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

Ut-oh, GE!

11/2/2016

0 Comments

 
Well, whoop-de-diddly-doooo, Clean Line belched another huge cloud of public relations smoke yesterday designed to cover up the fact that it's going nowhere fast.

Clean Line has entered what it describes as a "partnership" with GE to build three AC/DC converter stations for its beleaguered Plains & Eastern Clean Line project.  Partnership?  I don't think so, because it sounds more like Clean Line simply hiring a supplier.... a supplier it has no money to pay.
This will be GE’s first HVDC project in the United States since acquiring Alstom’s energy portfolio last year. This addition to our portfolio was critical.
GE... trying to breathe new life into bad ideas.  This project, so "critical" to GE's business, has a long, long way to go before building anything.  I wonder if GE has read Clean Line's "Participation Agreement" with the U.S. DOE that requires the company to have financing in place before proceeding?  In order to get financing, Clean Line would need customers.  There are no customers for Plains & Eastern.  Where does GE think Clean Line is going to get the money to pay them for 3 converter stations?

I wonder if GE has heard about the lawsuit filed in federal court that alleges the U.S. DOE exceeded their statutory authority in their review and agreement to "participate" in this project?  Does GE know that the U.S. DOE does not have the authority to condemn and take easements for a Section 1222 project?  And without easements, there's no place for Clean Line to build anything.

Yeah, good luck with that, GE.

But, hey, at least GE beat rival Siemens to a worthless contract with a company that can't get its projects off the ground.  After years of patsy Siemens stumping for Clean Line in Arkansas, Clean Line dumped them and inked a contract with their rival.  And how awkward are things going to get in Houston, doing business with two rival companies?  Clean Line announced years ago that it had signed an "exclusive agreement" with Siemens to develop, design and implement the converter stations for its Rock Island project.  Now that Clean Line and GE have become the Plains & Eastern converter station Bobbsey Twins, is Siemens' Rock Island converter station "agreement" about to be reneged?  I'd have to think that GE must have given Clean Line a much better price for the Plains & Eastern converter stations than Siemens, and, if so, why is Clean Line content to pay more for Siemens converter stations for Rock Island?

Ahhh... the kerfuffles that can ensue when a company signs "exclusive agreements" to obtain supplies from vendors years in advance of final engineering.  Who does that?  Probably not the majority of transmission owners, who prefer to source a project competitively when they're actually ready to build and have financing in place to back up any contracts that they sign.

Or is this just the tip of the iceberg?  Will we now see Clean Line jettison a whole bunch of "exclusive agreements" when the rubber finally hits the road?

And I do wonder if GE will be required to use local labor to build the converter stations?  Since GE's real muscle is the former French company Alstom (gobbled up in 2015), will the actual components be built in France and merely shipped to U.S. sites for assembly by GE contractors?

None of this ridiculous fanfare about GE contracting to supply the converters is even necessary.  Other transmission owners don't need to drum up media interest every time they sign a contract with a supplier.  Clean Line does it because it allows them to hide behind a cloud of smoke and pretend their projects are making headway, instead of answering the hard questions, such as:

Where are the customers?
0 Comments

Clean Line Closing in on Darkened Lounge Journalism

10/19/2016

5 Comments

 
Picture
Well, isn't that nice?  Clean Line's Mark Lawlor got all chatty with the Missouri Times, who tried to create the fantasy that the Grain Belt Express transmission project is pretty much approved by the Missouri Public Service Commission.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

"Clean Line closing in on final order with the PSC"
appears to be the work of a journalist who doesn't understand the PSC process and prefers to present only one side of the story.  Clean Line isn't "closing in" on anything.  The parties (including those who oppose the project, because even if the story doesn't mention them, they still exist) are merely jockeying for position to develop a procedural schedule.  Big. Stinkin'. Deal.  This does not mean that the process has officially even started yet, but once it does, other parties will have opportunity to present evidence to the Commission and argue their position.  The positions of the opposition were enough to convince the PSC to deny GBE's first application in Missouri.  Nothing much has changed.  Except the propaganda... Clean Line is pouring that on real, real thick.

Does Clean Line think that the MO PSC is going to be swayed by propaganda and third party advocacy, instead of evidence and law?
The Grain Belt Express Clean Line wind energy project has made significant steps towards getting the final green light from the Public Service Commission.
Since the case hasn't even started yet, it remains to be seen if Clean Line's newest application will do anything to convince the PSC to approve the project.  Who decided "significant steps towards getting the final green light" have happened?  The Missouri Times?  Clean Line?  I'm sorry, but the only entity who can decide that is the MO PSC, and they haven't decided anything yet.  And what's this about a "final" green light?  This implies that a preliminary "green light" has already happened, and that's just not true.  It's been nothing but RED lights for Clean Line in Missouri so far.

And do you know why GBE "stalled" in July?  Because it filed an improper application in June that was rejected by the PSC.  "Stalled" isn't quite the proper word, denied is more apt.

So, the only "news" here is that the Missouri Times mistakenly believes "the case has officially started with the commission."  That's not news.  I'm pretty sure everyone already knows that.  And... wowzers, on the edge of your seat, folks... the PSC gave the go-ahead to finalize a public hearing schedule.  It doesn't mean the schedule is set or anything.  It means the parties are still arguing about it.  This is not news either.

So, Mark is excited.  I hope you're all excited, too.
“It wouldn’t make a lot of sense to build a line around Missouri,” Lawlor said, adding that he is confident the PSC will rule fairly on the merits of the project, not the factor. “They’re going to judge the case on its merits and whether it meets the standards that Missouri has under its statutes. They will ask, ‘Is there a need for the project and is it it in the public interest?’ We have put forth a strong argument that there’s a need.“
I'm also confident the PSC will rule fairly on the merits of the project.  And that GBE has done nothing much to create any "need" for its project.  Because, at the end of the day, Clean Line's "contract" with Missouri cities isn't binding.  The cities can elect not to participate at a later date, like when they find out that the purported wind energy they are going to have to purchase from another party in order to use GBE's capacity is much more expensive than Clean Line originally quoted.  Because Clean Line does not sell energy.  It can't price energy.  It can only sell transmission capacity, which amounts to an empty extension cord not plugged into any energy source.  Who buys an extension cord that's not plugged into anything and hopes a cheap generator gets built later on?  And guess what?  The lights will not go out in any Missouri city if Clean Line is not built.  And the cities can't even claim any savings from a Clean Line... because any savings are purely speculative at this point.  Without contracted energy, the cost to the Missouri cities is nothing but a big, fat, guess.  So, no need, no public interest, not a public utility. 

And all that blather about what some "Fortune 100" companies want is also a load of who shot John.  If these companies want renewable energy, there's nothing stopping them from buying it.  Right now.  Today.  And if they're really considering opening new facilities in locations where renewable energy is available, the prudent thing to do would be to locate the facilities near renewable energy generators, not in places where they have to pay transmission charges on a "clean" line.  We don't "need to do them" so the companies can pay extra for transmission.

And then Lawlor piles on some condescending "concern" for Missouri.  Don't be fooled... Mark's primary concern is turning a profit for his company, not providing electricity to Missouri.
While Indiana and Illinois signed onto the project before Missouri, Missouri was always seen as the most integral partner of the project. Lawlor says that belief can cause some to believe Missouri would not get much benefit out of the project, even though Missouri would get roughly 500 MW from wind energy as a result.

“Some folks get distracted this is something going through Missouri, the reality is that this is delivering power to Missouri,” he said. “From day one, it was just going to be a Kansas to Missouri line, but we found the Missouri grid couldn’t take that much power.

“Missouri’s key to this whole thing and we hope and expect we can bring those benefits to the state,” Lawlor said.
Missouri will only "get" roughly 500 MW of Clean Line's capacity if load serving entities actually purchase it.  Clean Line isn't giving "benefits" away for free.  If there are no purchasers, there are no "benefits."  And so far there are no firm purchasers.  Clean Line isn't delivering anything to Missouri, or any other state, without firm customers.  In fact, Lawlor forgot to mention that Clean Line's speculative "contract" with Missouri cities also proposes to sell capacity to the cities to export their dirty coal-fired power to other states.  If 500 MW comes in, and 500 MW goes out, what does Missouri get?  Fooled, that's what they'd get.

If Missouri is the key, Clean Line is in a heap of trouble.

So, what is it about The Missouri Times that makes them publish these kinds of stories?  The Gateway Journalism Review took a good, hard look at the Times earlier this year, and found a bunch of unpaid bills, unpaid taxes, and an editor who "was convicted by a Cape Girardeau County jury of three counts of felony forgery. In that case, he was accused of forging checks for an account for a highway expansion project."
A reporter attempted to interview Faughn about his companies’ money troubles. The Missouri Times is headquartered at 129 East High St. in Jefferson City. A reporter found Faughn there at the top of a two-story walkup, inside a darkened room resembling a lounge.

Faughn was standing behind a bar in the room with a laptop computer in front of him. Liquor bottles stood on shelves on the wall behind him. Black and white photos of politicians covered the other walls of the room.

Faughn declined a face-to-face interview. He said he would consider written questions sent by email. Questions were emailed March 17. Faughn acknowledged receiving them March 21, but said he could not respond until next week.

Faughn, the former mayor of Poplar Bluff, launched the Missouri Times in 2013 with former Missouri House Speaker Rod Jetton. Faughn was Jetton’s former campaign manager. Jetton has since severed ties with the operation.
Oh, I see.  This is the kind of publication that publishes glowing stories about Clean Line "closing in" on PSC approval.  It all makes sense now.
But what I really want to know, after reading this story, is when GBE is denied by the MO PSC for the second time, will Clean Line will finally go away?  After all, the story says a "final order" of the PSC is about to happen.  A final order on GBE's first application already happened, but the company has yet to go away.  Let's hope this time final means final.
5 Comments

Reporters Report News, They Are Not News

9/27/2016

8 Comments

 
NPR stooped to an all-time low yesterday when it "reported" on another reporter's one-sided story and didn't question the reporter's statements made on behalf of elected officials and landowners that were never interviewed for his story.

Arkansas Business reporter Kyle Massey stopped reporting the news and inserted himself into the story yesterday in NPR affiliate KUAR's "story" about the Plains & Eastern Clean Line.  Massey not only repeated his own story, but also made statements representing the positions of elected officials and mysterious "landowners" he never interviewed for his own story.  Must have been a pretty lazy day at KUAR, when reporter Michael Hibblen chose to let a reporter from another publication make statements on behalf of other people, instead of interviewing those people himself.  Ethics in journalism is dead at NPR.
Hibblen:  "So, I take it the property owners don't want to sell?"
Massey:  "Well, some of them don't want to sell.  And others sort of resent being forced to sell even though they may get a good price for the use of their land."
How many landowners did Massey interview for his story?  None are quoted in this story, so my guess here would be none.  Massey is assuming the position of landowners based on his interview with Clean Line Energy Partners.  It's not a fact, it's an assumption based on the opinion of a company who wants to take land from the subject landowners.  Who says landowners "may get a good price for use of their land?"  Did a landowner say that?  Only a landowner can determine if the price for use of their land is "good."
Massey:  "Well, the delegation would say the difference is that this is the benefit of private company that is Clean Line Energy Partners of Houston and it's a little different from an interstate in that Clean Line has not been declared a utility by the PSC so the Congressional delegation is framing this as an unprecedented partnership between the Department of Energy, which is backing this project, and a private company."
But did the delegation actually say that?  I didn't see Massey quote the delegation in his story either, so how factual is it for Massey to speak for them?
Hibblen:  "What would be the benefits of this project?"
Massey:  "Well there would be a few jobs in maintaining the line, but the main benefits would be to the landowners."
Did any landowner claim a benefit from this project?  I didn't see any landowners interviewed in Massey's story.  He's so far off the mark here!  Clean Line is doing nothing more than attempting to compensate landowners for use of their land.  Legally, it is supposed to be intended to make landowners whole for something taken from them.  It is not a "benefit."  Furthermore, landowners are only being offered Clean Line's idea of "compensation," which many landowners feel does not adequately compensate them for taking their land against their will.

Is Massey saying that the only reason Clean Line is proposing this project is to shower Arkansas landowners with monetary "benefits?"  That's ridiculous!  Clean Line is attempting to build this project first and foremost for its own profit.  It wants to take land from Arkansans for a one-time pittance and then use that land to make money for its corporate investors in perpetuity.

Massey also takes a position on  another monetary "benefit" for Arkansans:
"But the big number is the $147M in taxes that would flow to the 12 counties that the line crosses."
That's $147M over the estimated 40 year life of the project.  That's $3.6M per year, divided by 12 counties, to equal roughly $306,250 per county, per year.  What does that buy?  According to this news story, the annual budget of Crawford County, Arkansas, is more than $7.04M.  $306,250 is chump change in a budget that size.  In 2014, it cost $9,616 per year to educate the average public school student in Arkansas.  $306,250 divided by $9,616 is 31.8 students.  There are 37,122 tax payers in Crawford County.  $306,250 divided by 37,122 taxpayers equals $8.25 per taxpayer.  The cost for Crawford Countians to educate those 38 extra students without Clean Line's contribution would be $8.25 cents per taxpayer.  Clean Line is hardly reducing county taxes by any appreciable amount.  It's not really a "big number" after all.  Massey is assuming that Arkansans are a really cheap date if they would accept such a pittance in exchange for the burden of hosting a ginormous transmission line for 40 years.  How much would the transmission line reduce taxable property values during that 40 years?  How much would it cost the county in public safety spending over 40 years to support the building and maintenance of the transmission line, not to mention the additional cost of any accidents or line failures that Crawford County public safety officials have to deal with?  Is having this hazard in their community really worth what the county is being offered by Clean Line?

Massey claims "there would be cheap energy."  But he provides no facts to back up this presumption.  Does he have any firm quotes from wind energy suppliers?  Does he have any firm quotes on the cost of transmission for this energy?  No, he doesn't.

Massey claims there would be "lasting jobs" in Arkansas to supply the project.  Lasting how long?  Once the line is supplied, the jobs to manufacture parts go away.  Hurtado claims his project would take three years to build.  Therefore the jobs would be temporary, not "lasting."
Hibblen:  "Are the landowners and Clean Line talking possible settlements?"
Massey:  "Clean Line is negotiating with individual landowners and they have commitments with a great many of them as I understand it."
As he understands it.  Where did he get his "understanding?"  Was it from real estate records, or was it from Clean Line, who has a distinct self-interest to misrepresent the number of landowners who have "made commitments?"  Again, Massey doesn't quote any landowners for his information.

In addition, individual landowner "settlements" does not dispose of the legal issues regarding the U.S. Department of Energy's flawed interpretation of federal law to allow it to condemn property for this transmission line.  The lawsuit filed in federal court must be answered and adjudicated.

Massey shares that only "holdouts" are fighting it.  How many "holdouts" did Massey interview?  I would guess none.  How did Massey make his determination that the landowners who have not committed are "holdouts?"

Then he goes into advising landowners who are "holding out" that they are not "selling their land, they are only selling the easement."  I'm sorry, but Massey is not an attorney and has no business expounding on the legal ramifications of selling easements.  Landowners should consult a qualified attorney before selling anything.

Massey finishes up by stating that having an infrastructure project cross your land "can be emotional."  And he informs Hibblen that these landowners "can feel resentment toward being forced to give up any land that they don't want to relinquish."

That sounds rather dismissive.  Instead of addressing the very real and factual arguments of opposing landowners, Massey dismisses them as "emotional" and therefore not capable of rational thought.

Shame on you, Kyle Massey, since you didn't quote one landowner in your story!  I don't believe Massey interviewed even one landowner for his "story" upon which to base his thoughts and opinions about landowners.  That's unethical, from a journalistic perspective.
"So I think a great many people find this attractive and would be happy to have the money for the line coming through their land.
Who are these people?  Massey doesn't quote even one in his story.  He just "thinks" this is how they should respond, after all, it's not his property being crossed.

This whole "report" fairly screams desperation.   Clean Line is desperate to politicize this issue and marginalize landowners who are resisting efforts to "settle" with the company. That Clean Line found a sympathetic ear for their public relations scheme at Arkansas Business isn't surprising.  However, shame on you, NPR!  I'll never believe another one of your stories.
8 Comments

How to Disrespect the Court, by Clean Line

9/8/2016

2 Comments

 
If Clean Line wrote a guide to disrespecting the courts, it would probably sound a lot like this.

It's no surprise that Clean Line doesn't agree with the decision of the Illinois Third District Court of Appeals that voided the permit for its Rock Island Clean Line (RICL) project issued by the Illinois Commerce Commission.  What is sort of surprising is that RICL has taken to the media to appeal the appeal in the court of public opinion.  It's also surprising that Clean Line whined to a different Appeals Court hearing the appeal of the ICC's grant of a permit to the Grain Belt Express project, suggesting that the court should not rely on the Third District's Opinion, but allow arguments on its merit.  Since when is an appeals court the proper venue to appeal the decision of a different appeals court?

The Opinion of the Third District Court of Appeals is the rule of law unless and until the Illinois Supreme Court takes the case and issues its own opinion overturning the lower court.  The Illinois Supreme Court takes very few cases, saving its review for cases of great importance to the state, cases that disagree with prior Supreme Court rulings, and cases where a conflict has arisen between the opinions of different appellate courts. 

It doesn't matter what RICL's counsel thinks, what the ICC thinks, what the labor unions think, what the media reports, or what a smarmy RICL lobbyist pretending he's a lawyer spews to a reporter.  The only thing that matters is the opinion of the Third District, and that Opinion reversed the Order of the Illinois Commerce Commission that granted a certificate of public convenience and necessity and ordered the Illinois Commerce Commission to enter an Order consistent with the Court's decision.  It no longer matters what the ICC did in 2014.
Detweiler said the ruling ignores that the project would lower electricity prices for Illinois consumers as more power would be made available in the market. The new line would be designed to move up to 4,000 megawatts, enough to power 1.4 million homes.
There's no proof that the project would lower electricity prices for Illinois consumers.  No Illinois consumers have signed up for service on the project (and may never do so).  In fact, it's possible that all the power may be purchased by utilities in those mysterious "states farther east" resulting in not one electron being used by any person in Illinois.  Simply dumping power into an existing market doesn't necessarily lower prices if it creates an expanded market that encourages higher priced markets to begin to compete for available supply.
It's different than most high-voltage lines in that its developers aren't asking regulators to force captive ratepayers to pay higher electricity rates to finance the project. Instead, Rock Island is a "merchant" line and will be a success only if it signs up enough wind farm developers to pay it to move their output from low-population parts of the Dakotas, Minnesota, Kansas and Iowa to population centers like Chicago and the mid-Atlantic.
What makes RICL different is that it skipped the regional planning process whereby lines are found needed and the costs of building them are assigned to consumers who will benefit.  Being a "merchant" project doesn't make a project more consumer-friendly.  It just means that there is NO reliability, economic or public policy need for the project.  It is not needed to keep the lights on, make power cheaper, or meet state renewable energy laws.  Instead, it's a completely extraneous project built on the premise that voluntary customers may want to pay for it.  Therefore it is not a public utility worthy of wielding eminent domain over private property "for public use."  RICL has no customers who want to pay for its project.  The ICC's now voided approval depended entirely on hypotheticals -- something RICL would accomplish later to be granted a permit now.  RICL wants to be a utility now, although it will only legally become one later.  Chicken.  Egg.
The decision doesn't pass constitutional muster, [Detweiler] said.

"It's a terrible precedent—not just for us but any nonincumbent," Hans Detweiler, Rock Island vice president of development, said of the decision in an interview.

He argued that the logic of the ruling is that only established utilities like ComEd and Ameren Illinois can win approval for transmission lines. That undermines competition, he said.
Picture
I must have missed the article about Hans Detweiler being a constitutional law scholar.  I think he should go back to law school and brush up on this, and perhaps take a course in logic while he's at it.  Then he can do a couple internships at regional transmission planning organizations, where nonincumbents compete to build needed transmission all the time.  Let's face it... Clean Line's projects are nothing but pure market speculation that may never serve any person in Illinois.  In fact, they may never serve any customer, any where, at any time.  Certainly that kind of market speculation is not "for public use," it's for private profit, and not worthy of a utility's eminent domain authority.

The chances that the Illinois Supreme Court will decide to take up RICL's appeal of the Third District's decision are slim.  No matter what RICL wants to pretend for the media, the courts have spoken.  No media spree can change that.
2 Comments

Clean Line Can Eradicate the Zika Virus, and Other Ridiculously Desperate Claims

9/6/2016

2 Comments

 
While others were enjoying their pre-holiday week, Clean Line and its sycophants were busy embarrassing themselves in a most ridiculous way.

The Tennessee Valley Authority's Board holds periodic public "listening" sessions, where folks can sign up to say any old thing, as long as it fits into a three minute time slot.  I've watched these before, and the most fun part is guessing what speakers in the queue might talk about based on the bottom half of their outfits and any props they have in their hands.  The same parade of environmental group representatives come back again and again, saying basically the same thing.  This appears to go on for hours.  The Board sits stoically, stone-faced and unresponsive, perhaps playing the same mental guessing game I do.  Wow, what a great party!  Or maybe just a colossal waste of time.  Certainly nothing newsworthy, since none of these comments are ever acted upon, it's all just so much posturing.

I guess the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy wanted to spice up its continual posturing last month when its Director told the Board that taking private property through eminent domain to build a $3B electric transmission "clean line" would eradicate the threat of the Zika virus.  No, really.
 The United States issued the first domestic infectious disease travel advisory since the 1950’s earlier this month for Florida over the spread of Zika virus. This is an historic advisory. (The FDA is now expanding the testing of blood for Zika in the United States.) SACE has a pregnant staff member in south Florida who is now effectively in a state of house arrest because of this vector borne tropical disease outbreak.
Clean Line can also make summer not so hot, and stop flooding.  Who is this guy kidding?  He's got nothing to back up his ridiculous claims that a "clean" line is "an historic opportunity of national significance."

The only thing historic about this is the amount of private investor cash that's been dumped into a company that will never realize one dime of revenue.  Or perhaps federal government overreach to effect private property takings outside its statutory authority.  Or both.

And then Dr. Doomsayer let the TVA Board know how economic a "clean" line would be with a bunch of armchair energy planning "analysis."  Such as:
The low cost wind coupled with the concurrent transmission revenue that TVA will likely receive for wheeling the wind power to other recipients makes the deal more competitive for TVA consumers, even if your demand is low, by displacing higher cost fossil fuels.

We believe Clean Line is “in the money” or very close.

What?  What money?  What qualifications does SACE have to analyze the economic competitiveness of a merchant transmission line, and moreover, why should the TVA Board rely on SACE's amateur analysis?  I'm pretty sure the TVA has a whole staff of its own economic experts to study a "clean" line and whether it's "in the money."
Not to be outdone, the Clean Line puppet master also made an appearance with some spurious claims of his own.
Jimmy Glotfelty, executive vice president for Clean Line Energy Partners, told the TVA board last week that it could deliver wind-generated power from Oklahoma and Texas up to 60 percent of the time at around 3 to 3.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is cheaper than some of TVA's other energy costs. Such wind-generated power could be available in two to three years after new wind turbines are erected in Oklahoma and Texas, where the wind blows more steadily than in the Southeast, and after Clean Line builds its proposed 700-mile line from the panhandle of Texas to Memphis.

The cost will be cheaper this year because the maximum federal production tax credits, worth the equivalent of 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour, will begin to decrease after Jan. 1.

Delivered for 3.5 cents?  If the delivery costs 3.5 cents, what does the energy cost?  Since Clean Line doesn't own any wind generation and does not sell energy, the only costs it can quote are for transmission capacity on its own proposed line.

And who does Jimmy think pays for all those delicious federal tax credits that would make energy so cheap for TVA?  The taxpayers.  So while Jimmy is telling TVA it would get a 2.2 cent break on every kWh if it signs up for transmission capacity before the end of the year, the energy consumers in TVA would also have a part in paying for that tax credit!  Maybe Jimmy really believes the federal wind production tax credit is free money that falls from the sky?  Except the tax credit isn't available to transmission companies, only generators.  Where are the generators for TVA to ink a deal with, if it was even possible to do so by December 31?  Jimmy sounds like a carnie, urging his mark to put their money down and spin the wheel at a shady joint.

And why is Jimmy continuing to beat this dead horse anyhow?  It's not going to get up and pull his wagon.
TVA President Bill Johnson said no decision has yet been made about Clean Line or any other proposal. He said TVA could move ahead "if it makes sense under our timetable, not someone else's timetable.

"We've been in long-range discussions with them (Clean Line Energy) under several memoranda of understanding," Johnson said. "Our objective here is quite simple: to have the least cost, cleanest, most reliable system all at the same time. If it turns out that Clean Line is a part of that, then we will do that. But we are still in the evaluation phase."

Jimmy says:
"We continue to to have strong discussion with utilities in the Southeast and we continue to have productive talks with TVA because we believe this is a very competitive source of clean energy which we think would add value to their portfolio," Glotfelty said.
Well, shoot, Jimmy, if your discussions with other utilities are so "strong," why don't you just sign contracts with them instead of engaging in Kabuki theater at TVA board meetings?

Where are the customers, Jimmy?  Having trouble "selling" a hypothetical transmission line fed by hypothetical generators with a hypothetical "approval" to utilities who expect the resources they contract for will be available when needed?

Chicken.  Egg.  Chicken?  Where have all Clean Line's chickens gone?
2 Comments

Full Steam Ahead for the Clean Line Crazy Train

8/16/2016

8 Comments

 
So, this happened yesterday.
Two groups representing landowners are suing to block an electric transmission line planned for delivering wind-generated power across Arkansas from Oklahoma to Tennessee.

The federal lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Jonesboro by Golden Bridge LLC and Downwind LLC, the two landowner organizations, will test the legality of a decision by the U.S. Department of Energy to aid construction of the Plains & Eastern Clean Line through provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

The landowner groups are represented by Christopher L. Travis and Jordan P. Wimpy, both of the Gill Ragon Owen firm in Little Rock. The complaint lists as defendants the Energy Department and Ernest Moniz, the U.S. secretary of energy, as well as the Southwestern Power Administration and its administrator, Scott Carpenter.

The lawsuit questions the Energy Department's authority to approve the construction of one of the nation's largest electric lines without seeking state-level review. It also challenges its power to exercise the federal right of eminent domain to condemn and acquire private property under the Energy Policy Act. Landowners, it says, should have played a bigger role in the Energy Department's review of the project, which is being carried out by Clean Line Energy Partners of Houston.

You can read the lawsuit here.
In response, Clean Line says:
CLEAN LINE OFFICIALS SAY ‘FULL STEAM AHEAD’

Late Monday evening, Clean Line officials said they had not seen the legal complaint against the DOE regarding their project and would not be able to provide specific comment. However, a Clean Line executive reiterated the company’s ongoing refrain that the Houston-based venture group has already invested nearly $100 million of private capital to develop the project and anticipates making more than $30 million in payments to Arkansas landowners for easements and upfront transmission structure payments.

In addition, Clean Line will pay Arkansas counties that host the electric transmission project a total of approximately $140 million in voluntary payments over the first 40 years of operation, which will support local schools, fire departments and other community services.

“It’s no secret that the United States suffers from an infrastructure deficit and that we must push through gridlock to move the country forward. Unfortunately,
it is not uncommon to see legal complaints filed against the most important infrastructure projects,” said Mario Hurtado, Clean Line’s executive vice president of development. “In order to modernize the grid, enable the delivery of low-cost energy, create new jobs and enhance our energy security, the private and public sectors must come together to bring new infrastructure projects to fruition.”

Hurtado, who recently told Talk Business & Politics that the multibillion dollar project is expected to get underway in early 2017, added: “The Plains & Eastern Clean Line is the largest clean energy transmission project in America and is moving full steam ahead.”
"The Plains & Eastern Clean Line is a pro-jobs, pro-consumer, pro-environment public energy infrastructure project," said Mario Hurtado, executive vice president for development.
One person conditioned to rule and control
The media sells it and you live the role

Mental wounds still screaming
Driving me insane
I'm goin' off the rails on a crazy train
I'm goin' off the rails on a crazy train

I know that things are going wrong for me
You gotta listen to my words, yeah, yeah

Full steam ahead?  Did you call up Ernie on your special "Coordination Committee" Hotline last night to get that comment approved, Mario?  Because Clean Line can't drive this train all by itself.
DOE executed the Participation Agreement, which creates a "Coordination Committee," which "shall be composed of two (2) representatives from Holdings and two (2)
representatives from DOE." One of Holdings' representatives is the chair of the Coordination Committee. Unless Clean Line has defaulted, the Coordination Committee requires a representative of both Holding and DOE to have a quorum. The Coordination Committee can only make "public announcements relating to DOE's involvement in the Project" if such public disclosure is approved by "one (1)
representative of each of Holdings and DOE on the Coordination Committee.
"
But Mario made a comment anyhow, so let's see what desperation looks like.

"...a Clean Line executive reiterated the company’s ongoing refrain that the Houston-based venture group has already invested nearly $100 million of private capital to develop the project..."

Since the complaint specifically states that DOE "violated Plaintiffs' and the public's due process rights," are you saying that your investors $100 million is more important than due process rights?  It sure sounds like it.  In fact, it sounds like you think rich people are more entitled to get a return on their investment than regular people are to the right to due process under the law.  That's pretty disgusting.  And un-American.

Your blather about jobs and taxes also doesn't dispense with the people's right to due process.  Are you saying that you can break the law as long as you create a few jobs and pay some taxes?  And another thing... jobs and taxes are not a basis for eminent domain.  If that were the case, I'm sure YOUR house would provide more jobs and pay more taxes if it were a Walmart.  How would you like that, Mario?

“It’s no secret that the United States suffers from an infrastructure deficit..."  What?  What infrastructure deficit?  I haven't seen any identified infrastructure deficit that requires thousands of miles of HVDC transmission to be solved.  Sounds like you're making crap up.  In fact, plenty of infrastructure is being built.  It's just not infrastructure that puts a buck in Mario's pocket.  Clean Line is not the be all and end all for keeping the lights on.  It's not part of any grid plan.

"...it is not uncommon to see legal complaints filed against the most important infrastructure projects..."  No, it's just common to see them filed against destructive and unnecessary projects.  A legal complaint does not make an infrastructure project "important" any more than being charged with a crime makes the crime "important."  I guess Mario thinks this legal complaint makes him and his project "important."  *sigh*

“In order to modernize the grid, enable the delivery of low-cost energy, create new jobs and enhance our energy security, the private and public sectors must come together to bring new infrastructure projects to fruition.”  Clean Line isn't "modernizing the grid."  Clean Line is creating a separate grid operated solely for corporate profit  that only serves people who can afford to pay for it.  As well, Clean Line cannot guarantee "low cost energy."  Clean Line has no role in the price of energy that could be transmitted over its line, and none of the proposed generators currently exist.  You cannot price a commodity that doesn't exist and that you do not control.  Enhance our energy security?  What kind of jargon is that?  Did Mario think that sounded good?  How would a 700 mile transmission line "enhance energy security?"  The most secure energy system is one where generation and load are located at the same place.  A transmission line adds insecurity to that system because it's just one more piece that may fail.

"The Plains & Eastern Clean Line is a pro-jobs, pro-consumer, pro-environment public energy infrastructure project..."  Oh, puhleeze.  If you say that enough times, will you start to believe it?  Jobs, consumer prices, and the environment is not an excuse to do away with due process.

It's not a political or policy argument at this point.  Judges don't make policy.  They interpret the law.

So, do enjoy your ride on the crazy train, Mario.  While it lasts.
8 Comments

Clean Line Whack-a-Mole

8/12/2016

1 Comment

 
In the game of whack-a-mole, the moles begin popping out slowly and are easy to whack.  But as the game speeds up, so do the moles, making it virtually impossible to hit them all at the same time, and then you lose.
Clean Line has been playing permitting whack-a-mole for years, and the game is speeding up.  As soon as they whack a particular jurisdiction's mole, another mole pops up somewhere else.  And now the moles previously whacked are popping up again, too.

On Monday, Clean Line thought it had whacked the Iowa mole for its RICL project when the IUB issued an Order setting a procedural schedule.  With a permit for RICL from Illinois in hand, the only thing Clean Line needed to build RICL was a permit from Iowa. 

But on Wednesday, the Illinois mole popped back up, not easily whacked and disposed of.
The Illinois Third District Appellate Court issued an opinion that disposed of the Illinois permit Clean Line thought it had in hand.  The Court found that RICL was not a public utility and therefore the Illinois Commerce Commission could not issue it a permit.  Clean Line is back to square one in Illinois, without a permit, although now its Iowa case is now running along at full speed (and expense).  Clean Line has no options in Illinois but to appeal the appeal, a time-consuming and expensive prospect with no guarantee of success.

And if RICL cannot be an Illinois utility, neither can Clean Line's Grain Belt Express project, whose permit mole is currently on appeal in another Illinois district.  Meanwhile, Clean Line is busily engaged in trying to whack the GBE mole in Missouri, and is expected to file another application for a permit at the end of this month.

Why bother spending time and money whacking moles in Iowa and Missouri, when the Illinois moles refuse to stay whacked?  Clean Line cannot build any project unless it has whacked all that particular project's moles, and they actually stay whacked.

So, let's add this up:
  1. State permitting process in Iowa underway which will require quick deployment of land agents and expensive exhibits, in addition to legal and expert fees.  The IUB also added engineering consultant fees to Clean Line's bill in order to evaluate the project according to Clean Line's foot-dragging schedule.
  2. RICL appeal process in Illinois.  Lots of legal fees.
  3. State permitting process in Missouri soon to be underway, which will require legal and expert fees, along with various SWAG paid to garner political  support for its project.
  4. GBE appeal process in Illinois, with very little chance for success.  Lots of legal fees.
  5. Trying to engineer, site, and acquire land in three other states for its Plains & Eastern project.
  6. Other projects in western states Clean Line is currently trying to "develop."
Cha-ching!!!  That adds up to millions of dollars every month, and Clean Line doesn't have a dime of revenue.  It's getting more and more expensive to be Clean Line and try to whack moles.  Where does Clean Line get its money?  Investors.  At what point will the investors close their wallets and post a loss on the ol' balance sheet?  Are Clean Line's prospects to win the Whack-a-Mole game getting better the longer it plays?  Nope.  It's getting harder to hit all the moles and make them stay whacked.  Eventually, investors are going to reach the tipping point where they stop throwing good money after bad.

Clean Line created a bigger mole field than it could handle when it decided it needed to "develop" multiple projects at the same time.  A smart company may have concentrated on just one project to begin with, to see how viable the Clean Line business model actually was.  But not Clean Line... it was so certain of its success, that it began dumping investor money into multiple projects at the same time.  And now, 7 years later, they're still whacking an increasing amount of moles, and need an increasing amount of cash to do so.  Will the company tighten its belt and start abandoning the least likely projects, in order to concentrate its resources on the most likely?  What if none of the Clean Line projects are very likely at all?  What if the investors finally acknowledge just how hopeless Clean Line actually is?

Game over.
1 Comment

Illinois Appeal Voids Transmission Project Permit

8/11/2016

1 Comment

 
Court determines Rock Island Clean Line is not a public utility and orders Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC)
to reverse its Order granting Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN)

 In an Opinion handed down August 10, the Illinois Third District Court of Appeals reversed the Order of the Illinois Commerce Commission that granted a certificate of public convenience and necessity to the Rock Island Clean Line, and remanded the cause to the Commission with directions to enter an order consistent with its decision.
 
This is a major setback for the project, which was granted a CPCN by the ICC in 2014.  In its decision, the Court found that Rock Island failed to meet two requirements for being a public utility because it does not own, control, operate, or manage assets within the State; and that the proposed transmission line is not for public use without discrimination.  Because Rock Island is not a public utility, the Court said, the ICC lacked authority to issue a CPCN in the first place.
 
“We are thrilled with the Court’s decision,” said Block RICL spokeswoman Mary Mauch.  “We have worked very hard to protect our private property rights from a speculative business venture looking to cash in on our heritage for their own financial gain.  This decision to void RICL’s permit makes all that hard work worthwhile!”
 
Rock Island Clean Line is a 500-mile high-voltage direct current electric transmission line proposed to run from northwestern Iowa to northeast Illinois.  It is owned by Clean Line Energy Partners of Houston, Texas, who is also developing at least two other transmission projects to capitalize on moving energy from the Midwest into expensive eastern electric markets.  Clean Line is currently supported by financial contributions from private investors while it struggles to get any one of its projects off the planning table to begin generating revenue.
 
The Court’s Opinion can be viewed here.
1 Comment

Transmission Myths Often Mistakenly Believed and Then Utilized to Support Unsuccessful Practices

8/5/2016

1 Comment

 
The EUCI industry echo chamber is at it again.

Congratulations, Midwesterners, you now have your very own special EUCI conference!  Dealing with you has become a specialized practice area for the transmission industry.  What is it about you that makes you special?  Is it your attachment to your land?  Your love of uncluttered, wide-open spaces?  Your appreciation for peaceful, non-industrial landscapes?  Your honesty?  Your sense of justice and fair play?  Your mistrust of outsiders who want to take something from you?  The transmission industry sure would love to figure out what makes you tick!

That's why they will be gathering to discuss you at Transmission Expansion in the Midwest this coming October.  Attendees believe they will:
...explore the specifics of how to develop and maintain positive landowner relationships while negotiating in good faith for pipeline, electric transmission, wind and solar, rail and public sector projects. This would include whether pursuing site leasing, site purchase, easements, right of ways and/or workspace, and whether coming from the perspective of project management, design engineering, environmental, appraising, permitting, survey, right of way, inspections, construction, operations, and others, this presentation is a must in helping ensure a successful project, on time and on budget with happy landowners.
That just can't happen.  No landowner is ever "happy" when electric transmission is sited on their property.  Never.

But EUCI bravely soldiers on, putting together these industry echo chambers where industry speakers hide their failure in order to pretend they're successful. Whatever... they're only fooling themselves.  The reality is that it's getting harder and harder to permit, site, and build transmission in the face of record-breaking opposition.  Opposition is bigger.  Opposition is faster.  Opposition is more sophisticated and successful than ever before.  So, what do EUCI's speakers know about the opposition that delays, alters and flat-out cancels even the most carefully planned transmission projects?  Not much.  Not only are the industry critters lacking perspective, they absolutely have no idea what motivates opposition.  Why?  Because they've never been an opponent!  And they don't want to learn from any opposition heathens.  Wouldn't these classes be better taught by the opposition?  Instead, you get this:
Recognize and understand landowner’s perspectives and the importance of dealing with unique differences in various landowners, their personalities and their needs/concerns.
Who's going to help you understand landowner perspectives?  A landowner?  No, a land agent, the arch nemesis of a landowner.  If I really wanted to understand someone, I'd like to talk with that person, not their enemy.

And then there's this:
Beyond the historical considerations of zoning, environmental, special use, conservation and damages determination, communities are becoming more and more vocal in their requirements in infrastructure development.  As social media and cyber-activism have become the norm (even for landowners not impacted by a project), companies need to become social-savvy in route planning, outreach and negotiations.  More often than not, whether in the electric industry or in other related industries, projects are successful or fail spectacularly due to communication issues, lack of messaging and poor understanding of the locale impacted.
Would this presentation be helped by a local opposition perspective?  Definitely.  However, you're not going to get that at EUCI.  Again, this is presented by a land agent who isn't from the community where transmission is located.  The land agent has no experience presenting successful social media campaigns that draw in opponents and keep them active and engaged throughout the process.  Transmission company ideas of social media campaigns consist of cherry-picked and carefully wrapped one-way communications directed at communities.  There's nothing interactive about it if you don't agree with the company position presented.  Companies, ever afraid of legal missteps, cannot and will not communicate with opponents in an informal, down-to-earth manner.  Company social media campaigns are a complete waste of time.

KURT ALERT!!!!  Of course a Midwestern Transmission Expansion conference wouldn't be complete without some fantasy from Clean Line Energy Partners!  Except Clean Line's presentations are always the same.  No creativity there!
Case Study: Delivering Wind Energy to Market

The United States possesses some of the best renewable energy resources in the world. However, continued growth of the renewable energy industry in the U.S. faces a serious challenge: the lack of transmission. Clean Line Energy is developing a series of long-haul direct current transmission lines to deliver low-cost renewable energy to communities that have a strong demand for clean power.

This presentation will focus on the Grain Belt Express Clean Line, which will deliver wind energy from Kansas into Missouri, Illinois and Indiana. The project has received its regulatory approvals in Kansas, Illinois and Indiana and is currently working through the final state approval process in Missouri. The presentation will provide an update on the regulatory, routing, and other milestones accomplished with a focus on the benefits this project will bring to Missouri.

Amy Kurt, Director of Development, Clean Line Energy Partners
Benefits?  Pretend jobs and tax revenue?  Economic development isn't the basis for eminent domain.

And that's just the problem.  Eminent domain.  As long as eminent domain is on the table, there will be no "happy" landowners.  It's not about "communication" or psychological manipulation of landowners, it's not about siting, it's not about getting to know the community values, it's not about made-up "benefits," it's not about purchased "support" for transmission projects.  It's about the eminent domain.

No matter how much smoke and mirrors this industry generates in its echo chamber, it will continue to face increasingly effective opposition and transmission projects will fail.

Checkmate.
1 Comment

Too Arrogant to Sacrifice

8/4/2016

8 Comments

 
There was a really great op-ed published in various outlets the other day penned by Missouri Farm Bureau President Blake Hurst.  The Farm Bureau (and Hurst) object to the Grain Belt Express Clean Line, which is proposed to cross the state and affect over 500 Missouri landowners.  Hurst had this to say about Clean Line's proposal to use eminent domain to acquire land:
Backers of the project are frustrated with landowners for their reluctance to host the transmission line. Climate Change!  Renewable Energy! How can landowners be so stubborn as to hold up what is so clearly progress? Landowners along the planned route are being drafted into the war on Climate Change without their consent. If the fight against climate change can only be won if Missouri is crossed by this unsightly collection of wires and poles, then the costs should be more widely borne. The company can negotiate those easements with willing sellers along the route, and they can pass the increased costs along to millions of electricity users in the eastern United States, instead of imposing all of the costs of saving the planet on 500 small landowners in Missouri.
 What's climate change worth to the folks along the urbanized coasts who are the proposed beneficiaries of the condemnation of land in the Midwest to transmit "cleaner" energy for their use?  Obviously not much, if Clean Line needs to use eminent domain to acquire property cheaply in order to make its project profitable.  City dwellers want "cleaner" energy, but they don't want to pay a penny more for it.  It's high time for these folks to either fend for themselves in their own communities, or open their wallets.

Why should 500 Missouri landowners make a sacrifice to pump "clean" energy to cities, so that they may waste as much as they want, without any climate change guilt?

Waste?  Of course.  If climate change is such an all-fired emergency that Missouri must make the ultimate sacrifice to stop it, why are cities allowed to accelerate climate change by lighting up their buildings and landmarks at night to create a pretty skyline?  If climate change requires sacrifice, how about the cities go dark from sunset to sunrise?  Los Angeles recently did.  But it was only for one hour.  And it only darkened a few of their landmarks and buildings.  Go ahead, watch the video in this news story, because it really showcases how clueless and arrogant city folks are about wasting energy.
Perhaps if more cities turned their wasteful "landmarks" off at night, rural landowners wouldn't have to make any sacrifice for new transmission lines.  (Don't worry, power generator-types clutching your chest right about now, it will never happen, these folks are much too selfish to do anything so drastic.)  But yet these folks think they "need" to keep their cities lit up all night.  And they "need" to do it with "clean" electricity.  And therefore Missouri landowners "need" to allow the hulking infrastructure required to get it there to clutter up their personal landscapes and interfere with the way they make their living.  The arrogance is stunning.

And speaking of stunning arrogance, how about that Democratic party platform?  I rarely get political here, but someone pointed me to a portion of the platform making the media rounds here in West Virginia that really frosted my cupcake:
The fight against climate change must not leave any community out or behind -- including the coal communities who kept America's lights on for generations.  Democrats will fight to make sure these workers and their families get the benefits they have earned and respect they deserve, and we will make new investments in energy-producing communities to help create jobs and build a brighter and more resilient economic future.  We will also oppose threats to the public health of these communities from harmful and dangerous extraction practices, like mountaintop removal mining operations.
Yup, we're very, very, sorry, Appalachia, that we rode you like a rented mule for the past 100 years to power our cities, but now we're going to come in and improve your communities for you!  We're going to "respect" those who sacrifice to produce the energy our cities use by creating more sacrifice in another geographic region in order to produce new "clean and green" wind powered electricity and ship it in for us to waste!

And no community will be left behind in the fight for climate change!!!  Except those 500 landowners in Missouri.  Who will miss them?
Hypocrites.
8 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

    August 2025
    July 2025
    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.