general investigation proceeding. Staff is  seeking this information through a separately filed second set of discovery requests. Staff will continue to review this matter and submit final recommendations in accordance with a procedural schedule to be established by the Commission.
Don't miss your opportunity to help the PSC staff out by submitting your own comments!
1 Comment

PJM's New Transmission Feeding Frenzy

7/12/2013

4 Comments

 
The smartly renamed RTO Insider brings us word of a new feeding frenzy that has erupted at PJM: 
PJM’s first com­pet­i­tive trans­mis­sion project under FERC Order 1000 attracted pro­pos­als from five util­i­ties and three inde­pen­dent developers.

The pro­pos­als – to cor­rect sta­bil­ity issues at Arti­fi­cial Island, home of the Salem and Hope Creek nuclear plants, in Han­cocks Bridge N.J. – ranged from a new 230 kV line and sta­tion (esti­mated cost $54 mil­lion) to two new 500 kV lines (a pro­jected $1.5 bil­lion price tag).
Ever seen one of those TV clips where sharks go berserk feeding on the incapacitated corpse of a helpless animal?  The similarities are stunning.  Transmission builders are hungry, hungry, hungry for new projects where they can plunk down their "transmission spend" and spin the Wheel of Regional Cost Allocation and Incentive Returns to win big!

RTO Insider provides a run down of the proposals and a link to the July 10 PJM TEAC slide deck with more details and maps of each proposal (beginning on page 61).  I'm loving the way that RTO Insider makes the job of babysitting PJM so much easier for me!  No more random, inconvenient urges to go wade through PJM's webmaze to see what's new, and then going through all the trouble of running my find through the geek translator.  RTO Insider does all that for you!  Go get yourself a subscription now... because if you don't, I may know something you don't.

According to the RTO Insider's proposal list, all the proposals for Artificial Island include new transmission lines of various sizes.

It's just colorful lines on a map right now, isn't it?  It looks like someone at PJM had fun with their mouse and an RGB color chart, drawing proposed transmission lines across Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey.

Reality Check:  Each one of those lines runs through hundreds or thousands of backyards.  Real people, real property, real lives.  Will PJM spend any time contemplating the people whose way of life they are blithely sacrificing for the needs of others?  Will PJM consider the likelihood of opposition, environmental considerations, land values, or the welfare of affected individuals when choosing the winning proposal?  Will PJM notify the affected communities that there is a problem that needs to be solved by building new transmission lines in their area?  Will PJM consult with the communities to allow those possibly affected by the new project to weigh in on the proposal that is selected?

Of course not!  What do you think this is, a transparent democracy?  PJM will make its selection based on cost, or engineering, or other considerations (like which transmission company schmoozes best).  And then the winning bidder will begin planning their project and greasing the proper palms, carefully keeping their plans under wraps until they are ready to pull the rip cord and hold their public "open houses."  At that point, the transmission owner tells the people that the mysterious, unseen, regional transmission authority has ordered the company to build this project across the peoples' land and that there's nothing the transmission owner or the people can do about it.  The transmission owner's hands are tied and the peoples' fate is sealed!  What a load of crap!

These front-loaded fait accompli approaches never work.  The people will always want to backtrack to where the decision to build the transmission line was made in the first place.  They want to determine for themselves that there truly is no other option.  Meanwhile, the transmission owner pours buckets of ratepayer cash into astroturf front groups, dishonest TV commercials, smarmy land agents, political palm greasing, and celebrity spokeswhores, trying to convince the people, and ultimately the state regulators, that the project really is needed. 

There's got to be a better way.

Good luck with that, PJM.

Residents of Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey -- we'll get to know each other real soon, won't we?  *sigh*
4 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.