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

Welcome To The Brave New World of Unreliable Renewables

5/28/2021

1 Comment

 
Picture
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation recently released its 2021 Summer Reliability Assessment.

Two words:  Buy candles.

NERC sees possible problems ahead in California and Texas.  Coincidentally, these regions have built a lot of renewables, which causes "more expensive" fossil fuel generators to close.

About California:
WECC-California is at risk of energy emergencies during periods of normal peak summer demand and high risk when above-normal demand is widespread in the west. Prior to summer, the planning reserve margin (which is based on existing and firm capacity) for the California-Mexico assessment area was below the 18.4% Reference Margin Level that WECC calculates is needed for maintaining loss-of-load risk below a 1-day-in-10-year benchmark (a 400 MW shortfall at peak demand). Probabilistic studies indicate 10,185 MWh of energy in the area is expected to go unserved this summer. Over 3 GW of additional resources are expected for this summer with most coming in the form of new solar photovoltaic (PV) generation. These generation plants can provide energy to support peak demand; however, solar PV output falls off rapidly in late afternoon while high demand often remains.
More electric use (homes, cars) combined with unreliable, variable renewables equals disaster.  How might California avoid it?
Imports to the area are needed to maintain reliability when demand peaks in the afternoon and to ramp up even further for several hours as internal resources draw down. California will have 675 MW of new battery energy storage systems on-line at the start of the summer that can continue to supply stored energy for periods when needed. Reliance on non-firm imports to cover high demand or low resource output conditions heightens the risk that operators will need to use energy emergency alerts (EEA)—and trigger the shedding of firm load in above-normal heat conditions—to maintain a stable BPS at times. Planned resource additions of 1,300 MW over the summer, including 825 MW of new battery storage, are expected to help mitigate late-summer risks.
California plans to suck energy out of neighboring regions.  California depends on other states to supply its energy.  Why?  It's not that California cannot build baseload generation that runs when called, like natural gas, it simply chooses not to.  Gotta meet those renewable energy goals, ya know.... at least on paper.  But are they really effective when the "dirty" energy is produced in other regions?  This is not realistic, and Californians may pay the price this summer with increased blackouts.

In addition, there's the risk that a weather event, such as a wide area heat wave for instance, can make less energy from other regions available as they deal with their own needs.  Imports are unreliable.

There's also:
Additionally, transmission networks can become stressed when events such as wildfires or wide-area heatwaves cause network congestion. The growing reliance on transfers within the Western Interconnection and falling resource capacity in many adjacent areas increases the risk that extreme events will lead to load interruption.

Operation of the BPS can be impacted in areas where wildfires are active as well as areas where there is heightened risk of wildfire ignition due to weather and ground conditions. Wildfire prevention planning in California and other areas include power shut-off programs in high fire-risk areas. When conditions warrant implementing these plans, power lines (including transmission-level lines) may be preemptively de-energized in high fire-risk areas to prevent wildfire ignitions.
So, even if other regions can supply the power California needs to meet its own need, it often can't happen during wildfire season because transmission is shut off so it doesn't start a fire.  Hey... don't you think BURYING transmission might allow it to continue to operate during wildfire season?  Overhead transmission and investor owned utility neglect caused by greed creates disaster.  Again, California's energy policies are insufficient to meet demand.  This isn't an aberration.  This is the new normal of a "clean" energy future.

About Texas:
Variable energy resources from wind and solar are critical to meeting peak electricity demand in ERCOT. Periods of low wind generation or higher-than expected thermal outages create a reliability risk during peak load hours. ERCOT appears to be in a weather cycle that may increase the risk of intensifying drought conditions and higher than normal summer temperatures. These weather factors could result in actual summer peak demand exceeding the forecast, which already anticipates record peak demand levels. Thermal outages may increase during severe and prolonged drought conditions due to cooling water supply and temperature issues.

Highest risk for unserved energy at peak demand hour, late afternoon (Risk can
extend for 1–2 hours after peak as solar PV output diminishes. Periods of low-wind, which usually occur 1–2 hours before peak demand, can also result in extended shortfall risk
.)
Again, reliance on variable, undependable renewables causes shortages.  Texas has a lot of wind and solar.  Blackouts are the result.

This is scary news.  However, the mainstream media chooses not to report reality (surprise!  surprise!).  Instead, the media chooses to focus on climate change being responsible for the shortages.  They also like to talk about other things that don't really matter, like the Colonial Pipeline hack.  Anything but the fact that electric systems dependent upon renewables are not dependable. 

Just look at the capacity factors for wind and solar in the table at the end of the NERC report. The lowest wind capacity factor is listed as 7%, with the majority of them hovering somewhere between 10 and 20%.  This means that those generators can only be expected to reliability produce 7% of their potential.  Do you know how much overbuilding these poor capacity figures require?  Does this even make sense?  We'd have to build way too many to get any kind of "reliability," and even then the "reliability" is only a percentage on paper... reality may differ. 

"But this turbine produces energy reliably 7% of the time!"  However, today is a 0% day." Off go the lights.

Speaking of plans that only work on paper... building enormous amounts of new overhead transmission in order to hook all these poorly performing renewables together to produce a 7% chance of getting energy is so much fantasy.  If increased reliance on renewables requires imports from other regions, what happens when all regions have increased reliance on renewables?  Where does the energy come from then?

The warning is stark.  Nobody is paying attention because it's not what they want to hear.

NERC officials warned:
The full report identifies the extent of the possible deficiencies, and Robb told reporters of his own concerns about how the energy transition might be impacting reliability.

"In our hurry to develop a cleaner resource base, reliability and energy adequacy have to be taken into consideration," he said.

The latest reliability assessment is "quite concerning," John Moura, NERC's director of reliability assessment and performance analysis, told reporters.

Summer 2020 and winter 2021 were "difficult to say the least," Moura said, and the latest assessment signals "similar risks" lie ahead.

In the long-term, system operators must do extensive analysis to ensure the addition of variable resources will not negatively impact reliability, he added. "As we look forward, it really just looks more stressful," Moura said, "because of the different resources coming onto the system."

Get used to it... electricity is going to become a "sometimes" commodity if we continue to spiral faster and faster towards the "zero carbon" fantasy.  Reliability will be sacrificed in the name of "climate change."  Didn't the "clean energy" folks tell us we'd have to make some hard choices?
1 Comment

PJM Plans Studies to Remove Transource IEC From its Plan

5/25/2021

1 Comment

 
Well, it seems that didn't take long.  PJM issued a statement yesterday according to trade press RTO Insider.
Officials at PJM said they were also reviewing the PUC’s decision and that it “appreciates the commission’s consideration.”

“PJM will commence the appropriate planning studies to determine next steps, including identifying any potential reliability issues due to removal of the project from the Regional Transmission Expansion Plan,” the RTO said in a statement.

So PJM is removing the IEC from its plan?  Is that some kind of Freudian slip or a sudden realization?

Dear Dr. Freud would probably also be verrrrry interrrrested in PJM's sudden interest in doing planning studies to identify any potential reliability issues due to removal of the project from its plan, since it refused to do these kinds of studies during the PUC case, insisting that some old data was good enough to determine there was a serious reliability issue that only IEC could solve. 

Was PJM lying then, or is it lying now?

I seem to remember PJM refusing to do these very same studies to support the project's "reliability" claims at the PUC.
The OCA also noted that Transource’s assertions regarding “reliability” as a basis for need refer to a single generation deliverability test performed by PJM in 2018.  Further, the OCA noted PJM neither, performed its full suite of reliability tests to confirm that these reliability violations will result in 2023, nor, performed another generation deliverability test since 2018 which may confirm or refute the results of the 2018 test.  
If PJM didn't do these studies during the PUC case, then it did not have to recognize that there is no reliability issue IEC must solve.  PJM's new studies may magically determine that the project isn't needed after all, and then PJM can remove it from the RTEP.  No fuss, no muss!

Hit it, Alanis...
1 Comment

Help Wanted!

5/21/2021

0 Comments

 
Now here's an interesting twist...  Dominion Virginia Energy wants the public's "advice" in siting its new transmission connection to its new offshore wind farm in the Virginia Beach area.
Dominion Energy Virginia is seeking public feedback and advice about linking its planned wind farm, 27 miles off the Virginia Beach shore, to the 500 kilovolt backbone of its statewide power grid at the Fentress substation on Centerville Turnpike in Chesapeake.
Bravo for taking suggestion, Dominion!  Communities burdened by new transmission will absolutely, positively rebel against a fait accompli transmission proposal.
Is there a "good" way to present a transmission line proposal to the public?  Not if you're approaching the communities with a fully-formed idea of what you're going to build and where you're going to put it.  The only good way to involve a community in a transmission proposal is to approach them with a need before making decisions about what to build and where.  Presenting a community with a problem to be solved and allowing meaningful input into the solution selected is the only way a transmission company can get community buy-in and support for the proposal.  Everything else is nothing more than a battle to push a bad idea the community doesn't want off onto someone else.
But Duh-minion only gets it half right... no,  maybe even less than that.  They simply use the *idea* that they are seeking community advice in an attempt to trick the community into thinking they are involved in solving a problem.  When all the window dressing is removed, this is nothing more than your routine transmission siting exercise. 

Dominion has already selected 6 routes.  The community gets to pick its favorite.  Are you kidding me?  That's not how it works and it's not going to fool anyone.  Dominion would have done better to ask for help connecting its offshore wind farm and left the siting options hidden for the time being.  Must be a control issue.  Dominion can't stand not having complete control.


The power company has part of the route nailed down: the 27 miles of underwater cable to a landing point at the state military reservation at Camp Pendleton. It also has proposed an underground route through the southernmost reaches of Naval Air Station Oceana, to comply with regulations restricting structures near airfields, which the Navy must still review.

Its research into what’s on the ground, in terms of neighborhoods, wetlands, wildlife and historic resources has led it to six options for the final roughly 15 miles to the Fentress station.

“We can look at maps and desktop it, but it’s not until we talk to people that we’ll really understand these alternatives,” said Kevin Curtis, Dominion’s vice president, electric transmission.

Guess what alternative they're going to get from the community?  Bury it.  All of it.  On existing rights of way.  Without that alternative, opposition begins.  Why?  Because burial is already an option for portions of the route, such as the path through the air station.  If Dominion can bury it under the ocean, and through the air station, then it can bury it the entire length.
One option for one of these routes would be to bury the lines for a stretch. That could create much more disruption during construction and mean they were costlier to install and repair than running lines overhead but would mean that portion of the lines would not be visible.
Oh, please!  These are transparent excuses that don't even make sense.  Too disruptive... as if having 3 separate overhead 230-kV lines in parallel isn't disruptive at all.  One time disruption to bury the project?  Or 50 years of disruption from an overhead line?  Installing a buried transmission line isn't really that disruptive.  They do it on streets all the time.  It's a shallow, narrow trench, not a whole lot different than fiber optic cable installation.  Costlier to install?  Maybe, but cheaper to maintain, especially in a coastal area subject to extreme weather.  Dominion's excuses are plainly excuses and completely illogical in the face of their plans to bury it at the air station and along a portion of one of the route alternatives.

With this kind of deceptive roll out, Dominion is doomed.  Why?
Five routes would run along the never-built Southeast Parkway, now an open space corridor through the most densely populated neighborhoods between Oceana and an area southwest of Princess Anne Road, between the Virginia Beach National Golf Course and the Princess Anne Athletic Complex.
Two words... densely populated.  It's over before it begins when Dominion ham-hands its rollout like this.

Help wanted?  Not hardly... unless the "help" Dominion is looking for consists of wildfire opposition leading to an entrenched battle.

Well, there goes that offshore wind idea.
0 Comments

Calling all Hypocrites...

5/19/2021

2 Comments

 
When is hypocrisy not hypocrisy?  When it enables corporate profit and political goals!

The divide between using eminent domain for gas and oil pipelines and using it for renewable energy transmission lines is becoming an issue.  For years, environmental groups have raged against eminent domain to acquire right of way for fossil fuel projects.  However, they are being advised to think differently when it comes to electric transmission "for renewables."  For some reason, this use of eminent domain is okay.  Can we just admit that it never was about eminent domain in the first place?  It's about politics, and these politics are riddled with hypocrisy.

This article just goes too far.  Written by a law firm scrounging for clients who want to re-write eminent domain law, it proposes to change the definition of "public use."  Cue the Supreme Courts...

The 5th Amendment of the Constitution reads:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Each state has its own version of this.  What is "public use?"  Your personal definition of it may differ, but we can all probably agree what it is not... it's not the confiscation of private property by others seeking to make a profit using it for their own purposes.  I cannot force my neighbor to sell me the use of his backyard so that I can plant a vegetable garden that will enable me to open a booth at the local farmer's market and make a profit selling produce.  So why should we allow a for-profit corporation to acquire my property to build a transmission line from which they will realize profit?  We did this in the past because the transmission line enabled others to have electricity.  The public was getting a benefit from having electricity.  We use it still when it enables the public to realize a benefit.  When a transmission line is needed for reliability, for instance.  However, we need to draw the line at using eminent domain to build transmission that may lower prices for a small segment of the population at the expense of another.  We need to draw the line at using eminent domain to build transmission for political reasons.  We need to draw the line at using eminent domain to build unneeded transmission designed for corporate profit.

This law firm proposes:
Soon enough, eminent domain policies will have to evolve to align with renewable energy policies in order for a complete overhaul of the grid system to be attainable. State and federal lawmakers will eventually have to address the issue by having to revise the definition of “public use” to account for transmission lines transporting renewable electricity.
We're going to have to re-define "public use" to suit your political goals and corporate profit? 

NO!

The last time the definition of "public use" arose was in the context of a high profile Supreme Court case, Kelo v. City of New London.  In that case, the Court narrowly decided that economic development (increasing the tax base) was a "public use."  The backlash was enormous.  Many states enacted new laws to thwart this ridiculous decision.   Any corporation can increase the tax base by turning residential property into commercial property, but are the tax benefits to the community a "public use?"

The same goes for taking private property to enable new generation choices.  Everyone who wants electricity has electricity.  Where's the public need?  It's nothing but politics, folks.

And here's something to consider that you may find surprising.  The liberal justices were the ones who supported eminent domain for economic development purposes.  Conservative justices dissented.  How might a new battle be decided?  And just how long might that take?  It would be much, much longer than renewable energy companies are willing to wait.

Can they quietly change the definition of "public use" written in the Constitution and in individual state law?  And if they did, how could they still use it to oppose eminent domain for fossil fuel use, but enable electric transmission "for renewables"?  The hypocrisy here is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
2 Comments

Grain Belt Express Seeks New $600 Million Taxpayer Handout

5/14/2021

4 Comments

 
Picture
At a recent ACORE webinar trying to sell a new transmission investment tax credit to a friendly, money-spewing administration, GBE owner Invenergy stated that it NEEDED the proposed tax credit to "enable" the Grain Belt Express.
Financing large-scale, interregional transmission can be particularly challenging for merchant developers, said Shashank Sane, senior vice president and head of transmission at Invenergy.  “The beneficiaries of these projects can be diverse, and so in order to monetize the value of those lines, we have to find the stakeholder who is willing to pay for a certain benefit and create those links,” Sane said. “That’s really not the right model.”

For example, he said, Invenergy’s Grain Belt Express project now under development is aimed at bringing wind power from Kansas across Missouri, Illinois and ultimately to Indiana, providing a connection to MISO and PJM.

“The ITC is the key tool that will enable [the project] because it addresses the cost allocation problem and paying for those multiple benefits a single beneficiary is not willing to pay for,” Sane said.

The ITC is a new tax credit that will allow the owner of new transmission to take a credit on their taxes of 30% of the project's cost.  If Grain Belt Express is supposed to cost $2B (latest estimate I could find), then it would receive $600M (that's 600 MILLION!) of federal tax credits paid for by U.S. taxpayers.  What's more, the ITC is proposed to be refundable, if the transmission owner does not pay enough taxes to offset the credit it earns.  If Invenergy only owes $50M of federal taxes in the year it puts GBE in service, under the new proposal it could pay no taxes at all that year and receive a $550M tax refund from the federal government.

As a supposed merchant transmission project, GBE is supposed to pay for its own project and collect all its costs from voluntary customers who negotiate rates for service on GBE.  GBE is supposed to shoulder all risk of its project.  If GBE fails, there are no captive ratepayers to cover its costs.  However, GBE is now proposing, indeed saying it NEEDS, a new handout from American taxpayers in the neighborhood of $600M in order to build its project.

Just yesterday, GBE "needed" eminent domain to take land from Missouri farmers cheaper than it could acquire the same land in the free market.  Keeping land costs low keeps Invenergy's costs low, and lower costs translate to higher profits.  Today, GBE "needs" a $600M taxpayer handout to further increase its profits.  GBE just keeps "needing," and taking, more and more from people.

Isn't it time to say enough?

Stop enabling Invenergy's profits!  Start supporting the citizens of Missouri who elected you.
4 Comments

Transmission Tax Credits Interfere With Negotiated Rate Authority

5/14/2021

1 Comment

 
Picture
Well, someone's been doing a little reading, haven't they?  Stick around, fellas, and maybe you'll learn enough about transmission rates to finally admit that your stupid ideas about building a useless and super expensive "macrogrid" just don't work.

The silly schemers behind the "22 shovel ready transmission projects" have finally recognized that there are two distinctly different types of transmission, traditional and merchant.  Can we get a hallelujah, boys and girls?  I'm guessing that they got a little worried that someone might recognize their lies, and that regulators certainly aren't going to fall for them.  So, they issued a new "report."  There's more "reports" in there than a 7th grade Social Studies class!  However, their "we meant to do that" ass-cover report does nothing but make excuses for their ignorance.  Do they really think regulators are going to buy this nonsense?

ACORE says that investment tax credits for transmission can be used by either type of transmission project.

Traditional:  The tax credits lower the cost of the transmission project and lower the amount captive ratepayers must pay for cost-of-service rates. *

Merchant:  The tax credits lower the amount of money the transmission owner needs to recover through rates, therefore the transmission owner can "offer" lower rates to voluntary customers it negotiates with, making the project more likely to find customers and be built.

Say what?  This is the biggest bunch of misleading propaganda I've read in a while.  Does ACORE really think regulators are going to buy that?
The tax credit would stimulate both of the main types of transmission projects—regulated rate- based projects and “merchant” lines whose costs are recovered through negotiated or market- based capacity reservations. In the case of regulated lines, a utility or Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) would allocate the costs through a state or federal (FERC) regulatory process across a set of wholesale or retail customers. In that case, the tax credit would reduce the costs paid by those customers and make the cost allocation and approval process easier so more projects can move forward. In the latter case of merchant projects, the transmission capacity reservation costs that developers need to recover from wholesale customers would be reduced by the tax credit. This would allow the transmission developer to offer a more attractive price to customers, increasing the odds of success.
A merchant project will have a set amount of capacity to offer through negotiation with willing buyers.  The project offers that capacity, and then negotiates the highest price it can get in the open market with voluntary customers.  Lowering the project's costs does not affect the market, or the negotiating power of the project.  The transmission owner will still negotiate individually with a voluntary pool of customers to contract the highest rates it can negotiate.  Paying less for the project because of a tax credit only increases the merchant transmission project's profit, it doesn't lower its rates.  Whoever came up with that idiotic idea needs to belly up to the bar and think of something else because this dog don't hunt.

And while you're scheming up your new scheme, don't lose sight of the fact that merchant transmission accepts all risk.  Any subsidization of merchant projects invalidates their merchant status and ability to fairly negotiate rates.  You can't give government or other handouts to merchant transmission and still call it merchant.  If you want to do that, we're going to have to regulate merchant transmission rates.  So, which is is going to be?

*The schemers have turned traditional transmission rates into Robin Hood Rates by replacing the current system of beneficiary pays with a new system where taxpayers fund the electric system based on income.  This upends the way utilities are paid for, and wrecks the regulatory system.
By reducing the cost of electricity, a transmission tax credit can significantly reduce the burden of electricity costs on lower-income Americans. Electricity costs are regressive in that they hit the lowest income Americans disproportionately hard. Electricity accounts for 3.7 percent of total household expenditures for lower-income Americans, versus only 1.4 percent for the highest-income Americans. This is because electricity is a necessity for many aspects of modern life, so the poorest Americans can only reduce their electricity consumption to a limited extent. Unlike other products, it is not possible to use a lower-cost substitute, as a kiloWatt-hour used by a lower-income family is the same and costs the same as one used by a higher-income family. In addition, lower-income Americans have less ability to invest in cost-saving energy efficiency upgrades. As a result, those in the highest 10 percent income bracket only spend twice as much on electricity as those in the lowest 10 percent bracket; for other goods, those in the top 10 percent spend nearly six times as much.In contrast, the federal taxes used to offset the cost of a transmission tax credit are much more progressive, with the top 10 percent of earners paying 60 percent of total federal taxes, and the bottom 30 percent paying negative tax rates due to policies like the earned income tax credit. As a result, a transmission tax credit that moves costs from utility bills to tax bills is very progressive.

It's also very illegal!!!  A public utility with an obligation to serve must charge the same rate to all similarly situated customers.  This means by customer class (residential, business, industrial) and not by individual customer income.  A public utility is prohibited from charging different rates to different customers based on their income.  A rich person pays the same for a kilowatt hour as a poor one because both use the same system at the same rate, and the sale of kilowatt hours is for the purpose of building and maintaining the system that produces and delivers that kilowatt hour.  Regulated utility rates are not about how much the consumer can or wants to pay, but about the consumer's share of how much the system costs to build and operate.

You cannot change regulated electric rates into some Robin Hood system based on income, race, or political affiliation by shifting the cost responsibility for electricity from ratepayers to taxpayers.  I think this idea might just be laughed out of regulatory venues.  Again, belly up to the bar... more ideas, more reports, more spinning your wheels doing dumb things.

The "macrogrid" just isn't going to happen.
1 Comment

Reliability Reality

5/13/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
Seems like the idea of "reliability" is a big thing these days.  When applied to electricity, what does it mean?  It means that when you flip the switch on the wall at your home, the lights go on.  And that may be the extent of what the general public knows about the "reliability" of their electricity.   These folks are gullible patsies for  greedy, electric industry propaganda.  The best propaganda disseminates a self-serving idea that plays on public fear.

How many stories have you read lately about things that fail without warning:  bridges... pipelines... electricity.  Bingo!  You're being fed a bunch of lies about "the electric grid" and its "reliability."
Developers of the Grain Belt Express say the massive transmission line remains on track to open up by 2025, connecting wind power in western Kansas with voracious demand in the East.
The 800-mile project promises to add more reliability to the electric grid — all the more enticing since rolling blackouts in February left millions of Americans without power. While the $2 billion overhead transmission line aims at exporting wind energy from Kansas, it will also be capable of moving electricity both directions, which could have helped mitigate the electricity crisis that hit the United States earlier this year.

Zadlo understands the opposition to the project. But he said the benefits for people here and across the United States are immense. Just like railroad cars transport coal from mines to refineries, the Grain Belt will move a much-needed resource to customers, while also strengthening the electrical grid.

"Reliability benefits all people, right? Increasing the reliability of the grid is a good societal impact," he said. "Whether you're in the city or in rural areas, you will benefit from the increased reliability that Grain Belt will bring."

Well, gosh, you might think that we NEED GBE to make sure the lights go on when we flip the switch.  However, this is nothing but propaganda designed to make you think we're just sitting around watching the grid rot and waiting for some non-utility corporation to build enormously profitable new transmission that serves their generation portfolio.  That would just be stupid!

Reliability is maintained through transmission planning by several independent regional transmission system operators.  Reliability planning is their main purpose!    In addition, utilities must meet rigorous reliability standards set and enforced by NERC, a federal reliability enforcement organization.  We don't leave reliability to chance!!!  Therefore when some vapid media piece tells you that our grid is "outdated," "creaky," "aged," "unreliable" you can be assured that none of that is true!  Our grid is kept reliable through strict regulation, planning and operation.  These are the organizations that deserve all the credit for keeping your lights on.

The regional transmission system operators have a robust transmission planning process that looks years into the future to ensure that the grid remains reliable in any scenario.  If we need new transmission for reliability purposes, then the buck stops there.  All transmission that we actually NEED for reliability is planned by the grid operator, assigned to a regulated utility, and ordered to be built, with the costs of the project allocated across the electric ratepayers who receive the benefit.  It works!

However, GBE is not one of these needed reliability projects.  No grid operator has planned, ordered, or allocated the costs of GBE to ratepayers.  Instead, GBE is an outside actor that is attempting to build transmission for its own purposes.  It is building transmission because it wants to make money.  It is not building transmission to be a public service.  GBE owner Invenergy has no obligation to serve electric consumers and it doesn't give a rat's patootie whether or not your lights come on when you flip the switch.  Invenergy simply wants to see lots of money in its bank account.

So when merchant transmission projects like GBE tell you that they will provide some necessary "reliability," it's nothing but bogus propaganda.  Any "reliability" provided by GBE is reliability we don't need.  If we needed it to keep the lights on, GBE would be a regional system operator planned, ordered and cost allocated project.  But it's not.  It's a private corporate foray into transmission whose only obligation is to its own balance sheet.

The reality of reliability is that we have an extensive, federally sanctioned system that ensures reliability.

Grain Belt Express is not part of that system.  We don't "need" it to make sure the lights go on when we flip the switch on the wall.
0 Comments

Lies About The Energy Industry That Even Ron White Wouldn't Joke About

5/11/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
My eyes rolled so far back in my head this morning that it's taken half a day to regain their function.  It happened as a result of reading this article in the popular periodical, Institutional Investor.  Now, I'm not sure who actually reads this, but any readers should be aware that not only is the article full of energy fallacies that would make a junior high school science student laugh, but there is no "investment opportunity" for pensions and large companies to be found in electric transmission.  When the rubber of this grandiose brain fart hits the road of reality, it's going to be a giant blow out!

I gotta wonder, do these investors actually drop cash into investment schemes they know nothing about, advised by a couple of yahoos who know nothing about how electric transmission is actually paid for?  Aaron Bloom and Richard Wiggins should be laughed right outta the room for suggesting that non-utility corporations can invest in electric transmission and earn a GUARANTEED 9-11% return on their investment from ratepayers.

NO!

Their understanding of the financial side of transmission is probably being laughed at in utility and regulatory circles.  I hope they're suitably embarrassed for this faux pas.  It's sort of like someone who has never had a child telling someone who has many children how to be a parent.  Aaron and Richard have no idea what they're talking about!!  Their article rings nearly every single bell in this dire warning about fraudulent investment schemes!  Maybe Aaron should spend less time trying to act like P.T. Barnum's long-lost grandson and more time being a humble student at NextEra's transmission rates department?  Then he could actually know his subject matter before he opens his mouth on the investment sideshow circuit.  Obviously Aaron is not the smartest guy in the room, no matter how much he may think so.

I'm going to split this into two parts, the rates/investment lies part, and the energy lies part.  Let's do the rates thing first, because it just bugs me so much!  Aaron (maybe with the help of Richard?) has completely scrambled two very different ways to pay for new electric transmission into one too good to be true investment "opportunity." 

Updating the grid is going to be expensive: at least $150 billion of investment and probably closer to $200 billion. That’s a lot of coin, but here’s the good news: These investments will earn 9 to 11 percent because that’s the regulated return on transmission assets. This is what’s allowed under the regulatory compact that was first laid out in the Binghamton Bridge Supreme Court case of 1865 because transmission is a natural monopoly. This isn’t like the deregulated power generation market; there’s actual competition there so independent power producers like Calpine Corp. can — and do — go bankrupt. Investors can lose everything. Not here — these returns are guaranteed.

The formula is pretty simple. I won’t bother to explain it:

Total revenue requirement = rate base × allowed rate of return + expenses

Biden just unlocked private investment in the grid. It is the most fundamental infrastructure there is — a giant power cord that connects supply with demand. These are valuable assets so the private sector should be lining up to invest. David Swensen made his reputation by championing investment in novel asset classes, and this one is sitting right in front of us: X marks the spot. Pensions and large companies like Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Amazon are sitting on mountains of cash that should be jonesing for private finance initiative projects to build transmission for the federal government, give operational control to a regional transmission organization, and receive the approved return from ratepayers. Do more than consume the power — bank the returns!

Just last week, I blogged about politician, bureaucrat and media confusion over the distinctly different traditional, utility-owned transmission project vs. the more recent merchant transmission construct.  I'm guessing Aaron and Richard didn't read it.  If they had, they never would have made such a colossal mistake.  At least we should hope not, since trying to sell this "investment" if they knew it was fraudulent is... well... fraud!

Only regulated utilities can build and own regulated electric transmission (referred to as the "traditional" kind in my recent blog).  Amazon could not decide to build a transmission project and receive a return from electric ratepayers.  That's not how the regulatory compact works.  (Aaron needs to drop into NextEra's legal department, too, on his way back to the huckster department.)  Regulated utilities do not need "investments" from Amazon to build transmission ordered by grid planners (not the federal government).  Regulated utilities invest THEIR OWN money in transmission projects... and that's why they are allowed a regulated 9-11% return.  The regulatory compact balances low rates for ratepayers with a return that is just enough to keep the utility financially healthy.  There's nothing in there about corporations who are not regulated utilities.  Ratepayers are not money fountains for private corporations.  Utilities are for the purpose of serving the public.  Amazon is not.  Furthermore, utilities would never allow a company like Amazon to invest in their projects and collect the entire return.  The utility wants (needs?) that return to keep its own company healthy.  There's nothing in it for a utility to pass on all its profits to Amazon.  Let's really stretch Aaron's brain here, shall we?  A utility's equity in a transmission project is usually in the neighborhood of 40-60%.  It only earns a return on its equity.  The remainder of the project is financed with debt.  And that's not debt from Amazon.  It might be a bank, who gives really good rates to utilities - maybe 6% or less, based on the utility's credit rating and guaranteed regulated revenue stream.  However, debt is paid back to the bank by ratepayers at the utility's borrowing rate, not its equity rate (6%, not 9-11%).  There is no regulated profit for the utility there.  In addition, the "turning over operational control" of new transmission to regional transmission organization is purely figurative.  RTOs don't own transmission.  It's not like a utility could build transmission and then give it to PJM and wash its hands of the responsibility while collecting its juicy ratepayer return.  Saying something like that just demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge about transmission... or pushing a conniving and fraudulent investment scheme.

The only investment space for companies like Amazon in the electric transmission world is merchant transmission.  Non-utilities can propose, build and own whatever they want in the non-regulated world of merchant transmission.  Go for it, Jeff Bezos!  However, merchant transmission is not regulated.  This means there is no revenue stream from captive ratepayers.  This means there are no guaranteed returns.  This is a deregulated transmission project market.  There’s actual competition there so merchant transmission developers like Clean Line Energy Partners, can — and do — go bankrupt and their investors can (and did!) lose everything.  Merchant transmission can only recover its costs through negotiated rates in a free market.  Merchant transmission must have voluntary customers to be financially viable.  There are no captive ratepayers.  The allowed return is the difference between the cost of service and the rate that can be voluntarily negotiated.  It is not guaranteed.  Nothing about merchant transmission is guaranteed by anyone.  It's a risky business, but if Amazon wants to dabble in it nobody is going to stop them.  But Amazon has to accept the full risk of losing its investment in its entirety.  Is that a good investment for pensions and corporations?  No, it's not.

Biden did not "unlock investment in the grid."  The only thing that is actually operational is some transmission loan guarantees from DOE.  That does not mean that Amazon can invest in the new merchant transmission Clean Line, called Grid United, and recover all its investment from the federal government when Grid United fails.  Merchant transmission assumes all risk.  If the federal government is taking on the risk, then it's no longer a merchant project and we're back to square one with the regulated utilities that aren't interested in Amazon's money.

Bottom line:  There is no "private investment" in regulated transmission.  There is no opportunity for companies like Amazon here.  Trying to sell it as a high yield, no risk investment opportunity would make P.T. Barnum blush.

Now, let's move on to the energy lies...
  1. Environmentalists are not winning.  They're losing.  Probably because of lies like this.
  2. We don't need ONE unified electric grid.  The bigger it gets, the more connections it makes, the bigger its chances of failure.  Cascading outages are a real risk when everything is connected.
  3. California and Texas can't keep their lights on in a crisis because they don't have enough reliable baseload generation that can run when called.  Renewables are variable resources that must be backed up with adequate baseload.  Build too many subsidized renewables and baseload is forced out of market and closes.  When your baseload closes, it is not incumbent upon other states or regions to sell you their electricity because you didn't plan your system properly.  If California and Texas planned and built for their own needs, instead of planning to be a power parasite, they would be able to keep their lights on. 
  4. Remote renewables are NOT "distributed" generation.  They are the same centralized generation + transmission model criticized in the article.
  5. Fifteen states DO NOT account for 87 percent of U.S. wind energy potential, most geographically far from the urban load centers where most of the country’s energy is consumed.  The article leaves out offshore wind, which has much more potential and is conveniently located nearly all of the major urban electric load.  Turning the Midwest into "the Saudi Arabia of wind" while keeping your own sea views pristine is just another parasitic move.
  6. If Wyoming wants to tax wind power, bravo!  There's nothing bad about that.  It's good for Wyoming.  Why should Wyoming become the parasites' power plant for free?
  7. The physics of distributed generation do work!
  8. Wires are not cheaper than batteries in all instances.  Consideration must also be given to who pays.
  9. It's only "cheaper" to build renewables because they are so heavily subsidized by taxpayers.  The real problem is that transmission is not an asset that can or should be subsidized. 
  10. The U.S. transmission grid is not inadequate.  It is not congested and old.  It is a carefully balanced high-tech machine that is constantly updated and it keeps the lights on, even when the wind doesn't blow.  (Had to add that... hope it hit the spot!)
  11. You can't pump any more electrons on to certain places in the grid because they don't need power there!  Building generation in remote places where no one needs it and then demanding that those folks pay to build you a road to get your product to market defeats any cost savings from building the generator there in the first place.  How about concentrating on building generation near load and saving us all a lot of money and headaches? 
  12. We don't need to double or triple the size of the electric grid.  We simply can't afford it.  Electric bills are high enough for most people, without doubling or tripling them.  (Investment opportunity!!!  Who is supposed to be paying for this?  There ain't no such thing as a free lunch!)
  13. The grid is not collapsing.  People may find it boring, but that's because it's serving its purpose and nobody has to think much about it.  However, if you triple electric bills, make the grid unreliable, and put huge lattice transmission towers across working farmland and in everyone's backyard I guarantee you that nobody would find it boring anymore.  They'd be talking about it constantly... and they'd be coming for your head with torches and pitchforks.
  14. The sun shines brightest and the wind blows hardest?  WTF?  Do you know how juvenile this crap sounds?  How condescending of you!  You glib little shit.
  15. The overhead grid on huge towers is an old idea that requires sacrifice from landowners who receive no benefit.  We don't have to build transmission this way anymore.  It can be buried on existing rights of way, like railroads or roadways, and no one would have to sacrifice.  In fact, transmission like that would probably face little to no opposition and sail through regulatory proceedings.  Why aren't we building that?  Why are we stuck in the past continuing to build new versions of Nikola Tesla's grid?
  16. Nobody cares how many jobs you create building stuff we don't need.  Maybe we should just pay these people to sit on the couch and call it a "job."  Oh wait... that's already happened.
  17. If you want low cost energy to increase America's productivity, building a whole new energy source and grid while continuing to pay off the perfectly adequate one we have now, isn't the way to accomplish it.  Switching to renewables is only going to drive prices up.  I don't believe any "low cost renewables" hogwash.  It does not pencil out.
  18. The only ones who can afford electric cars are the wealthy.  The other 99% are going to cling to their gas cars as long as they can, and then simply do without.  Every American is not going to switch to an electric car.
  19. A Tesla charged in WV is not a coal-powered car any more than one charged in New York City.  The entire grid is a mix of both "dirty" and "clean" electrons, however there are much more "dirty" ones than "clean" ones.  They get all mixed up.  You can't segregate them.
  20. Electrifying everything is putting all our eggs into one energy's basket.  That's terrifying.  When the electricity goes out at my all electric house, nothing works.  Not even the water.  That's why I have a diesel generator for back up.... and a charcoal-powered grill!  Diversity is a wonderful thing!
  21. We don't have room for forests of wind turbines and oceans of solar panels.  Build that crap in your own backyard.
  22. The idea that a 3-hour time difference from coast to coast will act as a buffer for renewables failure to produce when needed is preposterous.  It's only 3 hours.
  23. Other countries use more renewables.  They also pay exorbitant electric bills and, as a result, use much less electricity.  They are not adding things to their electric load, like cars and heat pumps.  Other countries have robust offshore wind generation.  We have one.  Other countries use buried transmission. We do not.
  24. ZzzzzzZZZssss... oh pardon me, I think I fell asleep reading all this drivel.
What a joke!  A joke for Ron White.

Aaron Bloom got run over by a Volvo;
Coming home from transmission rates class last night;
Some folks say there's no such real investment;
But as for these two hucksters, they believe.
0 Comments

When Merchant Transmission Is No Longer Merchant

5/6/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
I touched on this the other day... merchant transmission is now looking for a handout of public money to finance their speculative transmission projects.

According to this old article, merchant transmission is an offshoot from traditional transmission projects built by utilities and approved by regulators on a cost-plus, rate-of-return basis.  Not all transmission projects are the same. 

"Traditional" transmission is planned by independent grid operators and assigned to incumbent public utilities.  The grid operator plans transmission for a reason, whether to keep the grid reliable, to avoid costly transmission congestion in order to lower prices for electric consumers, or in some instances for "public policy" reasons to meet state or local energy goals.  The reason is never overtly just for the transmission owner to make a profit.  Once the need for a new transmission project is determined by the grid operator, different proposals are evaluated using a number of factors, chiefly price.  Does the transmission project provide more benefits for electric consumers than costs?  Because captive electric consumers must pay for the project they need, this is designed to prevent building transmission that costs more to build than it provides in consumer benefits.  Hence, the "cost-plus, rate-of-return basis" in the description.  Electric consumers pay the cost of building the project, and the transmission owner collects its costs plus a regulated rate of return on their investment.  Because transmission is a utility monopoly (it's more efficient to build one line to serve many than it is to build multiple, competing lines to serve the same population) the amount of profit it can collect from captive consumers, who have no other options for service, must be held to a reasonable level.  Regulators determine the amount of profit to be fair to both the consumers who must pay it, and the utilities who invest their money in the project.

"Merchant" transmission is different.  It's strictly a money-making proposition whose profit is held in check by market conditions, not artificially set by regulators.  A merchant project gambles that its cost to build the project will be less than it can charge for service in a free, unregulated market.  Therefore, merchant projects do not need to go through rigorous vetting processes run by grid operators.  Because there are no captive customers who are required to pay the cost, no entity must determine a merchant project is needed, or that it is cost effective.  All the risk is on the merchant transmission developer.  A merchant developer pays all its own costs to develop and build its project.  In order to recoup its costs, plus profit, a merchant transmission project sells capacity (essentially a roadway to move electricity from one place to another) on its project to voluntary customers on a negotiated basis.  A merchant announces it is building a project, and opens a bidding window for willing customers to negotiate a price for service.  No one is required to take service, it's completely voluntary.  A customer will only sign up if the service is economic for the customer's purposes.  How much profit a merchant makes on its project is dependent upon the value of its service to potential customers.  If the cost to build the project is less than the rates a project can negotiate with its customers, then the merchant project is viable and successful.  Regulators consider this free market setting of rates to provide the mechanism to keep rates in check.  If a merchant charges too much for service in order to make a larger profit, then it won't have customers.  A merchant tries to hit that sweet spot between cost and rates where its project is attractive, but still provides a profit for the company.  Therefore, merchant projects are not regulated beyond some generalized review of the open season offering to customers and negotiations to ensure the merchant fairly evaluates bids and does not give undue preference to certain customers.  When a merchant project is owned by an entity with interests in generation or load-serving utilities, it is especially important to make sure the merchant does not give preference and lower prices to its own affiliates.  The amount a merchant can charge and the profit it can make are not regulated in any way.

This works on paper, but has been generally unsuccessful in real life.  I've concluded that the main reason for merchant transmission failure is that it cannot attract enough customers to hit that sweet spot for success.  A merchant relies on load-serving utilities to purchase its capacity (or contracts with generators to purchase power that includes merchant transmission capacity).  Many load-serving entities are affiliates of huge investor-owned utility conglomerates that also own generation and transmission of their own.  The transmission these companies own is the "traditional" variety, where the utility collects its transmission investment from captive customers.  Traditional transmission is a cash cow for these utility conglomerates because it supplies a slow and steady, regulated profit.  Utilities build transmission because it provides around a 10% return on their investment.  Do you get that kind of return on your investments?  Probably not.  This is why owning transmission is lucrative.

Merchant transmission asks the utility to purchase capacity from another company, and let that company earn a return.  The utility in this situation is only reimbursed on a dollar-for-dollar basis for the transmission capacity it purchases.  There is no profit in purchasing transmission from others.  So, why would a utility want to purchase transmission from a merchant when it could, instead, build and own the transmission project itself and realize a guaranteed profit?  To make it simpler, why buy the milk when you can own the cow?

Now that you know all there is to know about merchant transmission, let's go back to that "shovel-ready" transmission project proposal that was released with such fanfare last week.  The vast majority of the projects on the list are merchant transmission projects.  They've been ineffectively spinning their wheels for years trying to find enough customers to become commercially viable.  If a merchant does not have enough contracted customers, it does not have a sufficient revenue stream to be successful.  Utilities are generally eschewing merchant projects in favor of building their own transmission.  This situation is unlikely to change.  But merchant transmission really, really, really wants to be successful, and renewable energy companies want it to be successful so they don't end up paying any of the costs of new transmission planned by regional grid operators.  Renewable energy companies want to build profitable wind and solar farms in remote locations, but they don't want to pay the cost of getting their newly created product to market.  They want to rely on merchant transmission to do it for them, but merchant transmission can't attract customers.  This is the problem they're all trying to solve.

They're trying to solve it using YOUR money, and not their own.  They do stuff like release lists of merchant transmission they pretend is "shovel-ready" to try to interest a sadly uninformed federal government into showering them with taxpayer cash in the name of "infrastructure."  It's your money, little taxpayer, not the government's.  The schemers behind the 22-project "list" include merchant transmission companies and renewable energy generators.  These are the companies who will make a whole bunch of money if they can only get merchant transmission off the ground.  It includes Michael Skelly, famous for losing $200M of private investor cash on a failed merchant transmission scheme.

The schemers want the federal government to help them out.  If that happens, merchant transmission is no longer merchant.  It's dependent upon taxpayer money to succeed, and if it fails again it's only taxpayer money that is lost.  Private investors won't be risking anything if the government backs up the scheme with loan guarantees, tax credits, and customer mandates.  The schemers propose that the federal government power marketers be required to sign up as customers of merchant transmission and become resellers of the transmission capacity that the merchants are unable to sell to utilities.  This does not require utilities to become customers, and they won't.  It merely leaves the federal power marketer holding the bag on transmission capacity no one wants.  They don't consider that the federal power marketers are essentially running a utility.  They are a zero-sum game.  Their customers pay all their costs to operate, but because they are a government entity, they aren't trying to make a profit.  Their captive customers depend on the power marketer (such as TVA) to supply power.  All the costs of the power marketer are paid for by their captive customers.  If TVA gets left paying for transmission capacity that it cannot sell to investor-owned utilities, the cost falls to TVA customers, not the federal government.
  If the merchant is guaranteed to collect its costs from the TVA, then it can no longer negotiate prices in a free market that provides the necessary cap on profit.  If TVA is required to purchase capacity from merchants, the merchant can charge whatever it wants.  Where's the necessary regulation?  It does not exist!

There are also problems with federal loan guarantees.  When Michael Skelly spent $200M on his failed merchant projects, the only ones who lost money were the investors.  If the federal government now guarantees a loan for a merchant project will be repaid, then the U.S. taxpayers are the investors who will be left with nothing but debt.  The merchant has absolutely no risk and will still be whole after failure.  This is NOT a merchant construct!

And let's talk about those tax credits... where does the money for those come from?  Taxpayers.  If a merchant transmission company pays less taxes, that means you have to pay more to maintain the same amount of government.  What's more, the proposed tax credits are supposed to be convertible to cash.  If a company eligible for the tax credit cannot use the credit to reduce its tax burden because it pays little to no tax, the government will PAY them the amount of the tax credit as a refund.  Outrageous!  The schemers say tax credits are necessary for merchant projects because:
One of the most urgently needed policy changes, several clean energy experts and transmission developers argue, is an investment tax credit specifically for transmission projects, which would allow developers to deduct a certain percentage of their costs from their federal taxes. A bill establishing a tax credit for transmission lines has already been introduced by Senator Martin Heinrich, a Democrat from New Mexico, and the concept also appears in Biden’s major infrastructure proposal, the American Jobs Plan. 

Whereas utilities know they can recover the cost of new transmission lines from the ratepayers they already serve, private developers need to confirm that at least a portion of the energy they transport will be purchased, whether it’s by utilities themselves or large corporate energy users like data companies. Many developers, Gramlich said, are ready to begin building, but don’t have quite enough customers to comfortably pull the trigger on construction. A tax credit would help the “project economics pencil out,” he explained, boosting transmission projects over the hump toward completion. 

So tax credits are to be used to reduce the cost of merchant transmission so they don't have to find as many customers in order to make their projects profitable?  Again, providing a risk-free environment for a market based project obliterates its "merchant" construct.

Merchant transmission assumes all financial risk for its project.  In exchange for little to no regulation on its profits, a merchant assumes all financial risk of its project's viability.  Handing a merchant taxpayer cash shifts risk to taxpayers.  If we're going to make taxpayers captive investors in merchant projects, then they are no longer merchants and must be regulated like "traditional" transmission.  There must be a need for the project, it must be cost effective as determined by an independent grid operator, and its profits must be kept in check by regulators.

Instead, these greedy schemers are asking for you to become a captive investor in their project without earning any return at all for your risk.

The schemers might be able to pull the wool over the media's eyes, and also those of government bureaucrats that don't know the difference between merchant and traditional transmission, but they'll never succeed at pulling the wool over the eyes of experienced regulators.  Maybe when merchant negotiated rate authority begins being vacated and denied, people will get wise.  Until then, it's a merchant transmission feeding frenzy on taxpayer funds, even though these projects are no longer actually merchants.
0 Comments

What Will You Give?

5/5/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
Joe Kalin in News-Press Now
Will you remember him when you turn on the "clean" electricity the media tells me you're "demanding?"

Read Joe Kalin's story in the St. Joseph, Missouri, News Press.
Joe Kalin has fond memories of growing up in the Buchanan County countryside.
His father came from Switzerland and turned 87 acres near Faucett, Missouri, into a successful dairy farm, where Kalin lived and worked with four brothers and a sister. Before passing it to the next generation, Kalin’s father instilled a deep appreciation for the land and its productive capacity.
“My parents both come from the old country,” said Kalin, now 84. “My father, he loved to farm. It was given to us boys as an inheritance. We were always told to take care of it, that it would care of us.”

Mr. Kalin is being threatened with eminent domain so that a merchant transmission company can build an overhead electric transmission line across his family farm. 
It’s a 780-mile, high-voltage transmission line that threatens to cut through the land that brought John Kalin to America in the 1920s. The project, known as the Grain Belt Express, seeks to transfer wind power from western Kansas to population centers east of the Mississippi River.
Perhaps for you, dear reader.  Are you a person east of the Mississippi who has been demanding "clean energy?"  Do you know and appreciate what it's going to take to fulfill your "demands?"  There are millions of Joe Kalins between your house and that fictional "Saudi Arabia of Wind" located vaguely somewhere in the Midwest.  It's time to get acquainted.  Remember his face!  And think about what he's being asked to sacrifice so that you can assuage your climate guilt by pretending the electricity you freely use is "clean." 
For his part, Kalin said he isn’t against green energy but opposes being forced to pay the price while others reap the benefits. He doesn’t want to look out the window and see 150-foot power poles where his father once saw a landscape reminiscent of an alpine meadow.
“I don’t like the government telling people what they can do and can’t do with their land,” he said.

Mr. Kalin isn't going to use any of the electricity that's proposed to cross his farm.  He gets no benefit.  Just sacrifice.  If he has to sacrifice in the name of "clean energy," what sacrifice are you making?

No, I'm serious.  I want to know what you're sacrificing for the sake of the climate.  I mean personally, not some generalized feel good buzzwords.  Go ahead, post a comment.  I want to hear from you.

Are you donating a portion of your private property for the use of a profit-generating corporation?  Mr. Kalin is being told he must allow an easement across his own property so a corporation can make money.

Are  you donating a portion of your 401(K) to some climate change reversing business?  How much?  A farmer's retirement is his land.  When his land is appropriated for someone else's use, it reduces the productivity and future uses for his farmland.  It reduces the value of his retirement nest egg.

I have yet to hear from one person demanding clean energy, just one for goodness sake, who can say their sacrifice in the name of "climate change" is as significant as Joe Kalin's.

Don't turn a blind eye to the reality of "clean energy."  And don't give me a list of "whataboutisms".  They don't impress me.  Everything you do affects someone else.  When are you going to be responsible for your own needs?  Or are you just that type of person who gladly walks over others to benefit yourself?
0 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    About the Author

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

    About
    StopPATH Blog

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

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


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

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

    RSS Feed

    Archives

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

    Categories

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

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.