Category:

Duke Tucks Tail Between Legs and Cancels Transmission Line Project

11/4/2015

... well, at least for now.

After announcing plans to retire its Asheville coal-fired generation plant in May, Duke Energy dreamed up a bodacious plan to replace it with a massive gas-fired plant, 40-miles of new 230kV line, and a new substation in Campobello, SC.

Pandemonium ensued.

The folks in North and South Carolina organized with local environmental organizations to produce more than 9,000 public comments opposing the plan and numerous local government resolutions against it. The people spoke.

Duke says it listened.

Last month, Duke suspended its Western Carolinas Modernization Plan for the plant/transmission line in order to go back to the drawing board.

Today, the drawing was revealed. No new transmission line! No new substation! A marginally smaller, two-unit gas plant. Upgrades to existing transmission lines and substations.

Duke made a mistake packaging all this stuff together in one plan. It also packaged all its opposition together in one package by doing so. It wasn't going to fly.

So, Duke has begun the process of peeling its opposition away in layers. First to go are all those noisy, pesky, tenacious transmission line opponents. We'll see how that affects the noise level, won't we?

This leaves only opposition to the gas plant from environmental groups. Or, does it? Who's to say that Duke won't use its quiet time to construct the gas plant, then propose a new transmission line to serve it after it's completed?

The opposition says it's in it for the long haul. This isn't over.

But, for today, there's celebrating in the Carolinas!

Congratulations, Carolina Land Coalition!

0 Comments

The Final Salvo

11/4/2015

0 Comments

The final salvo in PATH's Formal Challenges/Abandonment case was fired yesterday by the filing of Briefs Opposing Exceptions at FERC.

Newman/Haverty Brief Opposing Exceptions.

FERC Trial Staff Brief Opposing Exceptions.

Joint Consumer Advocates Brief Opposing Exceptions.

PATH Brief Opposing Exceptions.

EEI didn't file another brief. Nothing was filed by any other parties suddenly seeking to be a part of the case.

The case now goes to the Commission for final decision. It could be months. It could be years. The Commission will act when it's ready.

Hello, life. I'm baaaaaaaaaaaack!

0 Comments

Speedy Transmission Siting and Permitting - NECPL's "Secret"

11/2/2015

2 Comments

It's really no secret at all how TDI New England is speeding through approvals for its New England Clean Power Link project.

The Clean Power Link is entirely underwater or underground.

The line will originate at the U.S.-Canadian border and travel approximately 97 miles underwater down Lake Champlain to Benson, Vt., and then be buried along town and state roads and railroad rights-of-way or on land owned by TDI New England for approximately 57 miles to a new converter station to be built in Ludlow, Vt.

The Clean Power Link encountered minimal public resistance in Vermont because of the burial of the line.

“It is well recognized in the industry that siting is one of the most difficult facets of building new energy infrastructure,” said Susan Schibanoff with Responsible Energy Action. “NECPL dealt with that issue first by creating solid community and political support with a fully buried line. It has clearly paid off in terms of the record speed with which they have moved ahead.”

This amazing project completed its Environmental Impact Statement in just two years! The Union Leader compares it to the stalled, overhead Northern Pass project, which has been trying to get its EIS completed since 2010. That's 5 years, and no end in sight.

When transmission developers design projects to be as unobtrusive and acceptable to landowners as possible, the developer can save millions in expensive advocacy-building and opposition battling tactics, as well as years in its project timeline.

This means burial, especially on public land/water, and along existing roadways or other rights-of-way. No eminent domain is required.

But, but, but... a buried project is so much more expensive than an overhead project, whine the transmission developers.

And they fear adding "unnecessary" cost of burial to an O1000 competitively bid project for fear of not being awarded the project. Let's see these guys start making logical arguments to the RTO about the amount of time and money saved by not having any opposition, not having huge land/eminent domain costs to acquire rights-of-way from private landowners, and general constructability of a buried project vs. any additional cost of burial along public rights-of-way. I think they will pretty much balance themselves out. The more buried projects that get built, the cheaper it will become.

Because NECPL proves that is IS possible get 'er done in a timely fashion while keeping your integrity intact. Even for a merchant project (NECPL is a merchant project).

There's a lesson here for the transmission industry, if you can actually teach some very old dogs a new trick. Can transmission developers shrug off their old dirty tricks that lie to communities? Can they ever be honest with affected communities? Can they develop some integrity? Better ideas are right there for the taking. This is the modern way to get needed transmission built. Anybody who tries to tell you different is a dinosaur who needs to retire.

2 Comments

Project Compass Charts a Course to Investor Owned Utility Profit

11/1/2015

3 Comments

Investor owned utility PPL has taken what it calls the first step in segmented approvals for its "Project Compass" that was announced during its earning call in the summer of 2014.

The original 2014 plan was a 725-mile line connecting New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland that looked like this:

The project announced last week only includes 475-miles of line in Pennsylvania and New York, and looks like this:

What happened to the New Jersey, southern Pennsylvania, and Maryland sections of the project? In the Fall of 2014, PPL had this to say about its ginormous plan:

On a last quarterly call, we had just announced Project Compass, a proposed 725 mile transmission line through the shale gas regions of Pennsylvania and into New York and New Jersey and Maryland.

We’ve been meeting with officials at the state PUCs and governor's offices in the states where customers will benefit, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and Maryland. Those meetings have gone well overall and we plan to have continuing dialogues on the project benefits. We're also meeting with other key agencies and other transmission operators in the region. We will continue to update you as we reach project milestones.

I guess those meetings didn't go as well as PPL thought they went, because those segments sort of well... disappeared, at least for the time being.

So, last week PPL said the "full project" consisted of 475-miles of transmission (down from 725) from western Pennsylvania into southern New York. They claim to have applied for interconnection to the NYISO transmission region. PPL claims that Project Compass will:

“This transmission line provides a significant opportunity to improve reliability and grid security and also provides benefits to customers,” Paul Wirth, spokesman for PPL Electric, said this morning. “When you add another path for power to flow, then that increases reliability because you are not relying as much on a single substation or power line.”

Another goal is to provide an estimated savings of at least $200 million per year for New York consumers by reducing transmission congestion.

But that's only the fox's opinion of the state of affairs in the chicken house. This isn't how we plan for needed transmission!

A need for new transmission is recognized by regional transmission organizations (such as NYISO or PJM) for either reliability, economic, or public policy purposes. Under FERC's Order No. 1000, the RTO next puts the transmission problem out for bid to transmission developers, who develop proposed solutions that are considered by the RTO in a competitive process. This ensures that we only build needed transmission and that the transmission we build is the most cost-effective.

Instead, PPL has dreamed up a solution that needs a problem to fix. Project Compass has not been deemed "needed" in any regional transmission organization's coordinated plan. And only a project that is included in a RTO plan and deemed the most competitive solution can recover its costs through regionally allocated transmission rates.

The exception to this process is what's known as a merchant line. In that instance, the transmission developer shoulders all risk and burden of building its project and then collects its costs from users through negotiated rates. Is this what PPL is building? You wouldn't know it from the way the company describes it to investors and the public:

Who will pay for the first segment of Project Compass?

According to the FERC guidelines for cost allocation, those who benefit from a new power line should pay its costs. The first segment would be paid for by electric customers in New York who will get the benefit of lower power prices. The costs would be paid over a period of many years on customers’ electric bills.

Wait a minute -- cart before horse! According to FERC guidelines for cost allocation, only a project included in a regional plan is eligible for cost allocation. According to FERC guidelines for negotiated rate authority, however, only those customers who agree to use the line pay a negotiated rate to do so. There is no guaranteed cost allocation recovery for a merchant project. And because there is no guarantee that costs will be recovered from consumers, the project's investors can lose their entire investment if the project does not go forward or attract customers. Doesn't sound like a very solid investment, when there are plenty of transmission projects included in regional plans with guaranteed recovery where the investor could plunk down their money instead.

Furthermore, PPL believes it can avoid all that messy competition in the regional planning process by segmenting its project:

Shah Pourreza - Guggenheim Securities LLC
I appreciate the new disclosures around the Compass Project. So how should we think about the remaining miles? Are you looking to potentially segment the rest? And then, is there an opportunity to potentially JV with some of the neighboring utilities to smooth out the process?

William H. Spence - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
Sure. I think in both cases the answer would be yes. So there's an ability to continue to segment the line as well as partnering with adjacent or utilities that the project goes through their service territory. So I think in both cases we would look to do that.

Daniel Eggers - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker)
Okay. Very good. I got that. And then just on Compass real quick. I know it's ways off, but does this get caught up in this Order 1000 workout because it's an economic line instead of a reliability line? Do you get more competition, and people prospectively bid away the cost of capital? Or how do you think you're going to be able to reserve some sort of competitive advantage in this line?

William H. Spence - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
I'll let Greg take that question.

Gregory N. Dudkin - President, PPL Electric Utilities, PPL Corp.
Yes. So the way this is set up currently under New York law, this would not be considered a FERC 1000 Project, so we are going and making interconnection requests and will be filing our Article VII now. So if the approval path goes down that path there may be an opportunity for competition, but the probability is little bit lower. If the PSC opens up economic window next year then there could be competition, so we'll see how it plays out.

William H. Spence - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
I think relative to the competitive nature of this, obviously just having completed a very major line essentially in the same region, I think our capability to be very competitive should we get to that point should be strong.

Don't you think, PPL, that segmenting your project in order to avoid competition under Order No. 1000 is going to draw any number of valid complaints at FERC? Someone doesn't have their thinking cap on! And I really, really hope you're not planning to run this line anywhere on federal property that would require an Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA. Segmenting a project to avoid NEPA is sort of... well... illegal, isn't it?

It's nice to see that PPL has finally recognized that running its badly planned project through urbanized parts of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland isn't going to happen. But it's still off-base to think that restricting it to rural parts of Pennsylvania and New York is gonna fly. It's not. My Spidey Senses tell me that lots of people in Pennsylvania and New York caught last week's announcement and are investigating. Opposition begins!

PPL's idea for a transmission project is leveraged on Pennsylvania's current Marcellus shale gas glut. PPL believes that, instead of building underground gas transmission lines to transport gas from where it is collected to gas-burning generation plants located near eastern load, that gas-burning plants will develop near where the gas is collected that will depend on long-distance overhead electric transmission lines to transport electricity to load.

However, what I would say is the compass project, which is not included in our CapEx program, would be a program or a project if you will that would take advantage of some of the opportunities in the Marcellus shale to basically instead of bringing the gas pipelines across, we'd be bringing electric lines across to the potentially new power stations that could be built. So that would be our opportunity, if you will, that's shale gas-related.

This is a really stupid idea left over from the last century, where "mine mouth" electric generation plants burned coal where it was mined and transported the electricity hundreds of miles to load because the load didn't want any of those dirty coal plants located in their neighborhood. This solution simply doesn't work any more. It's a lot easier to build a gas transmission line (and the fracking and exploitation of Pennsylvania to collect this gas is going to happen either way) than it is to build an electric transmission line. What a truly stupid idea.

PPL's audacious Project Compass still has so many hurdles to jump, they might as well just quit now:

What approvals will be required for the first segment?

The first segment will require approval from various regulatory and regional planning entities including the public utility commissions of Pennsylvania and New York, New York Independent System Operator, PJM Interconnection, and FERC. Siting and construction of the line will require permits from appropriate environmental and resource agencies.

FERC, you say? But FERC doesn't have authority to permit transmission lines. It only has authority over transmission rates. So, either PPL is planning to ask FERC for negotiated rate authority for a merchant line, or it's planning to ask FERC for some rate incentives for its cost allocated project. Which is it?

And what kind of approval are they looking for from NYISO and PJM? Is it an interconnection for a merchant project, or is it inclusion in a regional, competitive transmission plan? Does PPL even have a clue what it's trying to accomplish? This has to be the dumbest transmission plan I've ever seen, and it's based on both the public and investors being equally dumb. I don't think the RTOs and state commissions are supposed to be dumb, because they're not.

Since PPL answered the last question this blog posed about where it came up with the name "Project Compass"

Where does the name “Compass” come from?

This project charts a new course in the way we think about and plan the electrical grid of the future.

we will expect them to answer the current questions about just what in the heck they're trying to accomplish with approvals as well.

The only course Project Compass is charting now is one of confusion that they hope will lead to corporate profits. I think the needle is still pointing toward failure.

3 Comments

Arkansas Forms Landowner Group to Oppose Clean Line

10/25/2015

2 Comments

We have some big news from Dave and Alison in Arkansas!

First, we've heard a rumor that the final EIS may be coming out next week, so keep your eyes open.
Second, working with some friends at Arkansas Citizens Against Plains and Eastern Clean Line over the last month, we've quietly established a landowners' LLC. We kept it quiet because we didn't want Clean Line to know what we were up to until we were ready. As you probably know, landowners' LLCs have had some important victories against Clean Line in Missouri and Oklahoma, and they're working hard in Illinois and Iowa. We feel that, no matter what the DOE decides, we'll be better able to respond if we do it together. Strength in numbers!

The only way this works is if we can get enough affected and adjacent landowners to participate. That's where you come in. We'll be holding meetings across the state in November and early December with our legal representation there to answer questions. We're sending out postcards, but doing so is incredibly expensive. There's no way we can get to everyone we need to without your help. If you would like to donate to help with our mailing, please go here:

GoldenBridgeAR

We're asking you to spread the word and help us pave the way. You know us. Not everyone else does. We can't do this without you. This is the link to the website:

GoldenBridgeAR

The website details membership options (we've kept the buy-in cost very low) and includes a "pre-membership survey". The LLC is structured to keep voting memberships exclusively for affected landowners (preferred and alternates) and adjacent landowners. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

It is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT for all affected and interested parties to attend the upcoming meetings. Please do everything you can to help us maximize attendance. This is our chance to give people the opportunity to talk to an attorney for FREE. Together, we have the collective influence and power to fight this thing!

2 Comments

Briefs on Exception Filed in PATH FERC Case

10/15/2015

0 Comments

You're probably anxious to know what I think about PATH's Brief on Exceptions.

And you're probably eager to find out what I think about Trial Staff's Brief on Exceptions.

And I think you're also interested in what I think about the Joint Consumer Advocates Brief on Exceptions.

And you're probably just beside yourself with fervent, giddy curiosity to know what I think about Edison Electric Institute's Motion to Intervene Out-of-Time or, in the Alternative, Participate as Amicus Curiae, and Brief on Exceptions.

Alas, that's privileged information. Attorney-client privilege between me, myself and I, you know.

All in due time, grasshopper. All shall be revealed in due time.

No mystery what I think about the Brief on Exceptions of Keryn Newman and Alison Haverty. Read it.

Now get back to work. Nobody's paying you to read this blog.

0 Comments

Get Information About Potomac Edison Rate Increase at Jefferson Forum

10/13/2015

0 Comments

Are you perturbed about Potomac Edison's constant rate increases? Do you want to have your questions answered?

Come to the Jefferson Forum this Saturday, October 17, at 8:30 am at the Mountain View Diner in Charles Town!

The JEFFERSON FORUM will hold its monthly meeting on

17 October 2015    0830 AM to   1100 A M
Mountain View Diner
901 East Washington Street
Charles Town, WV 25414

Our primary topic will be to discuss the proposed rate increase as filed 14 August 2015 before the WEST VIRGINIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION by POTOMAC EDISON and MONONGAHELA POWER. The issues to discuss involve the impact of this rate increase since it follows closely upon the rate increase which took effect in April 2015. The primary reason given for this increase appears to be increased fuel costs.

Since the consuming public is given no voice before the WV Public Service Commission, save for an overworked, under funded, understaffed Consumer Advocate Office, it is not unreasonable to request that the Utility Companies offer reasonable explanations for such demands.

We require civility and courtesy at THE JEFFERSON FORUM, and every effort is made to assure that every person is allowed to be heard.

Danny Lutz
MODERATOR
THE JEFFERSON FORUM

And Mountain View Diner serves a mean breakfast. It might be almost as tasty as the rest of the event!

Potomac Edison and the WV PSC have been invited, but have declined the invitation, stating:

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Jefferson County Forum on Oct. 17. Unfortunately, since the issues you wish to discuss are pending before the WV Public Service Commission, I cordially decline your invitation.

Testimony regarding the recovery of our fuel costs will be accepted by the Commission on Nov. 19th & 20th at their office in Charleston. Please feel free to attend those hearings.

No date has been set for the hearing on the Vegetation Management filing.

Just an FYI -- the food in Charleston isn't nearly as good. Neither is the show.

I wouldn't miss this for the world! I'm betting Potomac Edison won't either. They'd best find some really inconspicuous spies.... anyone acting suspiciously will be hauled to the front of the room and made to address the crowd while speed eating a Gyro, Feta & Tomato Omelette and juggling a trio of Belgian Waffles.

See you there ;-)

0 Comments

Duke Reconsiders "Modernization" Project

10/10/2015

0 Comments

Just a few short months after debuting its audacious "Western Carolinas Modernization Project," Duke Energy has tucked its tail between its legs and slunk back to the drawing board.

Blue Ridge Now reports:

Duke Energy announced Thursday that it will take more time to review public comments and consider alternatives to its proposed Foothills Transmission Line.

Duke Energy announced it would not release its preferred route for planned transmission lines in early October as it had planned, saying it needs more time to consider input from the public as well as possible alternatives.

"More time is needed to continue to carefully consider more than 9,000 comments received on the proposed transmission line and create a solution to deliver cleaner, reliable power to Western Carolinas," Duke officials said in a news release. "The company is looking at all options that can meet the region's power demand over the next 10 to 15 years — including possible alternatives to the transmission line, Campobello substation and the configuration of the proposed Asheville natural gas power plant."

So, Duke recognized that continued pursuit of this project is an expensive, losing proposition. And that's because of the size and intensity of the opposition it's been receiving from the Carolina Land Coalition and other opponents.

It's refreshing that Duke capitulated so early in the process, instead of pumping money and propaganda into a search for third-party advocates. In this instance, the company made the correct choice in seeking compromise. Maybe it could give lessons to some other wanna be transmission companies (psst... Clean Line...)?

So, what are the options now being considered?

Possible alternatives include the reconfiguration of the planned gas plant at the Asheville site.

Configuring the gas plant in different ways could change the related transmission needs, he said. Federal regulations require enough capacity in the system to compensate for the largest generation unit going offline, and if the plans for the gas plant call for a smaller unit, the transmission capacity needed could be lessened.

Duke is looking at different substation options as well, leveraging existing transmission infrastructure and other options, he said, but there is still a chance that the plan could stay the same. Other, smaller transmission upgrades that are already planned will continue, he added.

But here's what won't change:

The company still plans to replace the Asheville coal plant with a natural-gas-burning plant, Williams said. "We're not suggesting the need is not there; it very much is there."

Looks like Duke is betting that most of the opposition to its plan comes from the transmission line and substation, not the gas plant. And if Duke doesn't build a transmission line or substation, will those folks accept the compromise?

I guess we'll see...

0 Comments

Why are Potomac Edison's West Virginia Electric Rates So Confusing?

10/6/2015

1 Comment

Potomac Edison sends out confusing electric bills and rate information that nobody can understand. The West Virginia PSC allows it.

Did you get one of those hand-dandy Potomac Edison "Electric Rates for West Virginia Customers" pamphlets in your recent bill? Did you try to use the pamphlet to check Potomac Edison's math or to figure out what the different line items on your bill mean? Don't. Don't try to figure it out. You're going to drive yourself crazy!

If you're one of those folks who just go with the flow and pay whatever the company charges you without even looking at your bill, then don't read any further. However, if you're one of those folks who scrutinizes things and speaks up when they're not right, this is for you.

There are two, possibly three lines items on your bill. Your "base charge," your "environmental control charge," and if you live in a municipality that imposes taxes on your electric consumption, there will be a line item for "taxes."

What goes into your "base charge?" If you use your rate pamphlet that Potomac Edison just sent you, the W.Va. Rate Schedule R - Residential rate is detailed as a flat $5.00/month customer charge, plus an Energy Charge of $0.08747 per kWh used. So, if you multiply your kWh used by the Energy Charge rate and then add the $5 Customer Charge, it will add up to the base charge line item on your bill, right?

WRONG! It doesn't add up.

Try calling the company for an explanation. They give you some complicated explanation that there are additional charges for things you can't find on your rate pamphlet under the Schedule R section. If you push them to explain it to you so you actually understand, they get their panties in a bunch. Try calling the WV Public Service Commission to see if they can explain it to you. They'll send you a bunch of schedules and a list of charges that went into your bill, but again, you can't find these charges on your rate pamphlet.

Turn your rate pamphlet over to the back cover. Under the heading of "Lighting Fixture - Customer Owned Pole" you will find some additional charges entitled "Environmental Control Charge," "Environmental Control Charge Normalization," "EEC Program Cost Recovery Rate," and "Temporary Transaction Surcharge."

Hey, Environmental Control Charge -- that's a separate line item on your residential bill, isn't it! And if you multiply your kWh used by the Rate Schedule R rate, you will get the same number!

But what about those other three charges? They're not separate line items on your residential bill. But they're in there. They've been added to your "base charge," along with your Customer Charge and Energy Charge.

Go ahead, try it. Multiply your kWh by each of the three remaining charges (taking note that the Environmental Control Charge Normalization is a credit, or subtraction from your bill for residential customers). Then add that to your Energy Charge and Customer Charge and see if you don't get the same subtotal that Potomac Edison got on your bill. Add in your Environmental Control Charge and Tax line items and you get the amount of your current bill! Amazing! Doesn't that sound easy?

No? You're not alone. It shouldn't take an intelligent guy a week and countless phone calls and numerous emails to become utterly frustrated with this confusion. You know what the ratepayers think, Potomac Edison? They think you make your bills confusing on purpose so that you can find new and interesting ways to gouge them without them noticing. So, I explained the rate pamphlet, the actual rate, and the correspondence, tariff sheets and other "explanations" he was sent by the company and the PSC. Just one more service I provide. I won't say he's thrilled, but he understands now. Why did you waste his time (and yours) like this Potomac Edison and WV PSC?

Why can't you include the ENTIRE Residential rate scheme on the front of your rate pamphlet, Potomac Edison? Why did you put those mystery riders on the back page under the Lighting Fixture Schedule? You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you? There's no reason calculating and understanding your residential electric bill needs to be this hard. Maybe you should ask a customer now and again about how you can improve their understanding of their electric bill and the rates they pay. Because I'm not going to be here to clean up after you forever.

1 Comment

U.S. DOE's Congestion Study Fails to Designate Congestion "Corridors"

10/6/2015

2 Comments

Remember when the U.S. DOE's triennial "congestion studies" under Sec. 1221 of the Energy Policy Act were a big deal? That was before the 4th Circuit told them that a state's denial of a project was not a "failure to act" that triggered federal intervention to usurp state authority to permit a transmission project. And that was before the 9th Circuit vacated the "corridors" the DOE designated in 2009 because of DOE's failure to consult with affected states. What's left behind is a useless section of statute that doesn't actually DO anything except waste taxpayer money on ridiculous "congestion studies" that do nothing but compile unverified data and opinion from the internet and the industry to inform the DOE's designation of future "congestion" corridors. Now when DOE issues one of its "reports" (three years past the deadline, or maybe it's on time and DOE just skipped the 2012 report) it's so anticlimactic that nobody knows about it.

And that's what happened with DOE's 2015 Report Concerning Designation of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors. Big nothing. In fact, it was so uninteresting that DOE didn't even bother to send notice to all the folks who commented on its draft that it had completed its study. An astute commenter just happened across it.

Despite the industry's urging to continue attempting to use this tool to usurp state authority to site and permit transmission, or to simply delegate its authority to create corridors to transmission builders, the DOE decided not to designate any new corridors. Seems they have lost their taste for it after the beat down they suffered in federal court.

So, isn't it time to do away with this waste of taxpayer money? How much did this limp "report" cost to create? Congress needs to reconsider this mandate in any new energy legislation. It's a waste of time and money.

DOE's got issues. I note that this "report" appears to be the agency's recommendation to the Secretary on the designation of new corridors. I guess that would make it an "internal deliberation" that should be swept under the rug and hidden from the public? Maybe that's what the lack of notice was about? How come DOE is making this "internal deliberation" available to the public, but hiding its "internal deliberations" regarding Clean Line's application under Sec. 1222 of the Energy Policy Act? Something really stinks at DOE. They're operating like they are somehow above the public scrutiny and transparency that our federal agencies are bound to operate under. It's just one big taxpayer funded, opague industry party. And that spells trouble down the road the next time DOE finds itself in federal court over its industry-sympathisizing machinations of the Energy Policy Act.

Ut-oh, DOE!

So, let's toss Sec. 1221 on the failed legislation heap, but save room on the pile for Sec. 1222. It's coming.

2 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

Duke Tucks Tail Between Legs and Cancels Transmission Line Project

The Final Salvo

Speedy Transmission Siting and Permitting - NECPL's "Secret"

Project Compass Charts a Course to Investor Owned Utility Profit

Arkansas Forms Landowner Group to Oppose Clean Line

Briefs on Exception Filed in PATH FERC Case

Get Information About Potomac Edison Rate Increase at Jefferson Forum

Duke Reconsiders "Modernization" Project

Why are Potomac Edison's West Virginia Electric Rates So Confusing?

U.S. DOE's Congestion Study Fails to Designate Congestion "Corridors"

About the Author

About
StopPATH Blog

Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
Email me

Archives

Categories

About the Author

AboutStopPATH Blog

Archives

Categories

About
StopPATH Blog