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

GBE Won't Commit to its Project

12/11/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
If you're a person in the Grain Belt Express target zone who is currently being harangued and pursued to sign an easement, or perhaps a utility regulator being told that GBE is a sure thing, you might find this interesting.

About a month ago, Invenergy filed with FERC a "Request of Grain Belt Express LLC for Prospective Tariff Waiver, Expedited Action, and Shortened Comment Period."

The gist of this filing is that MISO has tendered an interconnection agreement for GBE and Invenergy only has 60 days to negotiate and sign it, or to file it unsigned.  GBE's negotiation period ends December 31.  GBE wants FERC to grant a waiver so that Invenergy can wait until some time next year to sign the agreement and make two large deposits for the transmission upgrades its GBE project will cause.

GBE has applied at MISO for both interconnection of its project and injection rights.  Interconnection and injection rights are two separate things.  Interconnection allows GBE to connect to MISO's existing system, but injection rights allows GBE to inject a certain amount of electricity into MISO at the interconnection site.  Both the interconnection and injection rights require MISO study to identify and plan any upgrades to the system that they will cause.  Interconnection and injection rights run on two different study tracks.  MISO determined that GBE's interconnection will require approximately $144,248,000 worth of work to the existing system to support the interconnection.  However, MISO has not yet completed the study that will determine the cost of the injection rights work, although GBE estimates it will be an additional more than $177 million.  GBE wants to know the injection rights number before it negotiates and signs the interconnection agreement, because once it signs the agreement it is obligated to make non-refundable deposits totaling approximately $77 million before it knows the injection rights number.

Let that sink in... Invenergy doesn't want to spend money on a project without knowing its full cost.  As Invenergy puts it
Otherwise, GBX will be placed in the position of having to decide whether to commit millions of dollars in security or cash pursuant to the executed TCA before it understands its total upgrade cost exposure associated with the Injection Rights.
This would have absolutely no relevance if there was not the possibility that Invenergy would cancel this project if the injection rights end up costing too much.  If Invenergy is going to proceed with GBE no matter how much injection rights cost, then the deposits don't matter.  The deposits would only represent a loss for Invenergy if it cancelled the project.

Apparently Invenergy is not going to know whether its project is going to proceed until at least the end of April, 2023.  But yet there are reports that Invenergy is filing eminent domain suits and taking landowners to court.  And, of course, Invenergy is pushing state regulators to approve its project in a big ol' hurry, even though Invenergy wants another 5 months to decide if its even going to proceed with interconnection to the existing transmission system (and that's if MISO's study gets completed on time, which in these days of clogged interconnection queues may not happen). 

Invenergy says having to put up cash as surety for its project is "too risky" for the company but taking your land via eminent domain isn't risky at all for Invenergy.  It's all about who bears the real risk, isn't it?
0 Comments

More Transmission Dead Ends

11/11/2022

3 Comments

 
Our bloated government and its clean energy sycophants are on a high-speed transmission train to nowhere and a crucial bridge is on fire.  Trouble ahead!  Can these self-important bloviators cross the bridge to Unicorn Utopia before it completely burns through?
Of course not.  This bridge has been burning for several years now and is pretty thin.  I'm talking about the landowner bridge... the landowners who are expected to accept the greatest impacts of new transmission lines on new rights of way across their private property. 

The Unicorn Engineers are positively obsessed with finding the solution to transmission opposition.  They continue to dream up stupid, unworkable ideas that will only further delay Unicorn Utopia.  How do I know this?  Because I have been a transmission opponent, and more importantly I have listened to the stories of hundreds of transmission opposing landowners over the past 15 years or so.  Why are the Unicorn Engineer ideas so bad?  Because they have never been transmission opponents and they have little understanding of how and why opposition forms and acts, and have never felt the emotions that go into landowner battles.

This week I came across a couple of bad ideas and one bright spot.

The first is an op-ed in Utility Dive written by former state and FERC Commissioner Tony Clark.  He talks about dumb plans to federalize transmission permitting.
The renewables spurred by the IRA require a considerable transmission buildout. Accomplishing it will be no mean feat. The most oft-proposed solution is to federalize ever more of the transmission planning and permitting process. That may sound better in theory than in practice.

Furthermore, the federal government has a dismal record in streamlining infrastructure permitting, even when it is needed. Look no further than the Western U.S., where federal lands are often an obstacle to transmission, rather than a facilitator of it.

So... permitting reform... Big NO!

But then Clark combine electrics transmission permitting with gas pipeline permitting to incorrectly conclude that we need to cripple NEPA.
Infrastructure opponents have had increasing success obstructing projects with a federal nexus. FERC’s natural gas pipeline certification program is a good reference point. Activists have blocked needed energy projects through the aggressive use of litigation at every step of the permitting and review process. Without meaningful reform to federal laws like the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act, all those litigation weapons will now be in the hands of interveners seeking to stop electric transmission lines.
Can you say hypocrites, Tony?  The ones who use NEPA as a battering ram would never stoop to help an electric transmission opponent.  Despite pretending that their opposition is about landowners and the environment, the truth is that the big green groups are motivated by politics, grants and donations that pay fat salaries.  Landowners and the environment be damned.  The fact is that electric transmission opposition is devoid of politics.  We're about what unites us as landowners, not what divides us at the ballot box.  We've already got a great strategy and a bottomless bag of tricks developed over the years.  We don't need to be hypocrites like the environmental groups.

And here's a different article with another stupid idea -- bribing unaffected community members to accept impacts ON THE LAND OF THEIR NEIGHBORS.
Beyond just educating the neighbors of a proposed project, former U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III (D-Mass.), now managing director of Citizens Energy, said developers and utilities should explore ways to ensure that the expansions directly benefit those communities.

Such arrangements can prove worthwhile even to for-profit companies by alleviating residents’ concerns that large transmission projects could lower property values or disrupt their neighborhoods with no visible benefit to them, Kennedy said. The costs of the delays or resiting of projects can often well exceed the expense of profit sharing with those communities, he argued.

But this doesn't work either.  Landowners with new transmission on their property are the ones leading the opposition and they are not going to be deterred by bribes paid to their neighbors.  Those bribes don't do a thing to alleviate the landowner burden.  The bribes actually juice opposition to work harder.

And here's another stupid idea from the same article:
Former FERC Commissioner Colette Honorable, now a partner at Reed Smith leading the firm’s energy regulatory group, noted that getting all parties on board with a project in the early phases can reduce the likelihood of prolonged, and expensive, delays at FERC and the federal courts.
Earlier engagement does not bear fruit unless there is compromise on both sides.  What do impacted landowners get from earlier engagement?  If it's not something that prevents impacts, such as burial along existing rights of way like highways, or reconductoring existing lines, then landowners get nothing.  Again, urging people to throw your neighbor under the bus is not a successful strategy.

But Honorable does offer some valuable insight gleaned from her years as a state and federal regulator.
“You’re in trouble if you have a matter pending and the first time you hear them is when they object,” she said.

Likewise, she said incorporating equity into the work done by RTOs can be accomplished by examining what voices are missing at the table and including those stakeholders who aren’t represented.

It's so simple, it's stunning.  Landowners are the missing voices.  Ignoring them absolutely guarantees that the opposition will continue.
Picture
3 Comments

Misinformation Won't Help Grain Belt Express

11/5/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
The Silly Old Man's Club of Kirkwood must have had a Halloween meeting where this blog was dreamed up: "Tiger Connector" Planned:  Kirkwood Electric Gets A Bit Of Good News On Energy Front. 
It did scare the bejeezus out of me, but only because it is so completely misinformed and contains a number of outright falsehoods.  I will have to say that this blog is appropriately named:  Environmental Echo.  Just an echo chamber for all the crazy enviro-whacko claims being made that don't have any basis in truth. 

Let's start with this lie: 
“We’re well on our way because the project has obtained an overwhelming majority of the easements, now has Public Service Commission approval, and now has a legislative framework,” said Petty.
The "Tiger Connector" does NOT have PSC approval.  In fact, without approval of the specific "Tiger Connector" addition, the "approved" Grain Belt Express project does not have any place to connect to the Missouri electric grid.  When the project was initially approved in 2019, it was planned to make a 500 MW connection in Ralls County.  At some point new project owner Invenergy decided that interconnection was not viable and applied with regional grid operators to move its interconnection point to Callaway County and increase its size five-fold.  This interconnection of 2500 MW is still not fully approved by the regional grid operator.  Who knows where or when (or IF) GBE will ever connect.  In addition, the Missouri PSC is now evaluating the project anew and may not approve the changes.

As far as the easements go, let's clear that up, shall we?  Many easements have been obtained through coercion and threats of condemnation using eminent domain authority.  It's not like all landowners who have signed easements under duress "do understand it and are on board."  In addition, Invenergy is pursuing easement acquisition through the courts for a growing number of properties.  These landowners didn't knuckle under and sign an easement out of fear but are determined to fight Invenergy tooth and nail all the way to the end.

Lastly, what is this "legislative framework"?  Just because some agricultural organizations took it upon themselves to negotiate meaningless "protections" for landowners in a sneaky fashion that did not include the landowners themselves does not mean that landowners are "on board" with the way they were stabbed in the back during the last legislative session.  All that aside, the SOMC of Kirkwood should be aware that Invenergy made sure to file its application for the "Tiger Connector" just days before this new "legislative framework" took effect.  It will not apply to Grain Belt Express therefore, even if it was useful, it will not come into play.

And what kind of a "reporter" takes this kind of statement at face value and does not bother to verify it?
“Invenergy has always been more than generous to the farmers with their compensation for access to their property. Its supported the generous compensation spelled out in a legislative compromise that was reached in 2021,” said Petty of Kirkwood Electric.

“While a few farmers still remain skeptical about Invenergy’s intention to make this a win-win situation for all, over 70% of the landowners and a majority of folks do understand it and are on board,” Petty added.

Spoken like a true NIMBY who won't find Grain Belt Express in his own back yard.  Petty has NO contact with "farmers" and does not speak for them.  He has NO IDEA what they want and what they think.  Pretty brassy to tell those farmers how great GBE will be for them, don't you think?  Maybe you should contact him and let him know the truth so he can stop spreading misinformation.

Speaking of misinformation, what could this mean?
... Grain Belt Express, which has scored some recent successes.
Recent successes?  Where?  How?  WHAT?  There have been no "recent successes."  It's just a platitude that means nothing.

And then there's this:
...Chicago-based Invenergy, which has now navigated objections to the line from rural legislators and groups like the Missouri Farm Bureau.

State legislators with ties to the fossil fuel industry have opposed the wind energy project. Farm groups also have fought the project for years over opposition to the use of eminent domain for siting of transmission towers.

Some rural landowners and farmers supported legislation meant to derail the project, including one proposal that would have given county commissions veto power over transmission projects. Farmers wanted more money for land acquisition, and resulting legislation could have killed the project.

So much misinformation in this short blurb it's hard to know where to begin.  First of all, the opposition to this project has always come from affected landowners who object, not to clean energy, but to the use of eminent domain to take new easements across their working farmland.  It places an impediment on the productivity of the entire parcel and costs farmers additional money and time and results in lower yields.  Farm Bureau and other agricultural groups took it upon themselves to defend their members through lobbying at the legislature.  But the Ag groups got a little too carried away last year and forgot about the landowners they were supposed to be working for.  This doesn't mean landowners are "on board" with any of last year's meaningless legislation.  Invenergy is probably still snickering at how easily the Ag groups fell for their bait and switch.  And now the Ag groups are ticked off because they've been made to look foolish.

Legislators have been responsive to their constituents' opposition to Grain Belt Express.  Their legislative agenda is driven by their constituents, not by any "ties to the fossil fuel industry."  That's a disgustingly common Sierra Club talking point that is no longer true.  People don't like ANY energy infrastructure in their community, and certainly not on their land, especially when they derive no benefit from it.  Quit whining about the "fossil fuel" devils.  The only devils buying legislators these days are "clean energy" companies.  Clean or dirty, it's all about corporate profit.  Don't lose sight of that.

Where's the proof that "farmers wanted more money for land acquisition"?  This statement is concocted out of speculation and ignorance.  Farmers actually say that their land is not for sale at any price!  And can we talk some truth about price here for a hot minute?  Eminent domain for utilities insures that the utility can acquire the land it needs to serve customers at "fair market value" instead of actual market value.  The money the utility saves on land acquisition flows back to their customers in the form of lower rates.  This is what's known as "cost of service" rates.  The customers are charged what it costs the utility to serve them, plus reasonable return.  In the case of Grain Belt Express, however, their project does not use "cost of service" rates.  Instead it's what's known as a "merchant" transmission project that negotiates with voluntary customers to agree on a market based rate for service.  The price GBE can charge depends on how much the voluntary customers will pay in a free and fair market.  It is completely divorced from GBE's "cost of service."  In GBE's case, the difference between it's cost of service and the market based rates it negotiates represents the company's profit.  The cheaper the project is to build, the bigger Invenergy's profit.  The market sets its rates, not its cost of serving customers.

Then there's this misinformation:
According to Petty, Missouri cities like Hannibal, Springfield and Kirkwood have supported the energy project for years. He said everyone is “jumping on the bandwagon now” and the cleaner, cheaper energy for Missouri will save money for homeowners and businesses.
Who's jumping on the bandwagon?  Nobody, that's who.  Invenergy has not revealed any new customers for its project since the Missouri cities got a below-cost deal handed to them back in 2016 in order to score PSC approval.   GBE has had authority to negotiate voluntary customer "negotiated rate" contracts since 2014.  In all the time since, Invenergy has only managed to announce one customer for less than 10% of its proposed Missouri capacity.  Only the Missouri municipalities thought GBE was a good deal.  Other potential customers have avoided it like the plague.  Does the cities' contract represent a fantastic opportunity that everyone else is missing out on?  It's more likely that the cities signed on to something that everyone else doesn't want.  It's not like the Missouri cities are really smart about buying power.  They bought a healthy share of the Prairie State coal-fired generation complex AFTER Missouri voted for clean energy in 2008.  Doesn't sound very smart to me.

And here's your completely clueless ending:
“While a few farmers still remain skeptical about Invenergy’s intention to make this a win-win situation for all, over 70% of the landowners and a majority of folks do understand it and are on board,” Petty added.

According to Petty, it’s just a matter a time before everyone will be on the same page with the Grain Belt project.
By that token, has Petty considered that 90% of Grain Belt's potential Missouri Customers, and 100% of its potential PJM customers, are NOT on board with it?  If 70% of needed easements equals landowner support, then 95% of customer avoidance equals utility opposition. 

It's just a matter of time until Grain Belt Express collapses in a heap and the SOMC of Kirkwood gets left with drool on its collective chin.
0 Comments

Same Old Tired Ideas Can't Solve Transmission Issues

10/30/2022

2 Comments

 
A webinar was held on Friday that attempted to solve   "the big question is whether there is enough political will to overcome the forces of NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard) to secure new rights-of-way through states and localities that aren’t direct beneficiaries."  Or at least discuss this issue.  Although the host did a remarkable job of trying to keep the event on topic, and to include questions from the audience as well as those from invited media, the panelists wrecked the event by side-stepping questions and talking about things that completely avoided the topic of the webinar.  There were absolutely no new thoughts, ideas, or plans to solve the NIMBY issue.

The panelists were Maria Robinson from DOE's new "Grid Deployment Office", a guy from EEI, a guy from a transmission company, and our old pal Michael Skelly.

Maria Robinson might have been the biggest disappointment.  She shared that industry and government need to work together to get transmission built.  Where are the so-called NIMBYs in this equation?  She doesn't want to acknowledge that affected people even exist.  How is it that landowners are supposed to gladly surrender their property for new transmission when they don't get any respect?

I asked her the following question:  In a recent interview you said, “We’re really looking at engaging the folks that will be most impacted potentially”, while also mentioning “a pot of money that could be used for economic development in communities impacted by interstate transmission lines.” Since landowners who will have to look at and work around new transmission lines every day are “most impacted” how would economic development in the broader community compensate the most affected landowners? Wouldn’t the money be better spent lessening impact on most affected landowners?

Maria's answer side-stepped the question, which was how does she square her concern for "most affected" with doling out financial bribes for "impacted communities"?  Instead of comparing/contrasting directly impacted landowners with local community organizations or governments that are not directly affected (but are financially rewarded for the misery or others), she simply pointed the finger at Congress and said the legislation they passed did not allow her to award money to landowners.  She refused to recognize that paying bribes to entities that are not affected does absolutely NOTHING to solve the NIMBY problem.

Robinson might actually believe that transmission is built to satisfy "needs" of consumers.  Consumers already have electricity -- the great renewable push is being undertaken to satisfy the "needs" of political ideology.  Just a bunch of government functionaries, spending money Congress is taking out of YOUR pocket and accomplishing absolutely nothing at all.

She thinks her job is to  "bring stakeholders together" and "help them understand why transmission is important."  But she only mentioned engaging states and tribes in particular, not landowners.  She even had the gall to claim that "we" have found that engaging stakeholders earlier and more often "helps" alleviate the local concerns around transmission that leads to significant delays.  Who is "we", Maria?  There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that these affected NIMBYs can be re-educated to accept impacts and make personal sacrifices for politically-motivated electric transmission projects.  In fact, the evidence (piles of actual studies on transmission opposition) shows the exact opposite.  Landowners don't respond to propaganda and glad-handing.  And landowners are the ones who carry out the long and loud opposition that delays (or cancels) transmission projects.

The first thing Maria needs to do, if she actually wants to succeed instead of just wasting taxpayer funds treading water in a political quagmire of transmission delays, is recognize those NIMBYs and find out what it is they really want.  Until that happens, she's just another big government disappointment.

One of the reporters asked when transmission became a political issue and was laughed at and told it's always been political.  The real answer is that transmission became a political issue when the transmission itself was proposed for political reasons.  We've built a lot of transmission in this country in the past in order to provide plentiful electricity to all who wanted it.  It's when additional transmission started to be proposed to favor the generation resource fad of the decade (whether it was coal and gas, or today's wind and solar) that opposition began to develop.  And opposition is winning.  I have a huge list of electric transmission projects that have been proposed in the past but ultimately abandoned, or significantly modified, because of delays caused by entrenched opposition.  The opposition now has the upper hand and Maria has absolutely NO WORKABLE PLAN to deal with it.

She seemed to recognize that reconductoring existing transmission to increase its capacity can be done "faster" and without the opposition headaches, but she didn't seem to understand why.  It's because reconductoring doesn't take new rights of way across previously unaffected property.  It's the new rights of way that are the problem.

Someone named Elizabeth Weiss submitted a question that began by recognizing that Wisconsin has had success in building out its transmission network by utilizing existing highway rights of way instead of taking new land and asked if siting transmission on highway rights of way might be a national model that could be employed to get things accomplished.  Bravo, Elizabeth, whoever you are!  You hit the nail on the head!  Unfortunately the panelist who sidestepped this question blathered on about a "national will to build transmission" and that we need the government to make new transmission corridors.  What?  Hello?  It's the new rights of way that are the problem!  Not "national will".  There's no way to impose any "national will" on landowners who know that they don't NEED to sacrifice new rights of way when existing rights of way are right there for the taking. 

Landowners and their forthright opposition groups have been asking for the "national will" to have a conversation about using existing rights of way in order to avoid new impacts, however they have been consistently ignored.  We're not going away.  We're only going to get louder and larger until we become part of the solution, instead of just a problem to be side-stepped or silenced with greater government power.

Maria ended the webinar with a big smile and assured everyone, "It's a great time to get involved" in transmission.  Unless you're a landowner, Maria, then it's a terrible time to have politically motivated transmission sited across your land, next to your home and in the middle of your farm food factory.  How completely tone deaf, Maria Robinson!

And, of course, the event wouldn't have been complete without Michael Skelly trying to answer every question posed (even when it was directed at someone else).  His "uhhh" punctuated sentences, incorrect facts (it's really Southern Cross, not "Southern Spirit") and useless interjections are worse than ever.
Picture
I know we've all gotten older since the Clean Line days, however, some of us have aged faster than others.  Maybe it's time to retire and go play on the fire pole?

I was greatly entertained by this webinar, however I'm not sure how useful it was for solving the transmission problem.  As one audience member opined, "If I was one of the reporters, I would have come away wondering what there was to write about."  Indeed!  Just the same old panelists with the same old, tired ideas.
2 Comments

That Time Invenergy Bought a Permit, Not a Project

10/29/2022

0 Comments

 
The Missouri Landowners Alliance filed a brilliant Motion at the MO PSC yesterday.  The Motion caused a thought and understanding explosion on my part.  How did everyone miss this until now?

The premise of the motion is that Grain Belt Express had abandoned its permit (CCN) when it made major modifications to the Grain Belt Express project.  Therefore, if the CCN for Grain Belt Express that was issued years ago is no longer valid, then GBE would have to file a new application for its new project and hope it received a new CCN.

Think about this...
Picture
Miss Kitty Hamm doesn't fit inside the box she's tried to jam herself into.  The box is sized for a different, much smaller cat.  No matter how hard she tries, she simply can't squeeze her bulk in to a box that doesn't fit.  The same can be said about Invenergy's Grain Belt Express project.

Once Invenergy bought the Grain Belt Express transmission project from now defunct Clean Line Energy Partners in 2019, it began to systematically abandon and reshape the project until it's now become a whole new project.

Changed facts:
  1. Name change from Grain Belt Express Clean Line to just plain old Grain Belt Express.
  2. Went from 206 miles of direct current line across Missouri to somewhere in the neighborhood of 254 miles of mixed DC/AC lines.
  3. Changed its route to add a 40-mile AC "Tiger Connector" and take new rights of way from previously unaffected landowners.
  4. Location of converter station went from Ralls Co. to Monroe Co.
  5. The Ralls Co. converter was located "nearby" the proposed interconnection point.  The new Callaway Co. interconnection point is 40 miles from the new converter station in Monroe Co.
  6. Desired interconnection point went from Ralls Co. to Callaway Co.
  7. Added a new A/C substation in Callaway Co.
  8. The capacity of the line went from 4,000 to 5,000 MW.
  9. The capacity offered for sale in Missouri went from 500 MW to 2,500 MW.
  10. Since converter station size was drastically increased it may cause a corresponding price increase of $500M.
  11. Tower structures went from monopoles to 4-legged lattice masts.
  12. Landowner payments went from 110% FMV plus structure payments, to 150% FMW without structure payments.
  13. Grain Belt has morphed from one continuous project between SW Kansas and Indiana into some "two phase" hybrid, of which certain portions may or may not be built.  In fact, it seems that GBE has split into two distinct projects:  A)  SW Kansas to Callaway Co. Missouri; and B)  Callaway Co. Missouri to Indiana.  These two "phases" will operate independently through the permitting and construction phase.
  14. Cost of the project went from $2.9B to $5.7B, nearly double the cost.
  15. Grain Belt Express says that it is now selling "undivided interest (purchase or lease) or long-term contracts" instead of the negotiated rate contracts for capacity approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for Grain Belt Express Clean Line.  It's currently unclear whether the new Grain Belt Express even has an approved rate for its new project.  Without a rate or sale to "the public" is GBE even a "public utility"?
These are major changes.  Major changes so substantial that they are, in effect a new project.  However, Invenergy is trying to stuff them into the custom permit box the PSC built for Clean Line's Grain Belt Express project.  These two new projects just don't fit in the permit box. 

Grain Belt Express has changed so drastically that is no longer resembles the project that the MO PSC permitted.  Was Invenergy ever interested in building the Grain Belt Express project that the PSC has permitted and that it swore it was going to build when the PSC approved its purchase of the project?  Or was Invenergy only interested in buying a permit for a transmission project (a box) into which it could stuff a completely different transmission project without having to get permitted for the project it actually intends to build?  I seem to remember some requirement Invenergy tacked onto its purchase of the project that made the purchase contingent upon the state commissions approving the new ownership of the permit.  I'm starting to think that Invenergy only bought a permit, not a project.

When the PSC permitted Grain Belt Express Clean Line, it added a condition that says:
“If the design and engineering of the project is materially different from how the Project is presented in Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC’s Application, Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC must file an updated application with the Commission for further Commission Review and determination.”
A new application for a new project.   A new application requires a new review.  There's absolutely nothing in that condition that guarantees the existing approval will remain in place for a new application for a different project from a different owner.  Are MO PSC permits transferable commodities now that can be sold from company to company and be molded to guarantee approval of a completely different project?

Let the PSC know how you feel about this slight of hand (case number EA-2023-0017).  A materially different project requires a completely new review by the PSC.
0 Comments

Look out below!  New plan to build transmission across the Midwest

10/17/2022

3 Comments

 
The U.S. Department of Energy held another one of its wonderfully transparent webinars where it revealed its game plan for concocting a National Transmission Plan Study as required by Green New Deal laws passed last year.  Such information was presented to "the public" and only a select few were allowed to question or comment on it.  Regular folks were not among the anointed.
Picture
The chat, where attendees were urged to ask questions, was disabled.  That's how we pretend "transparency" without actually providing it.  But you are allowed to submit your comments via the DOE's website (see link at the bottom of the page) although it's a bit like screaming down a well.  Your comments are never acknowledged or affirmed.

DOE says its plan is supposed to "complement" existing regional transmission planning under FERC's bailiwick, and not take its place.  However, DOE says its goal is to "get steel in the ground" by identifying and funding new projects using all that taxpayer cash the new law allows them to dole out. Identifying and financing new transmission DOES interfere with regional planning because those are the projects that greedy developers will flock to, not the regionally planned projects that are actually needed to keep the lights on.  So much prevaricating....

DOE says that building new industrial scale wind and solar are the only "needs" it is considering for a new suite of massive transmission projects.  By doing this, DOE is putting its thumb on the scale and selecting certain kinds of generation over other possibilities, such as distributed generation, gas, hydrogen, carbon capture or nuclear.  DOE is not considering any other forms of generation except utility-owned solar and wind.  DOE even admitted that without its plan and subsidies that more distributed generation would get built, so therefore DOE is trying to cripple distributed generation in your local area.

When asked how this plan fits with the plan to build offshore wind, which needs a different kind of transmission, DOE dismissed that, saying that a different DOE planning exercise is in the works for that and they are not considering it.  DOE is at war with itself, pushing two different plans for two very different generation possibilities.  While the National Transmission Planning Study is looking at massive new lines stretching eastward from the Midwest, the Offshore Wind Transmission study is looking at shorter lines from the offshore wind generators to the eastern cities who will use the power.  Which one will win?  We don't need both.  DOE doesn't care which one is ultimately selected, it's just busy spending taxpayer money conducting two very different studies that are in conflict with each other.  This is the epitome of waste!

The DOE "scientist" even said its plan was "a bit of an artificial thing because of how the program works."  The program is all about reaching artificial goals and doesn't let any nasty reality intrude. It doesn't consider anything other than a bunch of new industrial solar and wind generators in the Midwest, and it makes no accommodations for siting impediments that could insert a little reality into their "plan."  Only the DOE's artificial fairy tale of what future generation looks like is considered.  This fairy tale isn't going to have a happy ending.

Here's some maps of what the "program" spit out as likely new transmission corridors.  Notice how all the lines go from the Midwest to the east?  That was confirmed as the DOE's National Transmission Plan.  Generate power in Midwestern states and ship it over new transmission lines to eastern cities.
Picture
Don't like this garbage?  Write to your elected representatives and let them know!  DOE's National Transmission Planning Study is a wasteful fairy tale that is never going to happen.  But, hey, what do these little government functionaries care?  They're drawing a paycheck and they don't live anywhere near any of these new lines.
3 Comments

Grain Belt Express Plants Trees to Hide its Forest

10/16/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
I'm starting think GBE's attorneys might not be the sharpest tools on the rack.  Their Reply in Support of Waiver of the 60-Day Notice Requirement veers right off into the weeds, instead of answering what could be the PSC's main question.

Why does GBE need a waiver of the 60-day notice?  We're only talking about a period of a couple weeks here.  What is so gosh-darn important about those 2 weeks to a project that has been languishing for a decade or more?  Those couple weeks aren't going to make or break the project, but they would harm the interests of affected landowners and communities who need time to find counsel and organize their finances to pay to protect their private property from Invenergy's greedy invasion.

GBE says
Grain Belt Express sought waiver of the requirement to file notice 60 days in advance, explaining that it filed the Notice of Intent as soon as practical after the finalization and public announcement of the proposed modifications to the Project.
As soon as practicable on GBE's own little timeline?  How does that meet the law and how does that help landowners?  Landowners had nothing to do with GBE's schedule or change of plans.  This is NOT a reason to waive the law.

Here's the real story:  Those few weeks allow the new "landowner protection" law (that really doesn't protect landowners) to apply to Grain Belt Express.  GBE needs the 60-day waiver to avoid legally filing its application after the law's effective date of August 28. 

GBE says it would voluntarily follow the law if the PSC approves the waiver, but who believes GBE's promises at this point?  GBE also forgets to mention that its "generous" offer to compensate landowners at 150% of GBE's assessed value of their property takes the place of its former 110% value PLUS payments of up to $18K for each transmission tower structure on your property.  Who says that 150% is a better deal than 110% plus structure payments?  Nobody but GBE, the fox inside your hen house.

It's more than obvious that GBE is only interested in a waiver because following the law means GBE would have to, well, follow the law.  Apparently they don't want to.  Instead, GBE attorneys whine on and on and create a thousand irrelevant arguments and insult the other parties, calling them "political theater."

But perhaps the best part of this filing is the attached data response to PSC Staff's question.  Look at this giant list of non-construction activities GBE has done during the 2-year period it had to begin construction without voiding its permit.  But none of that fluff matters.  There are only a couple of items on the list that matter, and they were completed mere days before the deadline.  Seems almost like GBE tried to spend the least amount of money it could trying to pretend it had started construction.
Between the effective date of the Report and Order on Remand in Case No. EA-2016-0358 (i.e. April 19, 2019) and the end of the two year period established by Section 393.170.3 RSMo and referenced by 20 CSR 4240-20.045(2)(D) (i.e. April 19, 2021), Grain Belt Express conducted the following activities in exercise of its certificate of convenience and necessity (“CCN”).

1. 
Constructing access roads of approximately 800 feet in total with such work commencing on April 9, 2021 at approximately State Hwy C & County Rd 141, Braymer, MO 64624 in Caldwell County and April 12, 2021 at approximately Hwy 3, Huntsville, MO 65259 in Randolph County.

2.  Installing foundations for transmission towers on property owned in fee simple in Chariton County at approximately Allen Rd & St. Joseph Ave, Keytesville, MO 65261 and Clinton County at approximately NE 280th St & NE Estep Rd, Turney, MO 64493, with such work commencing on April 13, 2021 in both counties and completed on April 17 and 20, 2021, respectively.
Perhaps GBE only pretended to start construction in order not to lose its permit?  Two transmission tower bases and 800 feet of access road?  That's almost like saying I've bought a hammer therefore I've started construction on a full-size replica of the U.S. Capitol.

Do you think maybe the MO PSC is starting to think that GBE could possibly be lying to them?  GBE lawyers might be more effective at this point using Door Dash to make a vanilla panna cotta delivery to the PSC, stat!!!
0 Comments

New Award For Impacted Individuals

10/15/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
Hold tight to your barf bags, little surfs.  Invenergy CEO Michael Polsky is here to protect your human rights!

That's right, Polsky has received an award for "exemplary leaders across government, business, advocacy, and entertainment who have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to social change and worked to protect and advance equity, justice, and human rights."  At the same time, Polsky is seeking to take private property from thousands of Midwesterners to build his highly profitable renewable energy kingdom.

Do you feel that he has protected your human rights?  If not, consider the history and purpose of this award.  Anyone can decide to hand out an award, but does it make the recipient everything the award says?  Or are these fakey "awards" nothing more than political theater?  You be the judge.
Previous winners of the Ripple of Hope Award include Stacey Abrams, former Vice President Joe Biden, Bono, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President Bill Clinton, George Clooney, Tim Cook, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Amanda Gorman, Vice President Kamala Harris, Dolores Huerta, Colin Kaepernick, late Congressman John Lewis, former President Barack Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Desmond Tutu.
Well, I'm sure Polsky is thrilled to be among his liberal elite pals.  People like you and me, though, we wouldn't be caught dead with these political poseurs.

Polsky says he's "honored."
"Robert F. Kennedy's vision of a better world spanned all areas and industries – he understood that advancing human rights and social justice requires investment in everything from education to energy and the environment," said Polsky. "I'm honored to receive this award and look forward to growing Invenergy's impact as we fulfill our mission as innovators building a sustainable world."
Shaped by Polsky's philanthropic values, Invenergy invests heavily in project communities through an impact program. His humble roots ignited a commitment by him and his family to giving back to many causes including education, entrepreneurship, climate and sustainability, healthcare, women's rights, immigration, veterans, and arts and culture. Most recently, Polsky's philanthropic efforts have been focused on his native Ukraine to ensure the well-being of Ukraine's people, the nation's victory, and ultimate reconstruction. 
The Ripple of Hope Award is inspired by Robert F. Kennedy's most famous speech, the 1966 Day of Affirmation address he gave in South Africa at the height of apartheid: "Each time a man stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples to build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."

Oh, say, an impact program?  You mean buying apple pies and hogs at the county fair?  How positively plebeian!  Simply spread a few bucks around and you can impact the human rights of others as much as you desire.  Commoners are cheap dates, right?

I have an announcement for you!  I am hereby instituting the "Giving Invenergy the Finger" award.  This coveted new award will be bestowed annually to the peasant who best thwarted Michael Polsky's plans to impact them over the past year.

Now taking nominations...
0 Comments

This Farm Is For Those Who Worked On It

10/15/2022

0 Comments

 
Where was Invenergy when Missouri farmers worked their farms?  Marilyn Smith wants to know.
Smith says it is unfair for farmers to have their land used against their consent when they are the ones who have maintained the land for decades. 

"They weren't here when we were bringing in the crops in the fall," Smith said. "They weren't here when my family was bringing in the cows and vaccinating them. They weren't here for planting."
They also weren't there when we did without to make the farm payment and spent the money to nurture and conserve the soil, said another Missouri farmer.  Invenergy wasn't there when any work got done, but now they want to profit from the use of Missouri farmers' land.  Invenergy wants to take easements through hundreds of Missouri farms to use for its for-profit transmission line.  The Little Red Hens of Missouri say
...farmers have earned the right to manage their land as they see fit. “We like to be able to look out at see this without any big power lines,” Smith said.
And it's just not about looks.  Transmission line easements across farms take land out of production and make farming more difficult and expensive.  More costs for Missouri farmers, more profits for Invenergy.
HANDS OFF!
Invenergy purports that Grain Belt Express will bring the lowest cost power in the nation to Missouri.  Except it would do so only if Missouri power companies choose to purchase power from generators in Kansas and ship it to Missouri on an exorbitantly expensive $5.7B transmission line.  All  of a sudden, that "cheap" power from far away gets more expensive than power produced locally that doesn't need a new transmission line to get to Missouri.  Is $5.7B a big price tag for a transmission line?  Compare to MISO's recently approved plan for numerous new transmission lines to move renewable power across the Midwest at a cost of $10.3B.
Picture
Seems like MISO's lines are doing more for less.  This is the pivotal question nobody seems to be asking lately:  Is renewable energy delivered on new MISO lines cheaper for Missouri electric customers than Kansas power delivered via Grain Belt Express?  And here's the thing... Missouri electric customers are on the hook to pay for MISO's new plan, whether they use it or not.  So, $10.3B for MISO PLUS $5.7B for Grain Belt Express, or simply $10.3B for MISO.  Who would want to pay more?

Maybe Ray McCarty, the president and CEO of the Associated Industries of Missouri, who voiced a bunch of misinformed contentions about Grain Belt Express in the news article.  McCarty says,
"Some farmers are not necessarily going to want this going across their farms, but others are going to welcome the opportunity because they could make some additional money for the rights of way," McCarty said.
If there are landowners who welcome this intrusion into their business, where are they?  The reporter didn't seem to be able to find any, just the assurances of McCarty that they exist.  Landowner Marilyn Smith says
"If you ask any farmer, they will tell you they can't pay me enough to put that line through my farm," Smith said. 
There it is.  A farmer who says the land isn't for sale at any price, against a fictional farmer who welcomes it.  The welcoming farmer simply doesn't exist.

McCarty is also misinformed about need for Grain Belt Express.  He said
"And also understand that it may help them get out of a jam if they’re able to get power from that source when otherwise they wouldn’t be able to."

McCarty says projects like the Grain Belt Express are necessities to several parts of the community. 

"Electricity is an essential commodity," McCarty said. "We have to have it to run our farms, we have to have it to run our businesses, we have to have it in our homes."

McCarty and his neighbors already have plentiful electricity produced at local power plants that provide jobs and tax revenue to Missouri communities.  I can't find anything that says McCarty has any expertise in electric engineering -- he's just one of the folks who flips a switch and expects the lights to go on.  Fact:  Grain Belt Express is an optional merchant transmission project that has absolutely NOTHING to do with reliable power or helping farmers "out of a jam" when they can't get power for their farm.

Furthermore, I'm up to my ears in ridiculous claims that Grain Belt is going to "drop off" power in Missouri.  Stop saying that!  It demonstrates your complete ignorance of all things electric.  It's not like GBE is giving electricity to Missouri, like a home-baked pie left on their doorstep.  It's a merchant project and the only recipients are the ones who PAY for it.  It's not "drop off", it's purchase.  Missouri is getting nothing from GBE unless someone makes a purchase.  Currently, GBE only has one customer for just 10% of its available capacity.  There is no "drop off" of 2500 MW.  There is only availability to purchase 2250 MW.

The new "Tiger Connector" may just be the straw that breaks the camel's back.  Invenergy says
The Tiger Connector would expand the reach of the Grain Belt Express in Missouri by bringing power from the main line in northern Missouri to the McCredie Substation in Callaway County, which would send that energy out to thousands more Missouri homes and businesses. 
The "reach" was always there.  GBE always planned to make purchase available at a converter station that could be located somewhere along the DC portion of the line.  The fact is that the connection GBE historically planned to make wasn't feasible.  Without Tiger Connector, GBE has no place to connect to the existing transmission system in Missouri.  But instead of re-routing the DC line to connect at a stronger point of the existing grid, Invenergy decided to add a 40-mile AC connector to get from the DC line in Monroe County to the McCredie Substation in Callaway County.  Having the Tiger Connector only helps Invenergy, it doesn't help any customers in Missouri.  Without Tiger Connector, GBE's plans simply fall apart because it cannot connect. 

Grain Belt Express is the poster child for the stupidity of approving speculative transmission projects without confirmed interconnections or customers.  GBE was nothing but a speculative idea for a transmission project, but yet the PSC permitted it and allowed Invenergy to condemn private property.  GBE's plan was never fully formed, as other non-merchant transmission projects are.  Other transmission projects have confirmed connection points, a need verified by independent grid planners, and customers to buy the electricity.  Grain Belt Express still doesn't have that.  How many times is the speculative GBE project going to change, and how much more is it going to take from Missourians, before its plan is complete?

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me!
0 Comments

The Sick Stupidity of Big Green Hypocrisy

10/10/2022

1 Comment

 
Picture
Now that "permitting reform" for electric transmission (and gas pipelines) has failed, the environmental advocate hypocrites are busy trying to make a case why electric transmission permitting "reform" (read federal usurpation) should happen, but not fossil fuel permitting.  There's really no way to try to do this without looking like a giant hypocrite.  It's NIMBY of the highest order -- they love this stuff as long as it's "not in my back yard," but in yours instead.

This guy went way overboard, claiming that electric transmission is "sexy."  Umm, dude, if "big ass" transmission lines make you feel all tingly down there, you need to get your head examined.  I suspect, though, that you're just trying a little too hard.  You probably have a loud fake laugh for your boss's bad jokes, too.  That's really SICK!

I do have to laugh at the way you try just a little too hard to convince Congress (not the legislature, which is a state body) that landowners would be better off if their rights were limited by the federal government.  This is probably the epitome of self-serving justification:
It’s not just state regulatory authorities that reject transmission projects when they don’t see a benefit. Ranchers and other local landowners are sometimes put off by how these (admittedly hulking) metal constructs will look on their property. The lines can be buried underground—or even underwater—but it’s more expensive. Everybody has a price, and you might just as easily find success paying the landowner what you would’ve spent burying the line.
It's just not true that "everybody has a price."  The vast majority of landowners threatened with eminent domain for new transmission line easements say that their property isn't for sale at any price.  And furthermore, it's up to the landowner, not you or any government functionary, whether the money is better spent on landowner compensation or burial to avoid impacts.  If you ask a landowner, they'd rather have it buried on an existing right of way, such as highway or rail, than to have it impeding their use of their land.

​And here's another brainlessly stupid thought:
That makes using existing infrastructure corridors so enticing. We’ve already got tracts of land connecting different parts of the country that are pre-approved for public works projects, like highways and railroads. If we could layer in transmission lines, it would avoid a lot of these land-use conflicts. We could also use existing electricity corridors to pump through a lot more power using modern technology. Issues remain: Our roadways are usually designed with shoulders where people can regain control of their cars if they veer off the road, which doesn’t always leave room for power lines. But many places, such as along railroads, should have sufficient capacity. You could run high voltage, direct current lines through those areas to high-population centers in need of clean energy.
Uhh... weren't we talking about burying transmission on highway and rail corridors?  You can still regain control of your car when you veer off onto the shoulder if the transmission is buried within the right of way but not on the paved shoulder of the highway.  See this report to find out how it can be done.  No one ever suggested that we build electric transmission towers on the paved highway shoulder.  Are you insane?  And, btw, where did you learn to drive?  Anyone who regularly veers off the highway and onto the shoulder to regain control shouldn't be driving in the first place.  You really had to dig to manufacture that "convincing" talking point, right?

This is a good place for an old joke:  Being stupid is like being dead.  When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful & difficult for others.

And how stupid is it to willingly be brainwashed by a couple of guys with a political agenda without looking at an opposing view?  And how parochial is it to believe that rural America is your willing production slave for everything from the food you cram into your gaping maw to the power you use to write brainless things on the internet?
And the most productive solar and wind farms will not be located right next door to our population centers. Broadly speaking, they’ll be in more rural areas in the middle of the country, while the majority of people live on the coasts. Many of the rest live in metro areas inland. We need to move clean power from the places where we’ll harvest the bulk of it to the places where we’ll consume the bulk of it.
Wanna bet this guy will be at the head of the protest parade against offshore wind located just a few miles from his coastal home?  Offshore wind is a more reliable resource, too.  This statement is just total and complete garbage:
“Transmission, these big regional lines, often have benefit-cost ratios of 2:1 or 3:1, and that's because you can access resources that are on really low-cost land. Sometimes these solar and wind plants produce twice as much power at a given location than if you get closer to [where it’s used].”
This is just a NIMBY argument of the big green folks who live near the coasts.  And what's that about "really low-cost land"?  You think farmland is cheap?  It shouldn't be.  It's just that is it undervalued when the utility has the ability to simply take it using condemnation and eminent domain.  What makes city land so "high-cost"?  Availability.  At the rate farmland is disappearing, its value is set to skyrocket.  And, btw, what are you going to eat once you've covered all the prime farmland with turbines, solar panels, and transmission lines?  Don't suggest that farmers can simply work around all these impediments.  It would cost them more in time and effort, not to mention the necessities that would be made impossible, such as aerial applications and irrigation.

Betcha can't guess where the author of this idiotic blather lives?
​In practice, these lines would primarily carry energy from the center of the country—between Texas and North Dakota, where the wind really blows—to the East.  Others would carry energy from solar facilities in the South—particularly the Southwest, but also the Southeast—northwards.
So, we need to "build things."
The old environmental movement was about stopping things from getting built. The new environmental movement's about building stuff.
Well, unless those things involve fossil fuels, then we can't build them at all.  We can only build things "for clean energy".  But they can't package their hypocrisy that way because it's much too obvious.  

Turns out they're not really fooling anyone.  It's hypocrisy of the highest order.  And it's really not convincing at all.
The fix is to make it easier to build large transmission lines in anticipation of need, like an interstate highway, and allow power markets to spring up near them like communities along the road. Sen. Joe Manchin’s larger permitting reform bill goes some way in this direction, making it easier to site these lines and setting time limits for the environmental review and stakeholder comment periods. (It would do the same for fossil-fuel projects, which climate activists are not happy about. The bill is on hold after Manchin agreed to pull it from a larger funding bill at the end of September.) The bill would develop predefined corridors where this stuff can go on federal land and make it easier to create these corridors in general. Finally, Gramlich says, it will help with cost allocation, creating a regulatory framework to recover the upfront cost of these large interstate lines.
First of all, this piece is supposed to be a plug for DC transmission lines.  It even blathers on about needing to be converted from AC/DC/AC.  But then it is magically  servicing a power market along the line without being converted back into usable AC.  Whoopsie!  Logic fail!

Second, there's way too much word salad here about what Manchin's permitting reform bill would do.  How does it do those things?  Did you actually READ it and put on your thinking cap?  No, of course not.  You're trying to convince people stupider than you and I posit that that audience is small and shrinking at an amazing rate.  Absolutely nothing you've written about this bill is true.  It's simply not there!
Keeping the lights on is a matter of life and death, and so is transforming our energy system.
Do I need to repeat the joke about how being stupid is like being dead?
1 Comment
<<Previous
Forward>>

    About the Author

    Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.
    In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history.

    About
    StopPATH Blog

    StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project.  The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

    StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view.  If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty.  People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself.  If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

    Got something to say?  Submit your own opinion for publication.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories

    All
    $$$$$$
    2023 PJM Transmission
    Aep Vs Firstenergy
    Arkansas
    Best Practices
    Best Practices
    Big Winds Big Lie
    Can Of Worms
    Carolinas
    Citizen Action
    Colorado
    Corporate Propaganda
    Data Centers
    Democracy Failures
    DOE Failure
    Emf
    Eminent Domain
    Events
    Ferc Action
    FERC Incentives Part Deux
    Ferc Transmission Noi
    Firstenergy Failure
    Good Ideas
    Illinois
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Land Agents
    Legislative Action
    Marketing To Mayberry
    MARL
    Missouri
    Mtstorm Doubs Rebuild
    Mtstormdoubs Rebuild
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    Newslinks
    NIETC
    Opinion
    Path Alternatives
    Path Failures
    Path Intimidation Attempts
    Pay To Play
    Potomac Edison Investigation
    Power Company Propaganda
    Psc Failure
    Rates
    Regulatory Capture
    Skelly Fail
    The Pjm Cartel
    Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes
    Transource
    Valley Link Transmission
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.