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

Grain Belt Express Asks For Loan From Shady DOE Office

10/22/2023

2 Comments

 
During a hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last week, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley questioned Jigar Shah, Director of the U.S. Department of Energy's Loans Program Office.  Senator Hawley's questions revolved around Mr. Shah's apparent conflict of interest in attending pay-to-play invitation-only industry conferences where he was accessible to companies that wanted to get loans from his office.  At one point, Senator Hawley rendered Mr. Shah speechless.  Watch this brief exchange here:
Senator Hawley's questions stemmed from this Congressional report which revealed that Mr. Shah founded a clean energy trade group called The Cleantech Leaders Roundtable  before he was appointed Director of the Loans Program Office.  Once he was appointed, he continued to attend and speak at the group's private functions.  These are the paid conferences that Senator Hawley was referring to.  The Cleantech Leaders Roundtable is a shady organization that keeps its membership secret, and its functions are invitation-only for members.  Who attends these functions in order to hobnob with Mr. Shah, who controls the purse strings of billions of dollars of taxpayer-backed government loans?  Do you think Grain Belt Express parent company Invenergy is a member?  It would be odd if it was not.

After Mr. Shah went from CleanTech Leaders to the DOE's Loans Program Office, the organization made this social media post:

Picture
It appears to me that this group was positively chortling over its good fortune to have one of its insiders in charge of doling out billions of taxpayer dollars for "clean energy" loans.  Hundreds of Billions $$$$$$ of your tax dollars!  

Senator Hawley was spot on with his questioning.  But what Senator Hawley seemed to miss was Mr. Shah's connection to something happening in the Senator's own backyard in Missouri.  Grain Belt Express has applied to Mr.  Shah's office for a government-guaranteed loan for up to 80% of its cost to build the project.  With GBE's costs estimated to be around $7B, this means a $5.6 BILLION dollar loan to Grain Belt Express backed up by your tax dollars, if Mr. Shah approves.

Furthermore, Grain Belt Express currently only has one customer for less than 5% of its project capacity, and that customer received below-cost pricing.  Grain Belt Express does not currenty have the revenue needed to make necessary payments on a government-backed loan.  

Senator Hawley should demand that DOE make sure that Grain Belt Express has the necessary signed customer contracts to provide enough revenue to pay back any loan it receives, and under no circumstances should the DOE loan money to GBE before it has sufficient revenue in place in the form of signed and verified contracts.

If DOE loans money to GBE based on its PLAN to sell its service at some time in the future it could turn into a nearly $6B boondoggle, 12 times worse than Solyndra!

While Senator Hawley's questioning of Jigar Shah made great theater, it is up to you to make sure he takes the next step to tie Mr. Shah to the loan application of Grain Belt Express that is currently under Mr. Shah's review.  Help Senator Hawley make this connection by contacting him here or by calling his office at 202-224-6154.
2 Comments

Spin Studies

9/17/2023

0 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Climate Blame Game Has Jumped The Shark

8/27/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
Green energy policies have caused the closing of many baseload fossil fuel electric generators, and we're not building an equal amount of new baseload generators to replace them.  This means we're constantly bombarded with warnings to reduce our electric use and in the worst case, rolling blackouts to prevent the grid from crashing.

Many have said that we need to increase the amount of wind and solar we bring onto the grid, but is that really a long-term solution?  Wind and solar can only be modeled as "baseload" at a fraction of their capacity because they are intermittent and only Mother Nature controls how much power they produce at any given point in time.  Therefore, we'd need 3 - 4 times as much wind and solar as we expected to use in order to produce a reliable fraction.  Also, wind and solar require vast amounts of land to house their sprawling generators.  There's a reason we were relying on fossil fuel generators -- because they take up very small amounts of land for the amount of power they produce, and they can produce power when we provide their fuel.  We decide when they run and how much they produce.

But this logic doesn't work with green energy policies.  Instead of admitting the real problem -- wind and solar aren't reliable sources of electricity -- the green propagandists sell the idea that the reason we don't have a reliable grid is because the weather has become "extreme."  Although it's normal for summer temperatures here to average in the 90's, now a day in the 90's causes alerts and warnings to cut usage.  We're told the big lie -- that climate change and extreme weather is the cause of electric grid reliability issues.  And stupid people believe it.

I guess we should have expected that the utilities have been watching the success of this stupidity and have now adopted extreme weather reasons for their own failures.  Check.it.out.
A grass fire near 199th and Lone Elm Olathe was likely caused by a downed power line. 
An Evergy representative reports the "excessive heat was likely a contributing factor" to a crossarm breaking, falling and igniting the grass fire.
About 1,900 customers were affected. Their power was restored within an hour of the incident.
What?  Heat causes wooden cross arms to snap off (or worse yet, metal ones)?  Sorry, but heat does not cause wood or metal to spontaneously deconstruct without any contributing factors.  If it did, all our houses would be falling down when it's hot.  It's so stupid, it's completely unbelievable!

You know what does cause crossarms to break?  Lack of maintenance.  That crossarm had to have other issues, like cracks, warping, or rot, to have fallen.  Heat had nothing to do with it and lack of maintenance has everything to do with it.  So, why aren't utilities properly maintaining their facilities using preventative maintenance before things break and cause fires or other disasters?  Because they're using that money for something else.  Let's explain...

Most utilities use what are known as stated rates for their distribution systems.  A utility files for a rate (or rate increase) by showing regulators a list of its costs over a certain period of recent history.  They call it a "test year."  The regulator examines the costs in the "test year" and determines the allowable rate the utility may charge.  It will also determine the allowed rate of return for the utility.  Utilities are allowed to earn a return on their investment in the infrastructure that serves us.  It's in the neighborhood of 10% right now and headed upwards.  Once the regulator determines the just and reasonable rate for the utility, it sets the rate at a certain amount per year.  The utility receives that amount every year until it files a new rate case at its own initiative.  Once the rate is set, the utility can spend the money it receives any way it likes.  Nobody is checking.  As long as the lights stay on and people don't complain too much, all is well.  A utility may spend some of the money in its Maintenance account on other things.  Those other things may be bonuses for its executives, lobbying, shoring up its pension plan, or increasing its profits.  Anything goes.

Therefore, things like tree trimming or replacement of aging crossarms, transformers, insulators, conductor, towers, and the like may be deferred for another year or two to free up Maintenance dollars that can be used elsewhere.  However, if a utility does this too much, eventually the system begins failing and the utility is left playing "catch up" trying to maintain its system before it causes disaster.  It's impossible to catch up and eventually the whole system is on the verge of failure.

A damaged crossarm that probably should have been replaced BEFORE it failed has caused a fire.  This same scenario has caused many other fires, both big and small.  The utilities deal with this by shutting off power when the weather is predicted to be windy so that its rickety, unmaintained system doesn't break and start fires.

This isn't the way to run a utility.  We have to insist that utilities open their books to show us that they have actually spent their maintenance money on maintenance.  This blame game has now jumped the shark.
0 Comments

How the Community Consultation Sausage is Made

8/23/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
Utilities, regulators, elected officials, grid planners, environmental groups, and pretty much everyone else not personally affected by a new transmission line or substation tell us that "early consultation" with impacted communities makes projects better.  You're supposed to go away happy with the new infrastructure clogging up your backyard because you were "consulted."

Consultation is a chimera.  It's an act.  They make a big deal out of pretending that your input and concerns matter, but they really don't.  You don't matter one bit and nothing you say, or any suggestions you make, have even a ghost of a chance of changing their predetermined plans.  Oh, sure, they give you a bunch of busy work to do, maybe a committee or other place to be creative, or just vent, but nothing you produce will ever be good enough to pass muster.  Why is that?

It's because utility planning is done behind closed doors.  The utilities and the grid planner, like PJM, create a fully-formed project before informing the public and beginning their fake "community consultation."  The community is approached with a fait accompli and the only options for the community is where to put it.  This is intended to cause community clashes between neighbors over siting, while the real enemy, the utility, gets no pushback at all.  Don't fight with your neighbors over where to put new transmission, direct your ire toward the real enemy.

When utilities finally roll out their set-in-stone proposals to the community and pretend to "consult", the community will set to work finding new routes, new ideas, new sources of energy, new ways to build transmission without community impact.  The community is industrious, creative, and usually right.  But when the community's suggestions are presented to the utility, the utility has 1,001 excuses why none of these solutions can ever work.  Where's the "consultation"?  It's a one-way street and the utilities simply bat away any new ideas.  They don't have to accept, or even consider, your ideas.  They're betting they can convince regulators that their ideas are better than yours because they are "experts" and you're just an uneducated peon.

The utilities then present documentation of their fake "community consultation" to regulators and say that the community prefers their plan to other alternatives.  The conclusion is that, after consultation, the community is on board with the utility's original plan and therefore regulators should approve it.

This exact scenario is played out in this recent article about a new substation in Fayette County, West Virginia.  The utility planned a new substation along Rt. 60 at one of two sites.  One of these sites was the desired site all along, but to pretend to give the community a choice, a second dummy site was added to the mix.  The community didn't want a new substation at either site.  It wanted the utility to put the substation somewhere away from the highway.  But, "...the company determined the other suggestions were not viable for the scope of what the project needed to house."  Gee, imagine that!  None of the other suggestions were viable at all.  There was absolutely no way to make them work, or for the utility to compromise at all with what the community wanted.  The utility's community consultation consisted of "...outreach and providing simulations of the project’s infrastructure."  The utility showed the community photoshopped representations of how the project would look next to the highway if they built it their way.  That is not "consultation."  It's propaganda.  The utility pretended that its picture show made the community happy.
“I think that sort of input that we got from the community and then also doing that modeling to show folks what it was going to look like when it’s constructed both helped along the project,” he said.
And the PSC said that the utility's preferred site was favored by more community members.
The commission observed that while many residents were still opposed to both the Garage Site and the Post Office Site, which is adjacent to the Victor Post Office on Route 60, they seemed more accepting of the Garage Site over the Post Office location.
Oh, they "seemed" more accepting?  Was that finding based on some hard evidence?  That's like asking the community if they would rather be flooded or burned.  Neither one is an acceptable option.  The community wants to be left alone and not put in "pick your poison" position.  The community actually chose neither of these options, but how would they prove the PSC's conclusion was wrong?

Community consultation is a performance.  Unfortunately, it's one in which the community must participate.  But a smart and cohesive community knows how the sausage is made and plays their own games with the utility during community consultation simply to document the community's road to victory in the regulatory process.  The utilities are not your friends.  The regulators are not your friends.  The only ones you can trust are your fellow impacted landowners, your friends, and your neighbors.  That's where grassroots action starts and succeeds.
0 Comments

How Transmission Developers Plan To Use "Early Engagement" To Strip Landowners Of Their Rights

8/10/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
The Big Green Transmission fans have been spewing into every regulatory venue they can find about how "early engagement" with "communities" solves transmission opposition.  This idiotic idea even found its way into law in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (16 U.S. Code § 824p (e)(1)).
...the permit holder has made good faith efforts to engage with landowners and other stakeholders early in the applicable permitting process...
It sort of tells you everything you need to know about who is writing our new laws, doesn't it?  It's nobody that should be directing energy policy for our country.

I've asked in several places... what good is "early engagement"?  It just gives the developer more time to tick off landowners and more time for landowners to educate themselves and put together opposition. 

However, this article finally lays their scheme bare.  The purpose of "early engagement" is to find out which wheels squeak and to apply enough oil so that a squeaky wheel keeps quiet until it no longer has any rights.

The article goes on about “Powerline: The First Battle of America’s Energy War,” which is a seminal work about an epic transmission opposition battle that was waged in Minnesota in the 1970's and 80's.  It is also a "must read" book that is passed among transmission opponents.  The message opponents have taken from the book, however, is much different.  The book teaches that transmission developers and their government flunkies create various time wasting processes for opponents to participate in.  It's the same thing as giving a crying child a lollipop.  Just a distraction so they stop behavior you don't want them to engage in... like actually stopping your transmission project.  If opponents are focused on various make-work tasks or achieving promised scenarios that are dangled like carrots on sticks, they aren't forming opposition and they aren't gumming up your regulatory approvals.  If you tell landowners that maybe you can move the project off their property if they do what you direct, how many landowners will comply because they simply have no other hope?  Is separating the sheep from the herd and neutralizing them really that easy?  Apparently they all think so.
Taking the time today to listen to property owners and adjust plans in response to their concerns, they hope, will lessen the likelihood of drawn-out legal or political battles delaying the project later.

Christina Hayes, executive director of Americans for a Clean Energy Grid, said the two Minnesota utilities are following the best practice of early stakeholder engagement to avoid later potential litigation.

The third powerline was the last straw for Marla Britton.  Her and her husband’s 40-acre farm near Brainerd, Minnesota, is already framed by electrical wires on the east and south. When she learned of plans for a new project running along the north end of her property, she took action.  Britton wrote to state utility regulators and contacted the companies behind the planned Northland Reliability Project. The 180-mile line will eventually make it easier to move clean electricity between central and northern Minnesota.  Soon, a utility representative was at her doorstep to discuss her concerns and ideas for rerouting the line where it would have less impact on her and her neighbors.

“They listened to me and wrote down what I said,” Britton said. “They agreed it was way too much for my property.”
Here's the punchline:
It’s yet to be seen how Britton’s feedback will be reflected in the final route, but the interaction illustrates the type of engagement that project backers say they are aiming for with the project. Taking the time today to listen to property owners and adjust plans in response to their concerns, they hope, will lessen the likelihood of drawn-out legal or political battles delaying the project later.
If Britton keeps believing the transmission promises, she might not bother to intervene in the state permitting process.  If she doesn't intervene, she loses her right to participate in the process and to appeal it later if it doesn't go her way.

It looks like this is the apparent aim of "early engagement."  Separate the irate landowners from the herd so they don't organize.  Once isolated, promise them whatever you need to promise to make them behave.  If you promise to route it off their property perhaps they won't cause trouble, believing they are getting "special" treatment that their neighbors are not.  Maybe the transmission developer promises a bigger pay out if you keep quiet.  Whatever it is, don't expect that the transmission developer will actually keep its promise after the deadline to intervene in the permitting process expires.  Once there is no longer anything you can do to hurt them except whine that you didn't get the special treatment you were promised (but never in writing), you may be cut adrift, tossed away like so much trash.  Then the transmission company is free to proceed with its plan and there's nothing you can do to stop them.

Don't let this happen to you.
0 Comments

Beware the Bait and Switch from unscrupulous transmission companies

7/20/2023

0 Comments

 
How in the world did New York permit a transmission project to use eminent domain to take private property without adequate notice to and due process for affected landowners?  According to this article, landowners who had been told that the Champlain Hudson Power Express transmission line would be buried entirely in Lake Champlain, the Hudson River, and transportation rights-of-way are now being threatened with eminent domain unless they allow burial of the project in their back yards.  A local government official uses the word "blindsided" to describe recent efforts to get landowners to sign "voluntary" easements coerced by threats of eminent domain.

How did this company get eminent domain in the first place if it had agreements to use bodies of water and transportation rights-of-way?  The company did not need eminent domain to acquire right-of-way that was already under contract.

It seems that TDI's original plan to stay completely in the river was tanked by environmental concerns on certain stretches of the river.  Environmental interests prevailed, and the project was routed out of the river and over land in certain areas.  However, local governments were told that the project would be routed completely along existing rail corridors.
“Initially, the town was told it would be 100 percent by rail,” said Glenville Town Supervisor Chris Koetzle of what CHPE first said when they explained that part of the land-based section of line would go through his town. 
But then TDI "discovered" there were utility equipment and other obstacles along the rail corridors that they had to avoid, requiring deviation from the rail corridor to find a route across private property.  And what did TDI do then?  Did it go back to regulators and explain itself?  Did it contact the towns and notify them of the change?  Did it meet with landowners to discuss its dilemma?
But over the last few months, [the town] started getting phone calls from residents of the Woodhaven neighborhood who were contacted by CHPE for easements.
Instead of doing the morally correct and honest thing and making this very important change public, the company put the squeeze on affected landowners and threatened them with eminent domain if they did not sign easements.  How is this legally allowed?
Negotiations over the easements and the idea the land could be taken through eminent domain has some people contacting their lawyers.

“I’ve had a couple of people call me,” said Patrick Seely a lawyer with the Jones Hacker Murphy firm in Troy. He hasn’t actually been retained, but noted that in easement cases, there is often a negotiation. “A little bit of horse trading goes on all the time,” he said.

But those landowners in easement cases would have been notified that their property was needed for the project way back in the project permitting stage.  Once notified, the landowner would have had the option to participate in the permitting case and appeal any decision they did not agree with.  These late-to-the-game landowners have been stripped of due process.  They absolutely should contact a lawyer, but not one who only sees their case as a way to cash in by negotiating easement agreements, instead of questioning whether the landowner received proper legal notice of the project in the first place.

And they might want to find out whether this was an honest mistake for which there was no other remedy than eminent domain and routing across private property, or was this done as a result of carelessness?  If the original plan to stay in the river wasn't stopped by environmental concerns, would any of this be happening?  What did the company know about obstructions to a rail route when it decided to put it there?  Might routing on road shoulders or a combination of road and rail have been a better choice?  Seems very odd that there were no options for route planning.  Is the company just losing its patience and calling it "good enough" in order to stop the financial bleeding a lack of proper planning from the beginning has caused?

Maybe TDI shouldn't have spent so much money showering local governments and environmental interests with cash in exchange for support for its project.  And maybe local governments shouldn't have accepted TDI's dirty money before the project's route was confirmed.  A good lesson in payoffs all around.

But what about those landowners?  A solution must be found, and it can't be eminent domain.  This project got so close to getting done without creating involuntary victims.  And now it seems to have simply given up. 

Disappointing.  I hope the next company that attempts to site a transmission project buried underwater and on existing rights-of-way can stay the course to success.  Meanwhile, landowners near TDI's other transmission project, New England Clean Power Link in Vermont should beware.  Looks like TDI has already paid for the support it thinks it needs for that project.  Is eminent domain on private property next?
0 Comments

Fits of Fantasy

7/19/2023

0 Comments

 
I think the phrase is actually flights of fantasy, but... well, you'll see.

Data centers.  Have you ever really thought about them when you're poking around online and the world is at your fingertips?  Probably not, but we have to have a place to store all our big data that we just can't seem to part with.  We're full-blown digital hoarders. 

Data centers use a huge amount of electricity, and they must have a steady supply 24/7, 365.  Data centers depend on enormous backup generators (that run of fossil fuels) in the event of a power outage.  Data centers require on demand, reliable power.

But this industry fit of fantasy proclaims that we can run data centers on 100% renewable power.  No, we can't.  We don't have the technology to produce on-demand supplies of electricity from 100% renewable generators.  Wind and solar only run part of the time, when their fuel is made available by Mother Nature.  A data center that relies 100% on wind and solar will 100% use its backup generators for at least 50% of the time.  And doesn't that defeat the purpose of "clean energy" in the first place?

The fit of fantasy examines several data center clusters in the U.S., including the nation's largest data center market in Northern Virginia.  Northern Virginia data centers operate on 94% fossil fuel electricity.  94%!!!!  That's the type of power needed to power a 24/7 365 power hog like data centers.

But, never fear, this fit of fantasy thinks the problem can be solved by building new transmission.  I'm going to guess the author hasn't bothered to examine PJM's recent competitive solicitation for new transmission projects to solve the issue of powering Northern Virginia's data center power suck.  It looks like this.
Picture
One proposed solution simply imports more fossil fuel electricity from the Ohio Valley.  That's sure to speed the "transition" (to 100% fossil fuel power).  Other solutions pump fossil fuel electricity in from Pennsylvania.  It's all about importing more fossil fuel electricity instead of building reliable renewable generators near the load.  That's because, first of all, PJM can only order transmission, not generation, and second wind and solar cannot supply reliable power that will run a data center 24/7 365.

Where's the disconnect?
The superficial examination of how easy it will be to build new transmission is where this fantasy starts having fits.
Plans to transition U.S. data centers to renewable energy power sources are impeded by current utility transmission infrastructure. The main problems are outdated power lines, delays in planning and permitting for new transmission and distribution projects and supply chain bottlenecks. Upgrading existing transmission lines can take as long as three years, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, due to time-consuming regulatory hurdles, resulting in multi-million-dollar costs.

An electric line is just an empty extension cord, not plugged in to anything.  Unplugged extension cords do not produce electricity.  What you need is another plug -- a reliable generator on site.  Having extra extension cords won't produce power if there's no place to plug them in.  Not having enough extension cords is not the problem.  "Time consuming regulatory hurdles" is something this author doesn't know anything about.  There are no hurdles for simple rebuilds on existing rights-of-way.  More extension cords are not the answer.


Upgrading power transmission infrastructure to accommodate renewable energy sources is a top priority for utility companies. Recently adopted federal legislation provides $2.5 billion in public funding for this effort. Additionally, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) plans to study and address these ongoing issues. Utility companies are cooperating with regulators, city officials, operators and developers throughout the U.S. to improve connectivity.

Do you have any idea how much "power transmission infrastructure" costs?  A good sized transmission project that connects renewable energy resources easily costs MORE THAN $2.5 billion.  Qu'est-ce que "public funding"?  There's no such thing.  What they meant to say is TAXPAYER FUNDING by people like you.  This legislation won't do anything but complicate things.  How many times has the federal government run to the rescue with handfuls of cash and solved a problem efficiently and cheaply?  FERC plans to study and address them?  How?  Do tell!  I'm betting you don't even have a ghost of an idea.

This report highlights select regional data center markets that are working to advance renewable energy power availability and solve transmission and distribution issues. These markets all depend on local renewable energy sources and are at the forefront of a transition necessary for the data center industry to grow on a sustainable basis.

WTH?  These markets depend on local renewable energy sources?  Where are they going to put millions of acres of solar panels and wind turbines in crowded Northern Virginia when every square inch of available real estate is covered with data centers, warehouses, and urban sprawl?  What you're depending on is faked "plans" by utilities checking the politically correct boxes while raking in a huge pile of money.  Dominion doesn't give a fig about the environment, or your data center.  It only loves money.  Dominion will say or do anything, even if it knows what it is saying is impossible, as long as foolish data center companies enable bigger profits for Dominion.

The data center industry cannot grow on a sustainable basis unless they starting building nuclear plants inside the data centers.

Fits of fantasy.  No matter how much fiction you write, you cannot force it into being.
0 Comments

Pot Calls Kettle Black in Ironic Twist

6/30/2023

1 Comment

 
Hit it, Alanis...
Clean energy and environmental justice saints are pointing the finger at natural gas companies for ghostwriting letters of support for their project that were signed by local big wigs.

Isn't it ironic?  These very same groups also engage in a little astroturfing of their own.  I am always coming across form letters in FERC dockets orchestrated by environmental and social justice groups that are indisputably form letters, such as this letter of support signed by 17,923 clueless petition signatories or these 10,905 form letters submitted by the National Wildlife Federation.  Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

It seems like the sanctimonious blowhards didn't have much trouble getting biased media to point fingers and make it seem like gathering letters of support are something new.

Shopping around "letters of support" for an energy project (or a FERC rulemaking) has been going on for decades.  There's no law against it.  It's just plain, old annoying and it's not fooling any regulators at this point.  Why do they continue doing it?  Because energy companies are like vintage Titanics, sailing along on yesterday's public relations schemes. 

Perhaps the opposition groups are just ticked off that the gas company was able to get the signatures of more important people than they were.  Really, none of it matters.  Form letters are never read past the first one.  Nobody cares.  They don't even keep little score sheets of the number of comments for or against.  It's complete nonsense.

However, shopping around form letters does become a problem when the company uses public or ratepayer funds to pay for its public relations schemes.  I don't see where these whiners even bothered to investigate whether that's happening in this instance.  Why do any hard work when the media eats up your BFD allegations?

Of course it's annoying when the opposite side uses underhanded tricks to drum up fake support for their position. 
“I think that really, really rankles people here in Port Isabel, to see somebody from another city writing a letter saying, ‘hey, you know what? You ought to hurry up and put this polluting, dangerous facility in somebody else's town,’” Port Isabel City Manager Jared Hockema told TPR.
And a particularly bitter pill to swallow when that support comes from unaffected individuals that may have had their hands out for some quid pro quo.  It's not  uncommon for the company to offer some "donations" or "campaign contributions" or other one hand washes the other kind of "help" in exchange for letters or public comments of support.  When they can't build support honestly, they buy it.

How would these folks like it if the ghostwritten letters and handfuls of cash were coming from the federal government instead of the private sector?  Congress has unwisely set aside a $760M pot of taxpayer money to fund "economic development" and "grant" payments to "communities" affected by new electric transmission projects.  Nevermind the fact that transmission is a linear project whose "community" is linear, the government is eager to dole out your tax money to some other town to pay for your misery living with a transmission line on your property.  The only thing these other towns must do is make sure the project gets approved. 

I suppose they'll sign some ghostwritten letters.
Picture
1 Comment

Big Transmission Needs Big Propaganda

6/28/2023

0 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's for dinner?

6/14/2023

1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    About the Author

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

    About
    StopPATH Blog

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

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


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

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

    RSS Feed

    Archives

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

    Categories

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

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.