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

Like a Moth to a Flame

11/14/2012

3 Comments

 
PATH never could resist having the last word in any argument, even if doing so burned PATH like a moth circling too close to an enticing flame.

PATH didn't disappoint today and filed a second "response" to the answer of one of the other parties to PATH's answer to protests of its abandonment filing at FERC.

Old Dominion Electric Cooperative filed an answer to PATH's answer last week pointing out that PATH was only remaining a "member" of PJM in order to collect an extra half a percentage point of interest over the amortization period.  Since PATH does not plan to own any transmission that would receive benefit from a PJM membership, the extra interest to be derived from this "membership" is just another way to gouge consumers without any corresponding benefit.  ODEC also pointed to PATH's ridiculous contention that its parent companies' memberships in PJM entitled PATH to receive this benefit.

What is it that PATH fails to understand here?  Sec. 219 of the Energy Policy Act directs FERC to "provide for incentives to each transmission utility or electric utility that joins a Transmission Organization."  Now that PATH's project is abandoned and PATH has no plans to own any other transmission, ever, PATH is no longer a "transmission utility or electric utility."  Therefore, PATH is no longer eligible to retain this incentive.  Does someone need to draw PATH a picture?  Any further answers or responses should include artwork, preferably in crayon.

In their "response" today, PATH rambles on accusing ODEC of conflating and confusing PATH's answer.  Fail!  Considering that I read the same thing in PATH's answer that ODEC did, chances are that the Commission will also read it that way, despite PATH's suicidal attempt today to rehabilitate its own bleary legal work.  And speaking of bleary legal work... who is the "Virginia Service Corporation Commission" that PATH mentioned in their "response" today?  Any parties here by that name?  Didn't think so.  Thanks for the laugh, PATH!  Watch out for that fire, it's hot!
3 Comments

FirstEnergy:  First at Wasting Energy!

11/14/2012

0 Comments

 
That's the three foot tall slogan emblazoned on a bunch of new billboard ads in Ohio.
Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign has initiated the advertising campaign to make Ohio's FirstEnergy customers aware of how FirstEnergy is ripping them off by failing to pass on energy efficiency benefits and to generate consumer comments at the Public Utilities Commission.  Check out the campaign's website here.  The very observant may even get a deja vu feeling while reading ;-)

Read an article about the billboards where our lil' Coalfella whines about how unfair the campaign is.  Really?  FirstEnergy wants to whine about unfair right about now?  Ha ha ha ha.  Karma's a real bitch, boys!  Now sit back and watch how generating comments at PUCO is done.  You might want to take notes to use during your next little public tiff with AEP.
0 Comments

Windbag Lobbyists Take it Right to the Top Posing as "Bi-Partisan" Group

11/14/2012

1 Comment

 
Ooops!  PJM's Terry Boston let the wind industry's scheming out of the bag yesterday at some "event" on fostering transmission investment and clean energy resources in the Southeast.

"The Bipartisan Policy Center is working with power industry representatives and plans to send recommendations early next year to President Barack Obama on transmission and electricity policy, the head of PJM Interconnection said Wednesday."

Say what?

According to this article in Platts, Boston said, "FERC's current rule on cost allocation of new transmission lines is to assign costs to those who benefit from the lines, but for interstate projects to move renewable resources through several states, some states may feel left out and that is a big challenge for the industry to address."

Left out?  Is that how the industry that stands to profit from long-distance transmission lines "for midwest wind" is going to color those states being used as a pass-through for these lines?  You're darn right we're going to feel "left out" when other states' renewable portfolio standards require us to give up our land for new rights-of-way and pay for construction of a transmission line that only benefits citizens of another state.  It's not going to happen, even if the lobbyists do whisper sweet nothings in Obama's ear while writing campaign contribution checks.  Bi-partisan, my eye!

Let's take a look at the people involved here.  While they may be politically bi-partisan, there's an even scarier partisanship going on here than anything the Democrats or Republicans could dream up.  It's all about the money, boys!  It's big business vs. the consumers they plan to rob blind.

John Jimison, a former US House of Representatives staffer and current managing director of Americans for a Clean Energy Grid:  Americans for a Clean Energy Grid is nothing but a front group for industry that stands to rake in the cash by turning the midwest into "the Saudi Arabia of wind" and shipping it to both coasts via $300B of new high-voltage transmission lines that we don't need, can't afford, and that will only serve to render the grid more fragile and vulnerable.  This front group is a transmission owner's dream$come$true because they've reined in the big environmental organizations to act as their lackeys to promote transmission development for "clean energy."  The environmental fantasy these patsys see fails to recognize that once this "green" grid is built (with consumer funds, remember that) it's going to transport fossil fueled energy because the grid is open access and "wind" won't be able to compete on a price basis.  Only through government subsidies and state mandates will costly "wind" power be viable.  This front group has been busy holding real old fashioned kool aid socials around the country.  In fact, we may have infiltrated one earlier this year ;-)  Just remember, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, check out the "sponsors" of these propaganda fests.

Former Congressman Rich Boucher:  Now employed as the "head" of energy lobbying firm Sidley Austin's "government strategies group."  Lobbyist.  Not "bi-partisan" but protecting the interests of his well-heeled energy company clients.

Former Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Curt Hebert:  Currently the Chief Executive Officer of Lexicon Strategy Group, LLC.  Lexicon Strategy Group " specializes in risk assessment and developing appropriate business strategies to mitigate the impact of adverse legislative and regulatory policies. Our legal team provides regulatory expertise to electric and gas clients for issues including exploration/production, generation, transmission, distribution and securities."  How do they do that?  "Coalition Building, Third Party Advocacy, Constituent Recruitment, Governmental Management (Federal and State), Federal and State Energy Policy Development,
Advocacy Campaigns."  You know, all the best front group propaganda techniques.

And, of course, the partisanship to the energy companies that own him of our dear friend Terry Boston from the PJM Cartel is already legendary.

Well, guess what, lobbyist friends?  The consumers who make up the 99% aren't on board with your money making schemes, and the states who currently control transmission siting approvals aren't on board with your attempts to usurp their authority, and guess what?  There's more of us than there are of you.  See you at the White House!

1 Comment

FERC to Issue Decision on Transmission Incentives Reform November 15

11/9/2012

0 Comments

 
It's been so long you've probably forgotten all about FERC's Notice of Inquiry on Promoting Transmission Investment Through Pricing Reform.  Thankfully FERC hasn't.

The NOI, issued in May 2011, solicited public comment on FERC's policies for awarding financial incentives to transmission projects.  And the public responded.  FERC was deluged with hundreds of comments from elected officials, corporate beneficiaries of the incentives, trade groups, and most importantly an avalanche of comments from the most significant "stakeholders" of all -- you, the consumer who pays for the incentives.

Yesterday, FERC issued the agenda for its November 15 public meeting.  Item E-3 is expected to be the first word from the Commission on how incentives policy will be reformed.

If you submitted a comment, you will be served with a copy of the Commission's order after the meeting concludes.

The Commission may comment on the order during the meeting.  You may watch a webcast of the meeting here.  Look under "News and Commission Meetings" to find the link to the video.

And pat yourself on the back... it's time to harvest the fruit of citizen action!
0 Comments

PATH Has 121 Million Reasons Why Its Spending Wasn't Imprudent

11/7/2012

0 Comments

 
Although FERC rules prohibit an answer to a protest, PATH has 121 million reasons to ignore the rule and waste everyone's time simply rehashing and reiterating its original section 205 filing to collect its stranded $121M investment in its failed PATH project.  Exceptions can be made by the Commission if the answer provides new information that informs the Commission's decision.  Did PATH bother to provide any new information in its answer?  Perhaps they should have highlighted any actual "new" information to make it more easily detected among all the flimsy excuses and incorrect information.

PATH tells the Commission that although it has the ability to suspend proposed changes to existing rates, that PATH's changes to the Formula Rate (which is PATH's rate) aren't changes to its rate after all.  PATH also urges the Commission to hurry up and approve the changes to its Formula Rate without hearing because PATH has submitted a fraudulent 2013 Projected Transmission Revenue Requirement that they need to revise before January 1, 2013.

PATH believes the Commission should summarily reject protests that the company had control over the abandonment of its project, otherwise, PJM's authority will be undermined!  Would that be a bad thing, really?  PJM's imprudent actions brought about by its Project Mountaineer initiative to build new transmission to increase the use of coal-fired resources, and intended to provide significant profit to its favored incumbents, has just cost millions of consumers in its region a quarter billion dollars for the failed PATH project alone, not to mention the additional amount wasted on the also-cancelled MAPP project.  How much more will PJM's erroneous and failed initiatives be permitted to steal from struggling electric consumers if this costly failure is swept under the rug and not examined?

PATH believes that it is entitled to receive an extra half of a percent interest on its abandoned plant during the amortization period.  The extra interest is a reward for membership in PJM.  PATH states that it intends to remain a member until the consumers finish paying for its project, although it does not intend to own any transmission during that time.  PATH is simply maintaining its membership to receive the extra interest.  Is this really prudent?  PATH whines that the Commission should not discriminate against it for the business structure it voluntarily constructed.  "Revisiting the 50 basis point ROE adder would deny AEP and FirstEnergy an opportunity to apply the ROE-based incentive adder to their abandoned plant investment in the PATH Project merely because of the business structure they chose as a vehicle for fulfilling the construction obligations assigned to them by PJM."  Bingo!  Ya know what, PATH?  Life ain't fair.  You set up that business structure voluntarily because it benefited you and now you're stuck with it.  Quit your sniveling and take your lumps.  Your parent company memberships in PJM do not make PATH eligible to receive this incentive either.  That was really PATH-etic!

PATH has 121 million excuses for why its spending wasn't imprudent.  After asking the Commission to set the issue of prudence for a hearing wherein the prudence of its expenses can be debated, PATH wastes page after page trying to justify its spending on things like property and option purchases.  So, PATH, do you want a hearing or do you want the Commission to rule here?  It's hard to tell.  PATH falsely accuses protestors of not providing any "basis or support" for prudence challenges and proceeds to neglect to provide any "support or basis" for its own contentions that the spending was prudent, except for the ridiculous assertion that AEP and FE routinely buy property before a permit is received.  PATH holds its parent companies up as the industry standard in the face of evidence showing that one of these same parents doesn't buy land prior to the issuance of a permit.  So, was AEP lying to the Department of Energy earlier this year or are they lying to FERC now?  Inquiring minds want to know.

PATH attempts to color all its property purchases the same.  The reality is that PATH was split into two different companies, PATH-West Virginia (owned 50-50 by AEP and FE) and PATH-Allegheny (owned 100% by FE).  PATH-WV made minimal land purchases for substation sites and was slower to option property.  However PATH-Allegheny purchased lots of property that had nothing to do with substations and was quick to option property long before the permit process had even begun rolling.  This is a distinction that most likely has roots in the two different corporate philosophies behind the PATH project.  Now AEP gets to help FE hold its little doggie bag of imprudence, however.  Didn't your mommy ever tell you that you will be known by the company you keep, AEP?

PATH goes out of its way to admit that its property purchases in River's Edge were for the purposes of forcing the release of a conservation easement.  PATH goes into a long diatribe attempting to justify its imprudent property purchases as cost saving measures.  Yes, that's right, if PATH had not attempted to nullify a conservation easement in which Loudoun County had invested taxpayer funding, it would have cost more to re-route the line around it (using the most destructive route possible in an attempt to make releasing the conservation easement and allowing PATH's preferred route look preferable).  This same theme continues in flimsy justifications for other purchases.  PATH claims if it had not bought certain properties, it would have had to route its line around them in order to avoid homes or other obstacles.  Is this what PATH told landowners?  That if they didn't prefer to voluntarily sell their property that PATH would simply route their line around the property?  No, of course not.  PATH told landowners that if they didn't sell voluntarily that the company would take the property by eminent domain or simply "run the line right over the top of your house."  So, now PATH wants to test its word against that of thousands of landowners?  Isn't this going to be fun?

PATH also points out to the Commission that other abandoned projects that requested much, much smaller recoveries were not RTO-ordered projects.  So, I guess PATH's point must be that when there is some risk to the transmission owner that spending is prudently curtailed.  However, in PATH's case it was a giant, bleeding spend-a-thon because PATH believed that ratepayers were on the hook for all of it.  Now when the specter of shareholders being responsible for some or all of PATH's spending spree rears its ugly head, all of a sudden the amount of spending becomes a big deal.  Don't you just love karma?

So, now it's up to the FERC Commissioners to wade through the facts presented and make a decision that ensures that PATH's rates are just and reasonable.




0 Comments

How PJM's "Independent" Market Costs You Money - Updated

11/5/2012

1 Comment

 
The Chairman of the Maryland PSC isn't accepting PJM's flimsy excuses for conducting secret meetings to revise the MOPR.  Nazarian's latest letter to PJM says:

"We also are struggling to understand how the process now under way can constitute an appropriate stakeholder process for tariff revisions as significant as these. Stakeholders Manual 34, which authorizes "User Groups" to debate a specific market design problem (see Paragraph 5.5 at p. 14), still requires published notice to all members that the process is to take place, requires that other interested stakeholders be permitted to participate, and requires PJM to post agendas and  summaries of meetings on the PJM webpage. None of  this happened during the secret negotiations. Moreover, the "ad hoc stakeholder group" discussions took place over a period of at least three months - as we  understand it, discussions began in June and continued well into September- during which the invited parties had the opportunity to get detailed input from PJM and the IMM and to analyze different options in depth. The rest of us get less than half that time to understand and analyze and react to a complicated set of revisions that were reduced to proposed tariff pages only last Friday. Put another way, the parties to the exclusive negotiations ran out most of the clock and have left the rest of us to scramble against a deadline driven only by PJM's and the proponents' self-interested desire to have these changes in place for the May 2013 Base Residual Auction."

New Jersey's Director of Rate Counsel, Stefanie Brand, also throws a few logs on the PIG roasting fire.  Her letter gets extra points for snarky use of quotation marks.

"As we understand it, the proposed MOPR changes arose from dissatisfaction on the part of certain suppliers that the previous changes to MOPR, which are currently on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, were insufficient to thwart what they viewed as "outcomes that are inconsistent with a  competitive market." These suppliers then engaged other select PJM members in confidential discussions regarding changes to the MOPR to address their concerns. At some point, PJM itself and the Independent Market Monitor (IMM) were brought into this process and, in joining it, agreed not to inform any other interested PJM members of the discussion or invite them to participate without the agreement of the other group members. Eventually, and apparently with the group's agreement, PJM reached out to a select group of "load" interests to participate. Their participation, too, was  specifically conditioned on agreeing to maintain the secrecy of these discussions. Not surprisingly, the proposal that resulted from this closed-door process addressed the specific concerns of the PJM members who participated in the discussions, at the expense of the interests of the PJM members who were intentionally excluded. Indeed, the discussions were aimed at  developing "solutions" designed specifically to  exacerbate, not resolve, the matters of concern to the excluded PJM members."

and

"...certain members were invited into the process by PJM itself. PJM should not be choosing which members are allowed at the table, particularly when the invitation comes with a requirement that the process be kept secret from other interested members."

and

"That PJM views the interests of 27 large users as more worthy of consideration than the millions of customers represented by the consumer advocates underscores the perception that PJM favors the interests of certain members over others."

and

"While packaged as a series of exemptions and criteria, the intent is obvious: to thwart the actions of those States to address capacity shortages and implement policy judgments about resource choices."

and

"PJM has no business involving itself in efforts by the
incumbent suppliers to control the "competitive" market in which they participate
."

And finishes up threatening to "...pursue all remedies to prevent PJM and the proposal's proponents from  usurping the States' role under the FPA."

Update:  The Maryland Office of People's Counsel has also written to PJM.  In their letter the MPC requests that PJM throw the "secret" proposal out the window and start fresh with all stakeholders.  MPC also says:

"MPC is in the process of evaluating the proposal and forming positions on it.  However, it appears that the proposal is founded on the notion that certain actions that  result in new capacity are "legitimate" and some are not. PJM should focus its attention on administering the electricity markets for the resources that participate in those markets and not on deciding which actions are legitimate and which are not.  Furthermore, from the perspective of customers who rely on electricity to meet their daily household and business needs, there is nothing illegitimate about a State directing utilities in its jurisdiction to take action that results in new generation that the State believes is in the long-term best interest of that State. While such an action may affect markets, the creation of rules to prevent such action is not administering the market but attempting to assure certain outcomes. PJM's role should not be to assure price levels or targets."

Well, PJM is certainly scoring some important collaboration points with the states, isn't it?  Just more of the same old lobbying and influence being exerted at the PJM cartel by their profit-hungry power company "members."  This time it's especially egregious because the supposedly "independent" market monitor also jumped aboard the S.S. PIG.  The market monitor probably isn't playing favorites among PJM's unruly children.  However, the market monitor refuses to admit that its market is a complete and utter failure that ends up costing millions of electric consumers extra money every month.

PJM's "market" is supposed to bring you low cost electricity.  Generation and transmission is supposed to be driven by "market" need.  Because the market is not properly stimulating new generation entries, states such as New Jersey and Maryland are paying some of the highest electricity prices in the country.  Instead of waiting for the market to prompt new generation in those states, PJM is instead jumping the gun to provide "low cost" electricity to those areas by importing its incumbent PIG's existing generation via new high voltage transmission lines such as TrAIL, PATH, Susquehanna-Roseland and MAPP.  The "market" never had a chance to work.

New generation in New Jersey and Maryland will be paid for by the consumers in those states.  Transmission lines are paid for by all PJM consumers, including those in states far from New Jersey and Maryland.  This costs you money, if you don't live in New Jersey or Maryland.  However, the big Ohio Valley generators are currently sitting on a glut of generation they can't sell as demand continues to tank.  Companies like AEP and FirstEnergy are in big financial trouble if they can't find new markets for their dirty, coal-fired generation.  FirstEnergy recently scaled back one of its plants because there was no market for it.  Last week, FirstEnergy laid off a whole bunch of employees.  Tough times, FirstEnergy?  Awww... that's too bad :-)

New Jersey and Maryland got tired of waiting for PJM's market to work, so they came up with their own laws to encourage the building of new generation in their own states.  This upset the incumbent generation PIGs, who feared losing a profitable, captive market for their dirty product.  So, the PIGs changed the MOPR (Minimum
Offer Price Rule) to prevent new generation from being built.  The states fought vigorously, but lost when FERC agreed with PJM.  However, even under the new rules, New Jersey's and Maryland's new plants cleared PJM's RPM auction this year.  In response, the greedy little PIGS got together to hold secret meetings to craft even more changes to the MOPR, hoping to stop new generation for good.  Now they've been caught and called out for their scheming.

PJM's "market" doesn't work because its incumbent PIGS won't allow it to work.  Consumers deserve better.



1 Comment

Regulatory Capture - The Industry-funded Puppet Dance

11/3/2012

0 Comments

 
I've been following a blog written by an experienced and well-respected utility regulation attorney that has been doing a monthly series on regulatory capture.  This week, I finally read the last article in the series.

“REGULATORY CAPTURE” III — AVOIDING AND ESCAPING provides useful advice for captured regulators like West Virginia's Public Service Commission and the government officials who perpetuate this scenario.  Most importantly, it provides a road map for affected citizen consumers to create their own plan of action to effect change in Charleston and put a stop to the practices that hold them captive to out-of-state utility money-making schemes.

Read the first two installments in the regulatory capture series here, along with other interesting topics.  Time well spent!
0 Comments

FirstEnergy: Choosing Shareholder Dividends Over Consumer Reliability

10/30/2012

8 Comments

 
Why does my office smell like french fries today?  It must be because I'm camped out at McDonald's... again.  The number and duration of electric outages has been increasing lately.

Over a cup of camp stove coffee this morning, I was treated to front page quotes from my favorite useless FirstEnergy flack:

"We have multiple disciplines for multiple different jobs just ready and waiting to go," Meyers said. "I know you'll begin to see them move into certain areas. Exactly where and when, I can't tell you, because we still need to see where the need will be, but we're pretty confident that we'll be in need."

"Pretty confident that we'll be in need?"  That's probably because continued scrimping on system maintenance has once again caused outages, and those outages are accepted and expected by the utility.

FirstEnergy is charging you money every month under the guise of maintaining their system.  But if they don't spend the entire amount they collect, it gets added to the corporate bottom line to increase quarterly dividends.  FirstEnergy will whine that they spend more than they collect every once in a while to repair storm damage.  But, is anyone keeping track of this to true up what's collected with what's spent?  No, of course not.  And when a storm causes extensive damage, FirstEnergy will go and whine to the WV PSC that they need to collect extra to cover their storm expenses... and the PSC usually grants their request.

Therefore, FirstEnergy increases profits and shareholder dividends by failing to spend money maintaining its system, and maintenance failure causes unnecessary outages.  FirstEnergy is throwing consumers under the bus in order to bow and scrape at the throne of profit.

P.S.  My power is back on.  I guess Todd didn't want to stop by and help us eat our melted ice cream after all.
8 Comments

PATH Files Motion to Consolidate 

10/26/2012

0 Comments

 
PATH wants FERC to consolidate its recently-filed request to recover capital in abandoned plant with outstanding Challenges to their expenses in 2009 and 2010 because "administrative efficiency strongly supports consolidation of all issues in Docket Nos. ER09-1256-000 and ER12-2708-000."

The same way oil and water mix to create koolaid, I'm sure.  Read the Motion Opposing Consolidation filed October 29.

In typical PATH fashion, the filing wasn't properly served on parties and wasn't properly docketed in ER12-2708-000, so here's your unofficial notice.
0 Comments

Trick or Treat, PATH?

10/23/2012

0 Comments

 
West Virginia Consumer Advocate Byron Harris has a bad case of Halloween-itis.  In his comments on PATH's abandonment cost recovery case at FERC, Harris said of PATH:  "If you set out a big bowl of candy, people are going to reach their hands into it," said Byron Harris, director of the Consumer Advocate Division of the Public Service Commission of West Virginia. "That's what they're doing."

If Byron thinks that the $121M is "candy" that PATH is eating, he's wrong.  The candy got eaten by landowners who sold or optioned property, fancy $500/hr DC lawyers who were only too happy to do PATH's dirty work, government-parasite contractor The Louis Berger Group, snake oil salesman supply company Contract Land Services, perfidious public relations contractor Charles Ryan Associates, gun-jumping land clearing company Supreme Industries, and many other companies and individuals that had their hand in PATH's candy bowl.  They ate the candy and PATH is left with the empty bowl, which they now want to refill at consumer expense.

The $121M Byron is protesting is PATH's money that they (over)spent, without a care in the world.  After all, FERC had granted them an incentive guaranteeing  recovery of whatever they spent.  PATH's project managers, gladhanders and schmoozers neglected to read the fine print, however.  The fine print said "... prudently-incurred expenses if project is abandoned through no fault of the company."

Ut-oh, PATH, UT-OH!
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.