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

DOE Pretends to Plan New Transmission

3/16/2024

3 Comments

 
Our Big Green government is wasting our tax dollars on an effort to "plan" new transmission, although is has absolutely no authority to do so.  The latest waste of money is entitled "Interregional Renewable Energy Zones" and is a partisan effort to create these "zones" in rural America and "suggest" new HVDC transmission to connect the "zones" to "load centers."  Boiled down, it's an ineffective "plan" to turn rural areas into industrial scale power plants covered with wind turbines and solar panels and then ship all that green juice to the elite bastions of urban arrogance.  Why?  It's simple... they don't want any ugly, invasive power infrastructure sited in their own backyard, but they still want to pretend they are "clean and green" by turning us all into their personal energy serfs.

Nice try, but rural areas aren't that stupid.  DOE has absolutely no authority whatsoever to plan renewable energy "zones" or new transmission lines.  It seemed they thought they did last year, until they were challenged and came up empty handed.  No authority.  Not happening.  

But they're not giving up.  They continue to waste our money on idiotic "reports" that do absolutely nothing.  This time, they claim that their work is "helpful" to states who may want to use this nonsense to plan for their own energy needs.  Sorry... the states don't need your help anymore that the transmission planning authorities do.  Nobody needs help from a bunch of babies that are too stupid and partisan to accept reality.
This study is a preliminary analysis to help state decision makers determine whether to pursue more detailed analyses of IREZ corridors that are relevant to them. This report could not fully account for all the case-specific details that would affect the configuration of a transmission project. Nevertheless, if a corridor examined in this study has a high benefit-to-cost ratio based only on energy cost savings, a follow-on study focusing on that corridor might expand the economic analysis to include local factors that we were not able to address here. A guiding premise behind the IREZ analysis is that states will ultimately take the lead in deciding whether to pursue IREZ development.
But that has approximately ZERO chance of happening.  Even if one or two states used this dreck to ask their regional planning authorities to plan for zones and transmission, there are too many "fly over" states that are never going to agree to it.

What states are those?  Take a look at the grandiose "plan."  (larger image available at the "report" link)
Picture
The green dots are "zones" to be covered with wind turdbines and solar panels.  The red dots are the places that want to pretend they are only using renewable energy.  The lines are new HVDC transmission projects.
This study develops a model using renewable energy zones to address the new challenges of interregional transmission planning. An interregional renewable energy zone (IREZ) is an area comprising a very high concentration of very low-cost developable renewable energy potential. An IREZ hub is a collection point on the bulk power system to which renewable energy plants built in the IREZ can connect easily. The hub anchors an IREZ corridor that consists of a dedicated high-voltage transmission path from the IREZ hub to a major load center.
What were you smoking when you drew that?
We have identified and quantified several high-value IREZ corridors that affected states might consider for interregional transmission planning. Our analysis suggests that these corridors can be valuable tools for reducing carbon emissions in a manner that uses known technologies, has relatively small net impact on customers’ electricity bills, improves resource adequacy, and provides the grid with an additional measure of resilience against major disruptions related to climate change and other causes.
Affected states won't be "considering" that.  It is quite insane and wasteful.

And let's talk about that "using known technologies" thing.  The only "technology" NREL considered here was wind and solar.  That's it.  News flash!  We absolutely, positively, undeniably cannot reliably power the United States with only wind and solar.  Putting their intermittency and unreliability aside, they are just too expensive at this scale.  There's nothing in this report that adds up the cost of all those renewables in the "zones" and the cost of all the new transmission.  I don't think they can count that high.  Here's an idea!  Why don't you take all the money you were hoping to spend on this wasteful plan and use it to build clean, renewable nuclear generation at all the red dot load centers?  None of this transmission would be necessary, and that's a huge savings.  I'm sure it would be cheaper, but DOE didn't compare any other resource plans to this biased brain fart.

And, before I end, let's examine one of the huge errors DOE made purporting "benefits" for the states:
​Benefits could include assumptions about local tax receipts and indirect economic development effects in the IREZ state, payments to landowners for the acquisition of right-of-way (ROW) along the transmission path, net savings in energy costs for customers at the receiving end of the corridor, and enhanced resilience against extreme weather events.
Sorry, but payments to landowners for land taken from them against their will is NOT a benefit.  It is COMPENSATION for something taken from them.  The idea of compensation is that the landowner remains whole after the taking, although you can't grow crops on piles of dirty money.  It is not a windfall similar to winning the lottery.  The landowner is supposed to use that money to purchase additional land, or to make up for the inability to use that land in the future.  That is not a "benefit" by any stretch of the imagination.

DOE did a pretty poor job of trying to dredge up some reason why flyover states should willingly sacrifice themselves for the urban elite.  It also completely overlooks that the "zones" may not want to be covered in wind turbines and solar panels and may outright refuse to sign leases or permit these projects to be built.

What a complete and utter waste of taxpayer money.
3 Comments

Spin Studies

9/17/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
Americans for a Clean Energy Grid is by far the king of spin studies.  Even the name of this industry group is spin!  "Americans"?  It would be more aptly named "Corporations for Building Transmission From Which We Profit".  CBTFWWP.  Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?  Use of the word "Americans" is a tired, old front group tactic used by corporations to make you think that their front is actually made up of average people who love whatever is being sold.  The only "Americans" here are corporations, and not all of them are actually American corporations!

ACEG is nothing but a transmission industry front group that writes numerous spin studies to promote their product, whether we need it or not.  The studies aren't compiled for regular Americans like you... they are put together and promoted endlessly on Capitol Hill to convince your elected representatives that they should enact enabling legislation for more transmission, and more profits for their members.  If you wrap your propaganda in a "study" it's supposed to have more clout.  Another old propaganda trick!

So, here's the latest Spin Study being spun by CBTFWWP, and it includes a list of transmission projects we need right now to usher in a clean energy future.

The Spin Study names 36 transmission projects that it claims are "Ready to Go."  It defines "Ready to Go" like this:
The determination of whether a project is ready-to-go relied on two criteria: 1) whether the project is at or near the finish line on the various federal and state permits they may need; and 2) whether the project is actively pursuing the cost recovery, allocation, and/ or subscriptions required for the developer to proceed. Inherently some judgment is re- quired. Based on these criteria we excluded over ten significant projects that are in earlier stages of development and not yet far enough along to be considered ready-to-go. 
Has permits?  Has cost recovery?  Then what the hell is "Clean Line" doing on this list?  The Oklahoma portion of the failed Plain & Eastern Clean Line isn't even a real project yet.  What permits does it have?  Who is paying for it? That's some "judgment"!
Clean Line – Originally proposed in 2009 by Clean Line Energy Partners to deliver renew- able energy from the Oklahoma Panhandle to Southeast markets, the Oklahoma portion of this DC merchant line was purchased and is now being developed by NextEra Energy.
The spinners justified their "judgment" for including this project with this article from 2017 that informs NextEra bought the remains of the Oklahoma portion.  It doesn't say anything about permits or cost recovery.  The only place "Clean Line" is ready to go is the trash can.

The spin gets even thicker on the projects that have failed since the first Spin Study.
Lake Erie Connector – DC line under Lake Erie, connecting Ontario with PJM, the grid operator in the Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes region. The project had been under devel- opment for approximately 10 years, but ITC Holdings, which purchased the rights to the project in 2014, placed the project on hold citing economic conditions.
Oh?  Economic conditions?  How could that be so with all the government handouts to transmission in the IIJA and the IRA?  Here's the "economic conditions" that have caused that project to be shelved... it's a merchant line that can't find customers.
“ITC made the decision to suspend the project after determining there is not a viable path to achieve successful negotiations and other requirements within the required project schedule. External conditions – including rising inflation, interest rates, and fluctuations in the U.S.-to-Canadian foreign exchange rate – would prevent the company from coming to a customer agreement that would sufficiently capture both the benefits and the costs of the project,” an ITC spokesperson said in a prepared media statement. “As a result, the company believes suspending the project is in the best interest of stakeholders.”
Lots of words in that salad when "can't find any customers at the price we need to build this thing" would do.  It's a shame, too.  That project was actually routed underwater so it didn't create any land impacts.

Speaking of word salad, the spinners claim that new transmission will be the key to reaching clean energy utopia.
Not only has investment in regional transmission lines been decreasing, but at the same time the need for regional transmission has been increasing due to a variety of factors. These include increasing demand growth, electrification of transportation and other sectors, higher natural gas prices due to European demand, a changing resource mix due to the economics of new renewable generation, increased customer demand for renewable resources, significant utility commitments for renewable energy expansion and decarbonization, and new public policies from local, state, and federal governments promoting carbon-free generation. The aggregation of these trends suggests a shift in the generation mix and significant load growth over the next few decades, both of which will require new transmission capacity. 
But that's not even true.  The spinners presume that all new transmission will be "for renewables."  PJM Interconnection is the first to make a liar out of them by creating new transmission to feed Northern Virginia data centers from fossil fuel generation in the Ohio Valley.
Transmission capacity is also critical in helping shift national economic policy toward an increased focus on onshoring manufacturing to develop domestic supply chains. De- velopment of new domestic manufacturing along with growth in data centers, partially driven by AI, represents the potential for significant economic growth and job growth for the US.

These new manufacturing facilities, along with new data centers, often require additional transmission to ensure the grid has the capacity to reliably interconnect significant new industrial loads. However, delays are already beginning to occur. Interconnection requests for data centers have dropped across the country and in Northern Virginia – a national hub for data centers – there is a scramble to meet the soaring power demand as current grid capacity is limited. 

Some experts estimate that fully electrifying the US’s industrial load could more than double current US power demand. The current issues are arising even before manufacturing for microchips and additional electric vehicle production and battery manufacturing facilities fully ramp up, along with hydrogen production facilities. If sufficient transmission capacity is not available, these investments could be significantly delayed or even canceled. 
That's right... when PJM was faced with new data center load, it did not propose transmission from renewable generators to meet need.  That's because data centers use as much energy as large cities, and you can't reliably serve them solely with intermittent renewables.  New data center load will INCREASE carbon emissions by ramping up the generation of fossil fuel electricity.  This is what is going to happen when load increases... transmission connecting existing fossil fuel generators will be proposed.  New data centers actually crash our clean energy policies.  

The Spin Study has been produced for one purpose only... to pander to Congress to pass even more enabling legislation for transmission.  Its recommendations to do just that are at the end of this "study."  It recommends special tax credits for new transmission, federal transmission permitting and siting, federal eminent domain, and wider cost allocation.
There are also additional policy levers that Congress and FERC could pull to help facilitate faster and more effective buildout of new transmission. Americans for a Clean Energy Grid’s Legislative Principles outlines a number of these potential approaches.
I'd like to pull a couple levers...  maybe the one that sends this Spin Study to the dumpster.

Enabling new transmission with legislation is the fast track to increasing carbon emissions.
0 Comments

The Haves And The Have Nots

9/8/2023

1 Comment

 
Picture
Data Centers in Northern Virginia need more power.  They can't get it from local suppliers in Virginia, therefore regional grid operator PJM Interconnection has asked for new transmission proposals to import new electricity supply to serve the Northern Virginia data centers.

But why can't they build more renewables in Virginia to power the data centers, you ask?  First of all, the data centers need as much electricity as a large city.  Imagine taking New York City and plunking it down next to Dulles Airport and expecting to hook up to the existing electric system.  The data centers use half as much as NYC!  The load is just too great to solve with new renewable generators at load.  This is a fact that seems to be escaping the elected officials in Virginia -- they don't realize how much electricity these data centers use.
Bates said he didn’t realize running a power line to a data center was considered a transmission line. 
We all need to educate our local officials on the consequences of building energy sucking data centers in our communities.  It's not just a distribution service line on small wooden poles like homes or businesses use.  The power requirements are so great that data centers need big new high-voltage transmission lines and substations.  They also need big new energy generators to produce the energy used.

Transmission opponent Patti Hankins from Harford County, Maryland, has put together an eye-opening presentation showing the energy supply profiles of several Mid-Atlantic states.  Is your state an electricity importer or an electricity exporter?  Nobody seems to be paying attention to this important fact these days, when everyone seems to be focused on increasing renewable generation and phasing out fossil fuels like coal, gas and oil.  The media drones on incessantly about closing fossil fuel generators, and many people think that renewables like wind and solar supply a huge amount of our energy.  What's really happening up the line when you turn on your light switch?

​This presentation tells you everything you need to know.
comparison_of_pjm_state_installed_capacity_2022.pdf
File Size: 2140 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

Did you know that Pennsylvania and West Virginia are the only two states in our region that export electricity to other states?  Pennsylvania's electricity is mainly created from natural gas, with coal and nuclear making up the vast majority of the remainder.  In West Virginia, the numbers are even more astounding, with 91% of the supply created by burning coal.  Natural gas makes up the majority of the remainder.  In both Pennsylvania and West Virginia, wind and solar provide so little energy that it's hard to even see their slice of the pie.

On the other hand, states like Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia (that imports 99% of the electricity it uses!), Delaware, New Jersey and Ohio are big energy importers.  These states all have renewable energy goals and policies that have served to shut down a big majority of the fossil fuel electric generators that used to supply their energy.  Additions of wind and solar have not kept up with the supply lost by closing fossil fuel generators.  Even in these renewable loving states, wind and solar make up a very small percentage of the power that is used.  The percentage is so small that it cannot support the state's electric load under any circumstances.  So, where do these states get their electricity?  From West Virginia and Pennsylvania via high-voltage transmission lines.  Little do these states know that when they turn on the light switch, they are using good, old-fashioned coal and natural gas.  And they stand ready to INCREASE their use of fossil fuels by building more energy hogs in their areas.  This is the reason PJM is currently proposing a high-voltage transmission build out of epic proportions.

The thought of building the big baseload generators needed to power the new data centers near the data centers isn't even contemplated.  It would never happen!  However, why is it okay to increase the burning of fossil fuels in other states in order to power new data centers?  Don't we all breathe the same air?  Who's the NIMBY now?

We're not as far along on a renewable energy transition as people are being told by the media.  Wind and solar is getting all the attention (and government handouts), but it's actually powering little.  The corporations, utilities, and local governments lie about how "clean and green" they are.  If they actually only used the renewable energy they produce, their lights would be out for a vast majority of the time.  Without West Virginia and Pennsylvania burning fossil fuels, polluting their environments, and sacrificing to build gigantic new electric transmission line extension cords to the east coast cities, these areas would experience rolling blackouts worse than a third-world nation.  

Another lie the media loves is that we need to build new high-voltage transmission to ship renewable energy around the country.  After looking at these graphs and maps, you'll realize this just can't happen.  We are currently stuck in a world of HAVES and HAVE NOTS.  West Virginia and Pennsylvania HAVE the electricity and Virginia, Maryland, DC, Delaware and New Jersey HAVE NOT.  What's really going to be on these new transmission lines is fossil fuel electricity from states with enough to export.  So while the federal government comes up with new programs and taxpayer-funded giveaways to grease the skids for new transmission, they must acknowledge that the only thing they are actually doing is INCREASING emissions.

Elected officials considering new plans for data centers and other big energy hogs that they hope will bring new tax revenue, jobs, and economic development need to recognize that their state does not have enough electricity supply to support this new infrastructure.  New transmission lines from states that burn fossil fuels is not the answer.  The data center boom must be paused until the localities that will reap the financial rewards can build the clean infrastructure they will need to support it.
1 Comment

Transmission Turf War in Oklahoma

7/10/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
New government giveaways have created a land rush in the Oklahoma panhandle to build a forest of wind turbines.  Greedy energy speculators have arrived to exploit Oklahoma and plunder its riches for their own gain.

The Oklahoma panhandle has long been a wind energy speculator's holy grail due to its wind speeds, however it has also been impossible to develop due to its remote location far from gigantic transmission lines for export to other states.  First there was Clean Line Energy Partners, who thought if they built a 700-mile transmission line from the panhandle to Memphis that other companies would build wind turbines in the panhandle and energy consumers in Memphis would eagerly buy whatever electricity was delivered.  Oops!  That didn't work out so swell.  There never were any customers for that idea and Clean Line went belly up after wasting $200M of its investors' money.  However, on its way to dissolution, Clean Line sold the remnants of its project idea to NextEra Energy Resources.  NextEra bought only the Oklahoma portion of the project.  The purchase included rights-of-way that has been acquired by Clean Line.  NextEra has been sitting on this purchase like a chicken on an egg since 2017, waiting for the political tides to change.

And then there was WindCatcher, which wound up about the time Clean Line wound down.  In fact, Clean Line tried to get WindCatcher interested in buying its Oklahoma assets, instead of taking a different route.  WindCatcher was a scheme by American Electric Power subsidiary Public Service Co. of Oklahoma and renewable energy company Invenergy to build the country's largest wind farm in the panhandle and then connect it to eastern Oklahoma via a new transmission line built by PSO.  PSO's first route went just north of Tulsa and was refused by the Osage.  PSO's alternate route went just south of Tulsa to connect near Jenks, but a little town named Bixby formed a tornado of opposition and gave WindCatcher a run for its money.  The project was eventually cancelled when Texas failed to approve its costs being charged to ratepayers.  However, Invenergy sort of jumped the gun on the wind farm part of the project and began minimal construction in order to preserve its federal tax credits for the project.  After WindCatcher was cancelled, Invenergy found itself with a stranded, partly constructed wind farm that it couldn't connect.  Like all creepy critters, Invenergy crawled back under the baseboard and waited patiently until opportunity was ripe to give it another go.

Invenergy and NextEra were finally rewarded for their patience by the current administration's tax money giveaway to anything with "clean" or "transmission" in its name.  The time to strike is now. 

Word has it that NextEra is approaching landowners to get permission to survey for a 500-mile extra high voltage transmission line from Texas/Cimarron Counties to Muskogee/Sequoia Counties, and other areas in the southeast.  (Check a map... it's only 400 miles from the panhandle to Muskogee, at best.  Where is this line really going?).  The route of NextEra's new transmission project sounds almost exactly the same as Clean Line's route through Oklahoma.  NextEra has kept its cards extremely close to the vest, avoiding any media or online presence.  Maybe it's hoping nobody finds out about it yet?  NextEra is certainly not being transparent about its plan and that doesn't bode well for affected landowners and communities.

Invenergy has recently put out its own feelers in a much more public way to build what it's calling the Cimarron Link transmission line.  This transmission project proposes a route from Texas/Cimarron Counties to a substation near Jenks, which almost exactly matches AEP/PSO's WindCatcher route.  Invenergy claims it is reaching out to landowners to negotiate easements.

As if the people of Oklahoma along these very same routes haven't already played this game with either Clean Line or PSO.  There's a thing called "transmission fatigue" which describes a group of landowners who have already battled one transmission line on their properties and are experienced enough to do it again.  No real utility would stupidly try to use the same failed route for another project.  It's like trying to roll a ball uphill.

Do we really NEED two nearly identical transmission lines from the Oklahoma panhandle to the eastern part of the state?  These projects will run more or less parallel within 50 miles of each other.  How many turbines could they realistically build in the panhandle?  Are both sets of these transmission lines and wind farms needed, or will landowners pop some corn and sit back watching these two energy conglomerates from other states duel to the death in order to claim the panhandle?  I wouldn't even think of signing up with either one of them until they finish their duel.
0 Comments

Big Transmission Needs Big Propaganda

6/28/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
The climate change religious freaks were wrong that we could power our country completely on renewable energy.  Our electricity system has become increasingly unreliable and energy shortages are a "when", not an "if," because we closed too many fossil fuel generators that can run at peak when needed.  Oops.  But in order to cover up that lie, they have made up a new one.  They purport that if we only triple the amount of electric transmission in this country that we could reliably power our entire country with only renewable sources of energy. 

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me!  I'm done listening to the climate change preaching because it's become increasingly clear that it is nothing but a control method thought up by a bunch of people who know nothing about electricity.  Spending trillions (that's with a "t") on new electric transmission lines won't make renewables reliable.  It will just compound the problem and turn electricity into a commodity only obtainable by the elite.  See how that works?  It's all about control.

And how do you control the people?  Propaganda.  If you say something often enough, then it becomes fact in the minds of the unenlightened.  We are currently awash in Big Transmission propaganda.  Only if we build an unobtainable amount of transmission before 2030 can we meet Grandpa Joe's climate change goals (as if that old fart is any more than a puppet being controlled by Big Green).  Big Media is stupidly repeating big lies because they think that makes them "smart."  They are currently pretending that the age of some transmission components is the reason most of the country is expected to experience blackouts, instead of the fact that we have closed too many peaking dependable generators.  Did they not even read the report they are "reporting" on?  They also like to pretend "the energy grid" is responsible for the potential blackouts.  Do they really think transmission lines are the problem?  Or are they just so exceptionally stupid that they think electricity is produced by the wires?

Take a look at this week's Big Propaganda from the inaptly named "Energy Intelligence."  Snicker, giggle, haw haw.  We're supposed to believe that "red tape" is the reason we can't have renewable energy.  This piece is brimming over with mind control.

It complains that every wind and solar project cannot connect to the existing transmission system quickly and cheaply.  There's a reason for that, and it's not what they think.  We designed our system of generators and transmission lines for efficiency, not source of energy.  The system is designed to make the generator pay for its own connection to the system.  After all, the generator is the one who is going to make money selling power at that connection.  There is no other magic pool of money to pay for connection.  If the generator does not pay, then all the electric customers pay (even ones that won't use that generator).  That's not fair.  Another reason for making the generator pay for its own connection is to encourage efficient siting of new generators.  We should build the most cost effective generators in order to keep electric rates low.  Making the generator pay to connect forces them to site their plant efficiently.  They would not build a coal plant in Lower Slobovia because connecting it to the system would be way too expensive.  They would build it in Upper Slobovia instead because the transmission system is closer and stronger there.  Fuel source is not a consideration.  If we instead build generators using fuel source as the only consideration, then the connections get really expensive.  Whining about that is a way to attempt to shift the cost of inefficient generator siting to electric consumers, even though the renewable generator is literally generating buckets of taxpayer dollars from thin air.  Heaven forbid they have to use a little of your gold to pay for their own connection!

There's a huge interconnection backlog because renewable developers take multiple spots for the same generator, hoping to find the cheapest connection.  A huge percentage of projects in the queue (80%) never get built because greedy developers are clogging queues with speculative connection requests.  Those projects were never real to begin with.  It's just developer gaming.

NO, we will not shoulder more cost burden so renewable developers (many of them foreign corporations) can connect anywhere it's cheap and easy to build in order to increase the amount of taxpayer dollars they walk away with.

Somehow, Big Wind + Big Solar + Big Transmission are "choked by regulation", but yet we need MORE regulation on fossil fuel energy systems?  Are they really saying that we should let an invasive industry do whatever it wants? 

This OpEd makes regional transmission operators/independent system operators (RTO/ISO) look like nothing but utility cartels that somehow got control of the electric system.  While incumbent utilities have made up the majority of the organization memberships for decades, there's nothing stopping Big Wind + Big Solar + Big Transmission from participating, except for the fact that they're not really needed for any reliability or economic purposes and therefore would not be ordered by the RTO.   Merchant generators and transmission cannot shift their costs to captive ratepayers without an RTO order.  Seems fair enough, with the federal government tilting the playing field to favor renewables and whatever they want by showering them with out tax dollars and giving preference to generation source (something they claimed they would/could not do for years).  No need to be coy any longer.  Renewables get special favors and the power houses that keep the grid from crashing get financially starved until they close.  We're headed for disaster here.

But, pushing regulated utilities aside in favor of "independent" generators and transmission developers isn't the solution either.  "Independent" energy companies are often market-based merchants that escape regulation.  Merchant transmission lines are not the answer because today's merchant is not accepting any financial risk and not negotiating its rates in a free market.  Today's merchant wants government loan guarantees, transmission tax credits, and guaranteed customers so it has no financial risk at all.  When that happens, it is no longer a merchant project, but one that is being involuntarily supported by taxpayers who will never use it.  A merchant transmission project also escapes regulation and scrutiny of need for it in the first place.  Want to make a bunch of money?  Propose a "merchant" transmission line that might be profitable if utilities use it, then leave the government holding the bag when the project fails.

So what if incumbent utilities get right of first refusal to build new transmission?  It's not like merchant transmission serving renewable generators can even compete.  Apples and oranges.  Only needed transmission is planned and ordered by regional organizations, and charged to captive ratepayers.  Merchant transmission is not needed, it's optional, therefore it has to pay its own costs and shoulder all the financial risk.  The propagandists are trying to change this paradigm to independently find merchant transmission "needed" outside the regional organization process, and then shift cost responsibility and risk to consumers and/or taxpayers.  If that happens, why even have regional transmission organizations and reliability organizations?  Why have any organization or regulation of the grid?  Why not just let private investors build what they want and hope the lights stay on?  Because they wouldn't, not without reliability organizations and independent transmission planners.  Electricity would become a commodity available only to the rich, who can afford their own private systems.  How far will they go to try to control the rest of us?
“We’re on the verge of energy abundance and independence if we can just get the energy from where it’s made to where it’s needed,” said Colorado Sen. John Hickenlooper who co-sponsored a bill that would establish a minimum-transfer requirement for regions to be able to transfer at least 30% of their peak electrical loads with other regions. “Show me a new power project in this country and I’ll show you red tape and haphazard grid planning holding us back.” Democrats pushed to have the bill included in the debt ceiling deal but Republican opposition prevented it.
The only thing Hickenlooper can show is his stupidity.  He can't do what he pretends to do because he is stupid about how electricity works.

All these private entity, bought and paid for, politically-biased "studies" about the grid and what the grid needs are simply not enough to plan and operate a fair, balanced, cost effective electric system in the public interest.  They only encourage failing projects like Grain Belt Express.  In exchange for little to no regulation, including no evaluation of need for the project, transmission merchants agree to shoulder all risk and cost of the transmission project.  But yet Invenergy is whining that it should not have to hold up its end of the bargain. 
Often, transmission projects fall by the wayside because of the capital required upfront and the logistics of tying together buyers and sellers in regional marketplaces with different rules and processes. “If you’re going to inject power you have to put money down ahead of time for system upgrades. Independent developers are asked to say yes or no on those down payments before having firm interconnection permissions and timeline certainty from grid operators,” said Rob Taylor, director of transmission at Chicago-based Invenergy. “Our request is to standardize the processes, timelines and definitions so you can have a level playing field."
Invenergy’s Grain Belt Express transmission project, the highest-capacity line in development in the US, will connect four states across 800 miles, taking mostly wind from Kansas (in the Southwest Power Pool) and delivering it into MISO and PJM, the ISO/RTO covering much of the northeast. With a capacity of 5 GW, the proposed project will use HVDC technology. Since Invenergy acquired the project in 2020, it has progressed through key state approvals, with one remaining approval expected at the end of August. Assuming full construction starts at the end of 2024, the project will have been in the works for over a dozen years.
Well, well... you expect approval?  Why is that?  Did you put money down on it?  If you don't like having to put up money and accept risk, then abandon the merchant transmission model and bid on one of the regionally planned and transmission projects ordered by an RTO.

The more electricity issues infiltrate main stream media, the dumber the story gets.  
0 Comments

What's for dinner?

6/14/2023

1 Comment

 
Picture
The New York Times is on a biased roll.  It keeps writing ridiculous and uninformed articles and opinions about "permitting reform" and electric transmission.  It refuses to publish any dissenting opinions or responses, such as this thoughtful piece from a New Jersey consumer group.

Instead, the NYT just doubled down with a second article singing the praises of Grain Belt Express.  The article purports that the opposition to the project is merely concerned about it being an "eyesore."

I'd like to give the reporters a few eyesores of their own, such as this blog and going to bed without supper a few times.
Communities have various reasons for blocking these projects. Landowners might worry about the government seizing their land. Power lines, wind turbines and solar panels can be eyesores in places that rely on beautiful vistas for tourism. Such projects can damage the environment by displacing wildlife or cutting down trees.
These poor, little New York City dwellers don't seem to know where their food comes from.  New transmission projects across working farmland remove land from production and pose various impediments to modern farming, preventing the efficient and economic use of land to produce food.  It's more than just an "eyesore", it impacts their business and their income.  And it also impacts the amount of food they can produce to feed arrogant and biased big city reporters.  Who is going to volunteer to go hungry for each acre of productive farmland that is destroyed by industrial wind and solar and new transmission rights of way?  Probably not these reporters, who must think their food is created at the Walmart factory.

These reporters also have many of their "facts" incorrect.  Let's examine a few:
With its open plains and thousands of miles of wheat fields, Kansas is one of the windiest states in the U.S. That makes it a great place for turbines that capture the wind and convert it into electricity. But too few people live there to use all that power.
So in 2010, developers started planning a large power-line project connecting Kansas with Missouri, Illinois and Indiana. They wanted to move the clean energy generated in Kansas, from both wind turbines and solar panels, to states with much bigger populations. That would let more communities replace planet-warming fossil fuels that have contributed to the kinds of wildfires and unhealthy air that have blanketed large swaths of North America this week.

Have they bothered to look at a wind resources map?  There are better wind resources located off both coasts and in the Great Lakes.  Why would they build in Kansas, miles from "people who use all that power" and not in those better resource areas located conveniently near all those power sucks?  They may not even need transmission to do that.  But they don't want to because they don't want that infrastructure in their own back yard.

No community can replace fossil-fuel baseload generation with intermittent wind and solar from thousands of miles away if they want the lights to go on when they flip a switch.  Renewables cannot follow load.  Load follows renewables.  The communities would still need a power source that could produce when it is needed.  There is absolutely no evidence that fossil fuels caused Canadian wildfires, or any others.  On the west coast, electric transmission lines actually cause wildfires.  The "unhealthy air" actually reduced solar production by an incredible 50%.  It's a circular argument.  Which came first?  The chicken or the egg?
Thirteen years later, however, full construction has not yet started on the project, known as the Grain Belt Express. Why? Because in addition to federal permission, the project needs approval from every local and state jurisdiction it passes through. And at different times since 2010, at least one agency has resisted it.
Full construction has not yet started because Grain Belt Express changed ownership, and then changed its project, including the route, requiring new state permits.  It also had to change the law in Illinois to grant itself public utility status and eminent domain in the counties it intends to cross.  The only "federal" permission the project needed was a conditional order to negotiate rates with potential customers.  That was granted in 2014.  The problem is, there have been no customers, aside from a small coalition of Missouri municipalities who signed a contract to purchase "up to" 200 MW of the project's 5000 MW capacity.  That's less than 5%.  The federal permission to negotiate rates also required former owner, Clean Line Energy Partners, to hold an "Open Season" to advertise its project's capacity to potential buyers.  Clean Line then had the ability to negotiate with those buyers and make a compliance filing demonstrating that it fairly negotiated with buyers who responded to its Open Season.  Clean Line held an Open Season in 2015, but no buyers were ever announced and no compliance filing was made.  New owner Invenergy says it is negotiating with potential buyers, but it has yet to hold a proper Open Season.  It also failed to notify the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the change of ownership and the change of project capacity, as required by the 2014 Order.  Seems to me that all delays were of GBE's own creation.
One way to get at that problem is to do what experts call permitting reform. The issue has recently gained national traction, and President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, discussed it during debt-limit negotiations last month. Local and state governments are considering changes, too.
The goal is to streamline the approval process for energy projects so they can avoid the fate of the Grain Belt Express. As long as such projects languish, Americans will keep using existing coal, oil and gas infrastructure for their energy needs.

Federalizing transmission permitting is not going to solve the delays detailed above.  And it will not make GBE find the customers it needs to make its project economically viable.  Recently, GBE has applied with the federal Department of Energy for a loan guarantee to construct its project.  Permitting reform will not make the DOE grant the loan.  Only sheer ignorance would make the DOE grant a loan guarantee to a project with few customers and little revenue with which to pay back the loan.
The case for a permitting overhaul is that the current system has gone too far. Existing policies have helped protect the environment, landowners and tourism. But they have also become a burden that slows projects far longer than is necessary to ensure safeguards. Reform, then, would be about finding a better balance.
And though changes could allow more fossil fuel projects, they would probably enable far more clean energy projects, experts say. With public attention to climate change, technological breakthroughs and hundreds of billions of dollars in federal spending, clean energy is expected to become cheaper and more competitive than fossil fuels. So developers will be much more likely to build a clean energy project than a fossil fuel one — if they can get the permits.

So now we need to destroy the planet to "save" it?  I'm thinking it's more about certain special interests filling their pockets than saving the environment.

One astute citizen proposed that for every megawatt of renewable energy or transmission constructed in rural communities, the transmission lovers construct an equal amount of transmission and generation in their own backyard.  I'm a little more jaded though... I want to make them feel the impacts of the destruction of the productive farmland that feeds them.  No dinner for you tonight!  You saved the planet today instead!

Grain Belt Express is a lot more than an "eyesore" to the thousands of rural landowners who are facing the taking of their property to construct an overhead transmission line across their productive land.  These landowners participated in and watched with great interest last week when the Missouri PSC held hearings on GBE's new project.  These farmers should have been working their land last week, not watching a hearing.  I'm still trying to catch up on watching the hearings and will probably have a lot more to say about them when I finish.

The New York Times reporters should go to bed without supper a few evenings, just to see what their brave new world is going to be like.
1 Comment

Whoever controls the power has the power

5/25/2023

1 Comment

 
Picture
I've been around since before clean energy was cool.  Does that make me a dinosaur?  Maybe, but it also gives me perspective.

Let's dial it back to 2008 or so.  Clean energy was a dream, a wish, and a lot of people didn't believe in climate change because they were allowed to think free thoughts.  Believe it or not, this was in the time before climate change became a new religion.  Like a lot of people back then, I thought clean energy might be a good idea.  Of course, back then it consisted of ideas like energy efficiency, distributed generation, and a very limited amount of wind energy.  Solar was something you put on your own roof to reduce your energy costs and provide power during outages... if the sun was shining.  Clean Energy was local. 

But even at that time, there were rumblings from people who lived near small wind turbine installations complaining that they hated them.  They were noisy and they decimated birds and bats.  We should have listened back then...

However, the political winds soon changed direction and clean energy got a little bolder, and much better funded.  Suddenly, wind turbines were the place to be to shovel tax dollar into your pocket as fast the blades spun.  Big Wind was born, and it was HUNGRY!  It proceeded to cover vast portions of the Midwest, where farmers were told they could farm around them and collect a huge windfall, pardon the pun.  Some fell for it and were instantly sorry.  Others fell for it but moved away with their windfall because who needs to do the hard work of farming when you can sit on the porch and watch the turbines spin?  Of course, sitting on THAT porch was no longer pleasant, so they rented their farmland and moved elsewhere.

This is the moment in time when Big Wind got all chummy with Big Green.  Suddenly, public interest groups like Sierra Club and Earth Justice were living just a little better with generous grant funding from clean energy foundations and other important donors.  And these public interest groups soon stopped talking about energy efficiency, distributed generation, and local solutions and started talking about wind "farms", tax credits, and a completely contrived non-product, "Renewable Energy Certificates."  A REC is defined as "the environmental and social attributes of clean energy generation."  As if an electron can be separated from its attributes.  RECs aren't real.  The attributes go with the electron.  Whoever  uses the electron gets the attributes.  You can't sell those separately to another user.  But, yes they did.  Something was starting to stink.

Big Wind said it needed lots of government funding and tax breaks.  It said they could power our entire country with their wonderful new generators.  If they overbuilt them to a mind-boggling degree, then they would always be producing the power we needed somewhere.  So our government gave them all the funding they wanted.  Big Wind, Big Green and Big Government declared fossil fuel dead.

So they built way too many wind "farms" in certain areas, but not anywhere near where the important elite people lived.  Those people were fortunate enough to beat them back with political pressure and fat wallets.  It's the regular folks who got saddled with them.

Except wind turbines are not reliable.  They only produce energy when nature provides the fuel.  And it soon became apparent that we could not power our country with just one source for electricity that was not reliable all the time.

Enter Big Solar.  The collective Bigs (wind, solar, green and government) said we could reliably power our entire country if they could also build a massive amount of solar "farms".  So the government funded those as well and the energy companies proliferated and began to build solar on every piece of farmland they could lease.  People began to hate them as much (or more) than wind turbines.  Solar is quiet, they said.  Solar has no moving parts.  Solar is cheap if we import the panels from China.  They told us that if we had lots of wind turbines and solar panels that we could power our entire country with them.  They insisted if we had enough solar and wind, something would always be generating enough power to supply our needs.

Except solar isn't reliable.  It only produces energy when nature provides the fuel.  Vast regions, such as the Midwest, that covered their ground with wind and solar soon began to have reliability issues.  It was feast or famine -- too much wind and solar, or not enough, depending on weather.  Storage was not a practical or economic solution.  It soon became apparent that even with a huge amount of wind and solar, it just wasn't true that something was always generating enough power to serve the region.

Meanwhile, due to all the government subsidies, wind and solar became the cheapest power available.  Because the cost of producing it was funded by the government, these generators could bid into regional markets at low cost, maybe even zero.  How about that?  Some "free" power courtesy of trillions of your tax dollars!  Except that's not really how markets work.  Generators bid in and the bids are stacked in price order.  Beginning at the lowest cost, the market buys available resources in order.  When the need is covered, the buying stops.  The highest price paid is then paid to every generator in the stack.  So, even if a resource is bid at zero, it ends up earning the top clearing price.  But, back on topic.  Because reliable generators like gas, nuclear, coal that can run when we need them have an actual, unsubsidized cost, they cannot bid in at zero.  Therefore, they are higher in the cost stack.  Some are just priced out of the market.  If you're too expensive to compete, you make no revenue.  No revenue means you are out of business.  So, the coal, gas, and nuclear plants began to close.  And the Bigs crowed about how many "dirty" power plants they had closed and how wonderful everything was.

But wait... big wind and solar are not reliable all the time and without those "dirty" plants to back them up, we started to have reliability problems that could tank the whole wind and solar scheme.  So they told another lie to prop up the first two.

Suddenly, we need a whole bunch of new electric transmission lines so that wind and solar can be shipped to other regions of the country.  Certainly if they could spread their failure over an even bigger area from coast to coast, their other lies about wind and solar being able to produce reliable power when needed would finally pan out.  Now that reliability issues have surfaced and continue to expand every year, they blame it on "extreme" weather caused by climate change, and not on reality:  there are not enough "dirty" plants to back up wind and solar.  Wind and solar cannot supply reliable power for our nation without a huge amount of back up nuclear, gas or coal-fired power plants.    Reliability issues are incorrectly blamed on the weather and climate change.

Building an enormous amount of solar, wind and  transmission isn't going to change the weather.  See  how that circular argument goes?  Clean energy causes reliability problems but that's only because the weather is extreme because of climate change.  If we just keep building wind and solar, we can change the climate and stop extreme weather and then clean energy will be reliable.  Ya know, I think your arrogance has gone to your head.  You can't change the weather.  It's not "extreme" due to climate change.  That's just one more lie from the Bigs.

If we continue down the path where clean energy needs new transmission subsidies, what's next?  Big transmission  isn't going to solve our problems.  It's just going to make the failure and reliability issues even bigger.  Big transmission is just another lie, meant to prop up the earlier lies of Big Solar, Big Wind and Big Green.  But it is a series of lies that our current Big Government supports in its quest for power.

Whoever controls the power has the power.

It's time to stop.  I don't believe the lies anymore.  Bring back the local solutions.

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me! 
1 Comment

I Hope You Enjoy Sweating

5/5/2023

2 Comments

 
Picture
Texas grid operators and regulators are warning of the possibility of blackouts this summer.  They say that there is not enough dispatchable generation to cover periods when renewables like solar and wind are not performing.  A dispatchable generator can generate electricity when needed.  An intermittent renewable generator only generates power when nature provides the fuel.
Lake said this summer, the riskiest hours on the hottest days could be closer to the 9 p.m. timeframe when solar power goes away with the sunset.
"It's still hot at 9 p.m. The sun sets faster than the atmosphere cools, and our solar generation is all gone. So at that point in the day, we will be relying on wind generation,” he said.  "If the wind does not pick up, we will have to rely on our on-demand, dispatchable generators. And the data is showing us that on our hottest days under a certain set of circumstances, we may not have enough on-demand, dispatchable generation to cover the gap between when the sun sets -- and we lose the solar -- and when our wind generation picks up.” 
So if there's not enough wind on those hottest days, outages are possible after sunset.
But it's not just Texas.  The Southwest Power Pool, that operates the grid in the southwestern plains has also issued an alert for next week.
SPP has issued a resource advisory for its 14-state balancing authority area in the Eastern Interconnection next week, effective Monday at 10 a.m. CT through 8 p.m. Tuesday, because of an expected shortfall from wind resources and generating units offline on maintenance outages.

The difference is a forecast that projects wind energy to be significantly lower during the advisory period.
And it's not just ERCOT and SPP.  The Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) is warning that there could be problems this summer.
"Relatively low wind volatility but low production levels can stress some of our operations conditions as we do have a lot more wind in our system than we have had in the past," Kuzman said. MISO's summer wind forecasts tend to be off by 800-1,200 MW, and there is usually a falloff of wind output in August, he said.
And it's not just ERCOT and SPP and MISO, PJM Interconnection, the grid operator for Mid-Atlantic states recently issued its own warning.
Power supplies in the US PJM Interconnection could get dangerously tight this summer if there is high demand and high outages -- a situation that would require the grid operator to rely on demand response to maintain reliability, Mike Bryson, senior vice president of operations at PJM, said May 4.

When PJM looked at the combination of unexpectedly high demand and high outages, it saw "for the first time that we would be below operating reserves for the summer," Bryson told a meeting of the Illinois Commerce Commission.
It's no longer a fluke or a coincidence.  It's reality, and it's spreading.  Environmental groups say "don't blame wind and solar, blame increasingly bad weather."  And of course, that increasingly bad weather, they claim, is a direct result of "climate change" and "climate change" is caused by reliable baseload power generators, like coal and gas.  So, if we turn off all the fossil fuels, will the weather change enough to provide 24/7 dependable wind and solar power?  Absolutely not.  This is a ridiculous contention.

Here's a good article on how and why this resource inadequacy is spreading like the plague.
“What other states do has a great effect on the grid. For example, any of the [PJM] states that say they’re going to go completely green or clean or whatever you want to call it — they say they’re not going to use any more fossil fuel. Well, that means they’re going to rely on someone else to provide power for them in those times when these clean and green energy projects don’t work. They’re intermittent; they depend on the time of day. The example I use is: Where does the power come from for a solar array at three o’clock in the morning?”
PJM is the last fossil-fuel generating hold out, and in the face of its own looming reliability problems, it can no longer be the powerhouse of the eastern interconnection.

Are these the solutions the clean energy peddlars and our bloated, woke government see?  They'll be the first to scream when the lights go out.
“There are two solutions: There will be certain times when you operate your appliances or charge your car or whatever, or there will be rolling blackouts. Neither of those sound like very good options to me.”
2 Comments

Ogres, Orks, Obakes and Offsets

4/30/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
What do these four things have in common?  They are entirely mythical.  They simply don't exist in reality.

This article caught my eye this week.  Google is partnering up with EDPR to build "community solar" that will power Google's gigantic data center power suck.  Except they won't.  The new solar projects won't provide power to Google data centers.  They will simply "offset" Google's enormous thirst for electricity supplied by coal and gas-fired power plants.  After all, if Google actually powered its data centers with solar, you wouldn't be able to use Google after dark, and everything would be erased by dawn each morning.  Instead, Google uses good old reliable fossil fuel burning electricity and activates its climate guilt to build renewables somewhere else for someone else to use.

It's a scheme that has been around for awhile.  Years ago, I investigated "renewable energy credits", or RECs to find out that they aren't actually energy at all.  While renewable generators provide and sell power to actual customers, they also sell RECs.  A REC is the social and environmental attributes of renewable power.  It is a completely separate product that is bought and sold, although it doesn't actually exist.  A REC is mythical, just like an offset.  An offset pretends that a power customer like Google can "offset" its carbon footprint by producing enough renewable power to match its use of fossil fuel power.  They believe if they produce as much power as they use then it negates their use of power.  Someone else's use of that power is supposed to substitute for that person's use of dirty power.  Except does it really?  If Google cannot rely on solar power 24/7, can anyone else?  Of course not.  We all use power 24/7.  This is starting to sound like a pyramid scheme where other people get stuck using unreliable renewable power 24/7 while Google uses all the good, reliable stuff without guilt because it has "offsets."

This is pure nonsense!

Sure, giving away money generated by the sale of community solar power is all Robin Hood-ish.  But would the community solar actually benefit the community in which it was sited if that community did not meet the financial qualifications?  Or is Google going to build these community solar projects in rural areas and give the profits to energy users in urban areas that qualify?  It's all so much fairy tale fantasy.

Ditto on the idea that overbuilding of renewables and connecting them all by overbuilding transmission can somehow make up for renewable power's unreliable intermittency.  But yet the political minions claim this to be so because it all works out on average.  Average.  A math problem.  If we have this much renewable power, and it has an average capacity factor of 30%, then if we build 70% more than we actually need that will create a 100% capacity factor. 

Capacity factor is the percentage of a power plant's maximum capacity that is actually produced.  Power plants cycle up and cycle down to follow load.  They don't run at their full capacity all the time.  However, renewable generators cycle up and cycle down at the whim of nature and load is supposed to follow them.  There's the difference.

Presuming that a region with lots of intermittent renewable power can "borrow" from its neighboring region when it doesn't have enough power doesn't work because its not a math problem.  It's reality.  What if the neighboring region is also experiencing inadequate generation?  Night is long, and an hour's time difference isn't going to cover it.  Say the sun sets in the Pacific at 9:00 p.m., and the sun rises over the Atlantic at 6 a.m.  There's a three hour time difference, so the Pacific solar generation ends at midnight Atlantic time.  It's still 6 hours before the sun rises there. 

Battery power, you say?  But we don't have the technology to store electricity for long periods of time, batteries are very expensive, and they come with their own environmental burdens.  Not a solution.

We have not found the "clean power" silver bullet.  It's not wind + solar + transmission.  However, saying it is makes certain people and certain companies very, very rich.  What a bunch of patsies!  Making crap up for the sake of political and financial gain is never going to stop.  However, we can all get a lot smarter and stop believing it.

When the power flickers on and off in the middle of the night, I used to think it was an equipment failure somewhere, roll over, and go back to sleep.  Now when it happens, I feel compelled to get out of bed to check my phone to make sure the grid hasn't crashed in a spectacular way before I can relax enough to go back to sleep.  Welcome to the land of Ogres, Orks, Obakes and Offsets.
0 Comments

Smells Like Propaganda

3/6/2023

1 Comment

 
Picture
Propaganda rag Bloomberg article about four long-stalled transmission projects, including Grain Belt Express, that the reporters claim are "inching ahead."  Ahead of what?  These projects have been bumping around for more than a decade without success.  Only one is actually being built, and that's the one buried on existing rights of way and underwater.  Coincidence?  I think not.

But that's not the stinkiest part.  The propaganda oozing from this article claims:
The fact these long-in-the-works projects are reaching similar milestones appears to be coincidence; no single policy is moving them forward. They are, however, advancing at a time of increasing understanding by local communities and even traditional opponents — including some conservation groups — of the need to move clean energy from rural outposts and to build more durable electric systems after a series of weather and climatic events have felled grids in recent years.
Who are these "communities" and "traditional opponents"?  Doesn't say, but it also "includes conservation groups" so perhaps we have our culprit right there.  Conservation groups are pretending they speak for landowners. Conservation groups like Sierra Club and all those other big green organizations that like to intervene in state siting and permitting proceedings to support the destruction of your community and property.  They speak for you about as much as former Missouri Governor Jay Nixon did when he negotiated "landowner protections" on your behalf without consulting you.  Now you've got posturing, sanctimonious swamp creatures claiming that you "understand" how you must sacrifice your home to the Gods of Climate Change that they worship.

Nobody affected by new above-ground transmission rights-of-way taken under threat of eminent domain "understands" this  idiocy.  That's a bold-faced LIE designed to make the hoi polloi believe that you don't mind being thrown under the wheels of the "clean energy" bus that they're driving so that they can all cheer about how they have saved the planet (that was never in any actual danger).  This is gas  lighting.  This is mainstream media propaganda.

These reporters also doesn't realize that what has "felled grids" in recent years is the retirement of baseload coal and gas electric generators and a failing attempt to replace them with intermittent industrial wind and solar generators.  It's not the weather.  It's the generation sources.  See how they did that?  "Not enough power?  Build more wind and solar and transmission lines!"  When their agenda causes a problem, they pretend you need to continue with their agenda to solve the problem that's being created.  They are doubling-down on the cause of the problem instead of finding a solution.  What is it going to take to stop this craziness?  Do we have to wait for these low-information fools to crash the grid?

Tell the reporters they are quite mistaken in their unsupported presumption.  We do care and we will continue to resist.
1 Comment
<<Previous

    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

    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
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.