In the wake of PJM's decision to hold PEPCO's MAPP Project in abeyance that was announced on Friday, a whole bunch of misinformation showed up in the press.  Anyone want to take a wild guess how that happened?

An article in Delmarva Now, MAPP Completion Date Pushed Back to 2019, gets just about everything wrong, starting with the headline.  PJM's letter to PEPCO made this statement about MAPP's in-service date, "Based on these latest results, the PJM Board has decided to hold the MAPP project in abeyance, retaining it in its 2011 RTEP with a 2019-2021 in-service date."  The "new completion date" is an uncertain three year period, not 2019.  Read The Power Line's post about MAPP and PJM's long-term forecasting, which relies on extrapolations, and not known facts.

The article also blames the abeyance of the project on "changes in electricity usage."  There are a whole bunch of factors in play here, "electricity usage" is way down on the list of uncertainties and certainly not an accurate portrayal of main reason for the delay.  PJM gets the blame for this misinformation.  Check this quote from PJM's Ray Dotter, "Our board's decision is not to cancel the project but to do enough to keep it alive," said Ray Dotter, spokesman for PJM. "There is so much uncertainty that we need to be constantly looking at usage."  So, what does the PJM Board consider to be the technical, real number definition of "do enough to keep it alive"?  Will we see a revised projected transmission revenue requirement for the MAPP project?  How much more ratepayer funding is going to be poured down the uncertain MAPP rat hole, exactly?

The cost of the project stated in the article is off by more than a billion dollars.  Actual cost is estimated at $1.2B, not $1.2M.

"The MAPP was proposed as a way to offset eventual system overloads and blackouts when system predictions were created in previous years. Newer models, however, show mass power outages are not likely until after 2015."

Wow!  Blackouts and mass power outages after 2015?  What a bunch of crap!  Sensationalism at its best!  "Mass power outages" are not likely at all, ever.  The power companies have been using "blackouts" to fear monger support for their unneeded transmission projects for years.  Reality is that "violations" MAPP is supposed to fix could only happen if a whole bunch of stuff is taken offline at the same time, a very unlikely scenario.  There are cheaper and easier fixes for these unlikely scenarios than building a $1.2B new transmission line.  MAPP is overkill based on unlikely scenarios.

"Creation of wind farms off the Maryland and Delaware coasts could also accelerate the need for the MAPP to transport energy they create throughout the mid-Atlantic."

This is also completely ludicrous.  Off shore wind farms aren't going to create a future need to pump wind power to Dominion's Possum Point converted gas-fired generating plant's substation, where MAPP currently originates.  Just because the plan for MAPP exists does not mean that reversing it's beginning and end creates a feasible or effective plan to distribute off shore wind energy.  If we're going to invest billions in off shore wind, that project deserves its own set of transmission plans, not some leftover plan hanging around at PJM that was intended to "increase the use of coal-fired resources" when it was created in 2005.

Here's a different, but similar, article from The News Journal that also goes off the rails beginning with the headline, Delmarva power line project pushed back - Recession cuts demand, delays three-state pathway until 2015.  It contains much of the same misinformation from PJM and PEPCO spokesmen.

Here's a slightly better article, with a huge Freudian slip in the first sentence.  Thanks, Star Democrat, for a great new phrase:  "Pepco is asking a state panel reviewing a transmillion line project that would extend through Dorchester County to temporarily delay its review."  Transmillion lines aptly describes these kind of projects, which score huge profits for their investors that are paid for by electric customers.

See also PEPCO's letter asking the Maryland PSC to suspend activity on their application for one year.  In this letter, PEPCO goes into even greater detail about all the uncertainties that have thrown their plans up in the air.  They try mightily to make the PSC believe these uncertainties could only lead to an earlier need for their project.  The truth behind these "uncertainties" is that need for the project at all is the greatest uncertainty.  Here are the factors that have buggered up PEPCO's plans:  No currently projected reliability violations before 2019; public policy initiatives (state Renewable Portfolio Standards); the type and location of future generation; generation retirements and additions; implementation of FERC Order No. 1000's mandated changes to planning and cost allocation; electric demand; the new EPA Clean Air rules; a six-year lead time to order underwater cables needed to cross the Bay; federal & state environmental permits needed; and increasing demand response programs. 

Their logic on demand response programs increasing need for MAPP is completely preposterous!  PEPCO says that the more demand response resources available, the greater the risk that all these resources could decide to drop out at once and fry the grid by turning everything back on, and therefore they should be completely ignored in the planning process for new transmission.  Oh, come on -- that is completely absurd!  Is this a look at how PJM is going to start viewing demand response in their planning process?  The Delmarva Now article includes this gem from PEPCO, "Other factors, such as hotter summer days and colder winter nights, could limit the number of customers participating in load management programs, driving up electricity use and demand." 

PEPCO also says they need at least 6 years lead time to have underwater cables manufactured and therefore PJM has ordered them to proceed with "certain  developmental activities reasonably necessary to allow MAPP to be quickly re-started..."

PJM thinks PEPCO should continue to spend the ratepayers' money on a project that is completely uncertain at this time.  Looks like PEPCO is spending ratepayer money just about as wisely as PATH has been spending it.  PEPCO is also dumping millions on stupid PR campaigns.

Now we've got two of these unneeded zombie projects in PJM's "abeyance" la-la land where financing the projects will continue to increase consumers' electric bills through recovery via FERC formula rates and provide huge profits to their power company developers through FERC Transmission Incentives.  Enough is enough!

We love our County Commission here in Jefferson County :-)  We miss seeing them as frequently as we used to, now that the PATH project is rolling around in some obscure corner somewhere emitting a gurgling death rattle.  This morning, Patience Wait and I decided to go to the Commission meeting to say hello.  Imagine our surprise to find that two representatives of FirstEnergy were on the agenda to give a presentation as the first order of business!  Wow, serendipity! 

Just as the meeting was getting underway, the FirstEnergy rep. showed up and sat right in front of us, like a moth to a flame.  She proceeded to play with all the papers in her notebook, including her propaganda from now defunct PATH front group, West Virginians for Reliable Power.

During public comment, Patience spoke about the new state-wide citizens' action group, Coalition for Reliable Power, the Coaliton's goals, and invited the Commissioners to Real Solutions to Rising Electric Rates, a public forum to be held in Martinsburg next Tuesday at 6:45 p.m.  The forum will address FirstEnergy's proposed energy efficiency program in West Virginia, which was a stipulation in their merger settlement with the PSC.  FirstEnergy has proposed a very weak program that will have little effect and little benefit for the vast majority of the ratepayers, however it will be funded by increases to residential electric rates.  The Commissioners were invited to come and find out how to take action at the PSC to make FirstEnergy do better.  You're invited, too!

I spoke next and gave the Commissioners a brief update on the status (or not!) of the PATH project, demand & congestion, PJM and FERC issues and other related topics.

Afterward, we decided to hang around and see what FirstEnergy had to say for themselves.  Charlie Friddle, who was supposed to introduce FE's "new" PR person for the Eastern Panhandle had been called away in the middle of the night, according to Charlene, and wasn't able to attend.  (Hmm... did a politician run out of pocket change somewhere?)  So, Charlene Gilliam introduced herself.

Bless her little heart, she kept doggedly to the script she was handed when FirstEnergy loaded her batteries, hit the "on" switch and set her in motion on this mission.  She began by showing the Commissioners a copy of that vacuous "Hello my name is..." ad and asked them not to be confused by the name Potomac Edison.  Although, Charlene seemed a bit confused herself, getting the date of FirstEnergy's takeover of Allegheny Power wrong.  Not that a few days matter, after all, it took FirstEnergy six months to get around to introducing their "family" to the County Commission.  She told the Commission about Potomac Edison's West Virginia headquarters in Fairmont and pretended it was a great FirstEnergy benefit, when the facility is actually headquarters for Mon Power and financed by the ratepayers through the TrAIL transmission line's FERC formula rate.  She showed the Commissioners a map of FirstEnergy's Diverse Generating Sources.  10,371 MW of "supercritical coal"; 4,633 MW of "subcritical coal"; 3,991 MW of nuclear; 2,783 MW of gas/oil; and 2,207 MW of "renewables," which consist entirely of hydro and exist in Jefferson and Berkeley Counties.  When asked about that other "renewables" icon on the map that is sitting on the WV/PA border, Charlene didn't know what it was.  She made the statement, "Generation percentages will change dramatically in the next 5 years!"  When Commissioner Morgan asked her to elaborate on how they would change, Charlene didn't seem to understand the question.  After it was repeated/rephrased several times, Charlene said she didn't know and would have to check and get back to the Commission.  (okay, stop that snickering, it's not polite!!!)  She was also asked a question about scrubbed vs. un-scrubbed coal generation by Commissioner Pellish, and a question by Commissioner Manuel about the effect of Marcellus on FE's generation portfolio.  She didn't know the answers to these questions either, all right?  In fact, she "wasn't privileged to the information" on Marcellus.

Charlene wanted the Commission to know that she was making the rounds to all the local government and that FE was bringing back their "Economic Development" department.  Charlene wanted the Commission to know that she is there to be a direct line of communication for elected officials whenever they needed her.  I just hope they don't need her to answer any hard questions, all right?

Charlene took off out of the Commission meeting room like her shoes were on fire as soon as she was excused.  I hope she was just beginning her search for answers with appropriate alacrity and not just trying to escape from more questions.  Patience and I hung around and mingled with the Commissioners during their next break, and we answered all the questions that Charlene could not.

FAIL!

... industry influence suspected.  Film at 11.

Okay, enough with the silly headlines.  This isn't a satire or parody website (okay, well most of the time anyhow, I'm just in a mood tonight).  Expecting laws to adapt to the behavior of the utility industry, instead of expecting the industry to adapt to the rules created to regulate it isn't a joke.  Suppose instead of of a transmission grid we were talking about drug manufacturers.  Would we expect the regulations that keep that industry in line to adapt to the whims of whatever the huge pharmaceutical corporations wanted to do to increase profits?  Of course not.  But for some reason, the utility industry wants us all to jump on the bandwagon calling for less regulatory scrutiny so they can construct a huge, expensive, dangerously centralized "national grid" at the electric consumer's expense.

In this interview with former FERC Chairman Joseph Kelliher, now working for NextEra Energy Resources, Kelliher talks about ways to work around the federal court rulings that threw a wet blanket on plans for a huge transmission build out.  NextEra bills themselves as the "Largest generator of wind and solar power in North America."  And what does a generator of midwest wind need?  New transmission lines.  Hmm... cancel that call to Sherlock Holmes, we're not going to need him on this case after all.

There have been three major federal court decisions in the past couple of years that threw a monkey wrench into the system the utility industry had "put in place" courtesy of their bought and paid for legislators.  First, the 4th Circuit said that FERC's backstop siting authority could not be invoked in the instance a state denied a transmission line application.  Next, the 7th Circuit said consumers could not be forced to pay for transmission lines from which they receive no benefits and remanded cost allocation to FERC.  FERC responded with its recent Order No. 1000.  Finally, the 9th Circuit vacated the Department of Energy's "National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors" which gave FERC their backstop siting authority to override state decisions, claim eminent domain powers, and site transmission lines.

Kelliher claims that the 4th Circuit's decision was in error and that "it's not the last word" on FERC's backstop siting power.

He also thinks that, in response to the 9th Circuit decision, DOE should re-implement NIETCs by allowing utilities to create smaller corridors  "on request" for each project they propose.

He claims the EPAct of 2005 was flawed because it bifurcated authority between FERC and DOE.  He thinks all authority should have been given to FERC, similar to their sole authority for siting gas lines.  But, no matter, says Kelliher, there are ways to bend the existing laws to suit the industry's purposes, so all is not lost.  Even if the industry push for federal control of transmission line siting doesn't happen soon enough, the industry can still manipulate existing law to usurp state authority and run a transmission line right through your living room, whether you like it or not.

Check out this crazy PowerPoint presentation by the Western Governors' Association.  "Searching for a Unified Theory of Transmission and Renewable Energy Development in the West" is apparently governor code for "The Corporations That Stuff our Pockets with Cash Need to Make More $Money$ by Building New Transmission to Transport Renewables From Coast to Coast!"  Take a look at Page 12, "Existing Paradigm for Renewables."  This is the paradigm that makes the most sense, both from a physics and an economic standpoint.  Page 13, "Changing the Paradigm" calls for large centralized generation areas in unpopulated areas connected to the rest of the country through a big network of huge transmission lines.  It's a coast-to-coast blackout in the making and it's going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars -- paid for by you!

When are we going to stop letting corporate money elect the legislators who are supposed to be representing the people? 

Let's do a little math here -- don't worry, it's really got more to do with simple logic than algebra.  New transmission grid to serve "renewables" = additional cost to electric consumers of $220B.  The talking heads tell us that this new grid will make electricity "cheaper."  FERC says their new policy will ensure that people who do not benefit will not pay for it.  Who's going to pay for this grid?  Certainly not less people than are paying for transmission lines now, or it wouldn't be "cheaper."  More people will be paying for this transmission grid.  FERC's definition of "benefit" is going to be so broad that everyone is going to "benefit" and end up paying a lot more for their electricity in order to finance new transmission.

Now, imagine if renewables were developed on a smaller scale and localized to load and didn't require ANY new transmission lines?  Cost for this version of meeting public policy goals = $0.  Benefit to you?  Priceless!

That's what a reporter from The State Journal set out to determine last week.  Not surprisingly, the brown-nosers at industry-funded law firm Jackson Kelly said they love the PSC the most. 

The rest of the people in the article, including The Coalition for Reliable Power's Bill Howley and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy's Frank Young, told the truth.

Read the article.

This just in...  PATH's Memorandum in Support of the Potomac Edison Company's Petition for Judicial Review of the December 20, 2010 Findings and Decision of the Board of Appeals for Frederick County.  Before reading though, click here to set the proper tone and mood for your perusal because it's a sad, sad story.  I just couldn't hold back the tears... of laughter!

It's another PATHetic pity party starring poor, persecuted PATH, and winds up with a rather long-winded legal argument citing a bunch of precedent.  I'm not going to get into that aspect of it.  I'm not a lawyer and I refuse to waste my time looking up all those cases.  The Maryland opposition groups have lawyers for just that purpose.  You should consider slipping them a donation to help with their legal costs.  Visit CAKES or Sugarloaf Conservancy to show your support!

Regarding the pity party though, I simply can't resist having some fun at PATH's expense.  Here are a few quotes starring MISINFORMATION that I know you'll enjoy:

• The Substation is permitted as a special exception in an A zoning district and is part of a larger project to be constructed in Maryland, West Virginia and Virginia that will ultimately improve the reliability of the electric transmission grid in Maryland and the mid-Atlantic region.

Nowhere in this document does PATH mention that the substation, as well as the entire PATH project, is now a moot point because PJM has determined that it is not needed.  They also fail to mention that they have withdrawn their application to construct the project and the substation in the State of Maryland.  PATH will NOT "improve the reliability of the electric transmission grid."  PATH has provided misinformation to the Circuit Court for Frederick County.

• ...opponents, including nearby residents, environmental groups, and activists from  Maryland and out of state, offered subjective,
  emotional, and anecdotal arguments against the Substation and the motives of the Petitioner, and generally in support of a NIMBY position.  "NIMBY" refers to "Not In My Back Yard," a common position taken by certain opponents whereby the opponents do not necessarily protest the specific proposal but, rather, protest the location of the specific proposal as being too close to their own property.

PATH provides no proof that all arguments against its substation were subjective or any of those other things.  This is simply PATH's sweeping characterization of the citizens and provides MISINFORMATION.  (See, we're embarking upon a theme here, you'll see why.)  PATH is motivated by $$$ and they have not proven otherwise.  PATH even stoops to name-calling, something I can't remember the citizens ever stooping to during the hearings.  Congratulations, PATH, I'm sure your mommies are very proud of you!  Regarding PATH's definition of "NIMBY," is that their "expert" opinion or merely their subjective, emotional and anecdotal argument?  I'm thrilled that they have finally given definition to the NIMBY word they love so much in a legal document though.  I promise to make good use of that quote from here on out!

• When authorized by the Maryland Public Service Commission, Petitioner will construct, operate, and maintain PATH in Maryland.

When pigs fly, PATH!  PATH does not even have an application on file, much less any guarantee that if they file an application in the future that the PSC will authorize it.  Awfully presumptuous, aren't we, PATH?  More MISINFORMATION through omission of crucial fact.

• Petitioner is pursuing this judicial review because PATH cannot be built without the Substation.

PATH also cannot be built without an application to the PSC, the inclusion of the project in PJM's RTEP, and at least some semblance of "need" for the project, but don't let that stop you, PATH.  Enjoy your little MISINFORMATION fantasy!

• Petitioner agreed to proceed in good faith with the County's special exception process under a reservation of its rights to assert the pre-emption argument at any time.

Well, what's stopping you... go right ahead, PATH, and assert your "pre-emption argument."  What?  PATH's gun is loaded with blanks because there is no argument, pre-emptive or otherwise, because PATH does not have an application for its project before the MD PSC.  I guess that fact makes this statement MISINFORMATION.

• Prior to the first night of the special exception hearing, well-organized and extremely
  vocal opposition to, and misinformation about, PATH, including the Substation, spread in the
  news media, on the internet, and at political town hall meetings and debates. Also prior to the first night's testimony, the Board visited the Property and walked the Site. In the wake of
  resident outrage fueled by misinformation, and in light of at least one Board member's history of actively opposing projects (see the letter in the Record dated December 8, 2010 from Mr.
  Cannon to the Board), this visit appears to have been a premature death knell for Petitioner's application.

MISINFORMATION, you say?  Well, I disagree.  What fueled the opposition and outrage were THE FACTS that were revealed, not that sugar-coated bucket of MISINFORMATION you tried to spoon-feed to the public.  So, PATH, are you now admitting that we kicked your butt on the PR front?  I'm so happy that you finally agree with me that Charles Ryan Associates failed to perform.  I just knew we'd find common ground eventually!  "Premature death knell?"  It's positively EERIE that the Board's visit to your substation property foretold the eventual removal of the PATH project from PJM's RTEP because there is no need for PATH!  Do you also suppose that the Board called Miss Cleo for advice before their visit?  And all this time I thought Miss Cleo was just pulling my leg in order to swindle me...

• Mr. Reed also testified that the Substation will not have any material adverse impact on
  area roadways. (TR 16-17, Oct. 14, 2010). The Substation will be unmanned, and will require
  four to five regular maintenance visits each month.  Mr. Reed testified that these visits would not generate high volumes of either local or regional motor vehicle traffic along the existing roadway infrastructure.

Oh, that's right, Truescape's MISINFORMATION said the substation is going to float down from the sky and magically appear at the site thereby not generating any adverse impacts on roadways during construction.

• Petitioner also offered the expert testimony of a highly respected and well-credentialed
  real estate appraiser and consultant, Mr. Jay Goldman. Mr. Goldman was very familiar with the Property and the surrounding areas and testified he had driven through the communities, flown over them in a helicopter, studied land records and historical sales, and visited the County's land records office. (TR 438-39, Nov. 13, 2010). With this personal knowledge of the Property and proposed Substation, Mr. Goldman compared the Site to the Quarry Creek development in Charlestown, West Virginia. (TR 440-43, Nov. 13, 2010). Mr. Goldman stated that the Quarry
  Creek development is the most expensive in the area, with the value of most of the 60 to 65 houses exceeding $1 million, and three houses exceeding $5 million. Mr. Goldman testified
  that a large rock quarry and an electrical substation are located at the development's entrance. Moreover, the development is adjacent to the main line of CSX Railroad, (which transports high volumes of coal and chemicals), is intersected by power lines, and backs up to the Charleston landfill. Mr. Goldman also indicated that the development contains a water tower, a cemetery, and at least one gas well.  Mr. Goldman testified that despite these perceived negative influences, the property values for the homes in the  development remained quite high.

Jay Goldman was an embarrassment to the PATH project and the residents of West Virginia who were present.  He presented MISINFORMATION because he's from Charleston, West Virginia, which is at least 6 hours (and many worlds!) away from Frederick County, Maryland.  He turned the citizens of West Virginia into cartoon characters who jump at the chance to live near public housing and city dumps and pay a premium for an unobstructed view of AEP's John Amos coal-fired generating plant.  He also doesn't appear to know the geography of his state, unless the "error" of Charlestown vs. Charleston was made by PATH's counsel.  Apparently Geography wasn't someone's favorite subject.  Charles Town (notice it's two words) is located in Jefferson County in West Virginia's eastern panhandle.  It is an easy 30 minute (or less) drive from Frederick County and it is a place that many from Frederick have previously visited and with which they are familiar.  Charles Town doesn't have any homes overlooking the city dump that sell for more than a million dollars.  Charles Town residents oppose PATH and do not consider it a selling point.  Charleston (notice the different spelling, pronunciation and the fact that it's one word) is located in Kanawha County, WV, in the south central part of the state where out of state corporate interests have laid waste to the environment and where politicians' pockets are stuffed with "donations" from the same corporate interests.  Charles Town often finds itself at odds with Charleston because the populations are so completely opposite in thought and lifestyle.  Or was that whole Charlestown/Charleston thing just a miserably engineered attempt at legal chicanery?

• Of the countless protestants, including representatives of three groups, testifying in
  opposition to the Substation, not a single one was: a civil engineer who had conducted a wetland study; an environmental engineer who had conducted an environmental impact review; an historical expert who had conducted a historical impact analysis; an EMF specialist; or an epidemiologist who had examined  available health impact studies.

That's right, the "countless protestants" weren't paid to spin a specific rendition of "the facts" while PATH's "experts" performed poorly, and even resorted to perjury in some instances.  Being an "expert" does not mean they are incapable of spreading MISINFORMATION, only that they are being paid to do so.

• While the heated emotions and fears of the protestants were palpable and readily appreciated, the opposition's testimony was anecdotal and based on blogs, random  anti-substation websites, and highly  questionable "reports."

PATH provides no proof of this accusation, not even one example is given.  This statement is opinion, based on MISINFORMATION.  Amusingly, in West Virginia, one of PATH's motions to the PSC actually relied on a blog as a source to prove some point that only seemed to fully form in the minds of Randy Palmer and Phil Melick.  Quick, someone call the WAHHHHHmbulance!

• Petitioner refers to the opposition as "protestants" or "opponents" and not "residents" given that a number of those
  testifying in opposition to the Substation do not live in the neighborhood closest to the Property, much less Frederick County or even the State of Maryland (e.g., Patience Wait of West Virginia).

Hahahahah!  It really bothered PATH that much that we attended the Frederick hearings?  Guess what, out of state corporate PATH players?  We're actually WELCOME in Frederick, you're not.  Therefore, in future weak attempts to spread MISINFORMATION, remember that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Very entertaining, PATH!  Now quit spreading MISINFORMATION to the Circuit Court for Frederick County and go away.  It's over, you lost.

This article from Ohio caught my eye this morning and reminded me that, not only is the Ohio Consumers Council dissatisfied with FirstEnergy's Energy Efficiency program in that state, but FirstEnergy is proposing an even more useless farce in West Virginia.

What the FirstEnergy talking head doesn't tell the consumer is that they're paying for this program.  Sure, you can buy a CFL light bulb for 50 cents, or get a small rebate on a new appliance, but all FirstEnergy's costs for the program are recovered from ratepayers, including their marketing costs for the program.

As part of their merger settlement in West Virginia, FirstEnergy was required to offer energy efficiency and demand response programs in the state.  Because consumers like you saving electricity cuts into their profit margin, FirstEnergy has proposed an ineffectual, weak energy efficiency program that's going to cost more than its potential savings.  And because out-of-state energy companies view the WV PSC as their champion against the citizens of this state, FirstEnergy expects their proposal to sail through PSC approvals.  Read about the program at Energy Efficient West Virginia's website. 

You will be paying for this program in your "Potomac Edison" bill, but unless you're a commercial/industrial customer who wants to change out the lighting in your business, or a low-income customer who needs a few free lightbulbs or a faucet aerator, you will get absolutely nothing in return for the monthly fee you will be charged for this program.  Why isn't this meager program offered to everyone?  Is FirstEnergy afraid that your electric bill might go down, along with their revenue?

FirstEnergy customers need to take action with the WV PSC to make FirstEnergy's Energy Efficiency program better.  PATH opponents know all about getting involved at the PSC, and we need to share our knowledge with all our neighbors.  We're not going to be asking anyone to intervene this time, merely to participate in public comment.  You PATH opponents know how easy that is (compared to all we've been through over the past 3 years!)

Energy Efficient West Virginia and the Coalition for Reliable Power will be co-hosting a series of public meetings designed to solicit input from FirstEnergy customers around the state beginning this month.  The first meeting will be held at the Martinsburg-Berkeley County Public Library on Tuesday, August 23, beginning at 6:45 p.m.  Come join us and save some money on your "Potomac Edison" bill!  More information can be obtained from The Coalition for Reliable Power or Energy Efficient West Virginia.

Read more about the upcoming meetings, including our meeting agenda, format and attendees, by checking the blog at Coalition for Reliable Power regularly.  If you are tired of constantly rising electric bills, come and find out how and why rates go up and the simple steps you can take to make your electric provider work for you to save money for your business and reduce your residential costs for power.

Don't you just love the internet?  You can find just about anything on here, including tons of embarrassing history, if you know how and where to look.

Recently unearthed from the beyond the grave, here are the comments of PSEG on the DOE's NOI on National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors.  Apparently PSEG was rather tweaked at the comments PJM filed in which they asked for an early designation of two corridors needed for the TrAIL and PATH projects, along with similar comments by AEP and Alleghey Energy, promoting their own projects.  I'm not going to over analyze this for you.  Read it for yourself.  I guarantee that you'll enjoy it!  Here are a couple of tantalizing excerpts:

"...PJM has failed to furnish sufficient evidence to  support this claim and has in fact presented an apparently biased and incomplete view of the facts."

"Thus, it is not clear what “problem” the AEP and Allegheny projects are intending to address.  By extension, there has been no detailed cost-benefit analysis comparing the “benefits” of the AEP and/or Allegheny transmission projects with the “costs” of the congestion the projects are intended to relieve.  Moreover, PJM clearly has ignored the timing inherent in the RTEP process by simply skipping past the one-year market window and moving right to a regulated transmission owner-proposed transmission “solution.”

Isn't it funny... despite hitting it dead on in their comments, PSEG's "concern" seemed to evaporate after they were handed the Susquehanna Roseland lollipop.

The investor owned utilities, with American Electric Power leading the pack, think that you have the I.Q. of a kindergarten student.  As if NEMA's "Chutes and Ladders"-themed push for federal transmission line siting and permitting authority isn't bad enough, now the Center for Rural Affairs follows on with its "Connect the Dots" Report.

FERC's recent Order No. 1000 set interregional planning and cost allocation in motion.  The effect of Order No. 1000 will be to enable a vast, new, interstate transmission build-out and spread the estimated costs of over $200 billion to as many electric customers as possible in order to dampen its effect and draw little attention or public opposition.  This push for a "national grid" isn't anything new.  Utilities such as AEP have been lobbying for a coast-to-coast transmission backbone that utilizes their 765-kV technology for many years.  This national grid plan was modeled after Eisenhower's interstate highway plan of the 1950 and 60s.  Just five years ago, the national grid was going to transport "cheap" coal-fired electricity to population centers on the coast with projects like their I-765 plan.  Now that coal is politically gauche, the utilities have shifted the focus of the national grid to take advantage of public sentiment supporting renewables by utilizing Midwest wind as a much more palatable driver of the need for their hugely profitable endeavor.  Don't be fooled, nothing has changed except the color of the sheep costume AEP is wearing.

Transmission lines don't categorize the electrons flowing through them by source.  All that "renewable" wind power being transported to the coasts via this new transmission backbone will be liberally mixed with good, old fashioned, coal-fired generation by the time it reaches coastal states and ostensibly fulfills their public policy RPS goals.  Land-based wind is intermittent and must be supplemented with fossil fuel generation to maintain an evenly sustained supply to the grid.  It will also travel more than a thousand miles through a transmission network being constantly fed with AEP and other investor owned utilities' Ohio Valley coal-burning power generating stations.  The "national grid" won't make your electric supply any "greener."  The only thing getting "greener" here is the pile of money the investor owned utilities are going to rake in if they succeed.

However, interregional planning and cost allocation won't accomplish the investor owned utilities' goal all by itself.  In order to get the national grid built, the utilities are going to need federally-controlled siting and permitting.  This second initiative is well under way and expensive propaganda advocating for federal control that is being championed by various organizations is permeating the media and sucking away your ability to think for yourself.  The industry's extensive use of the third-party propaganda technique relies on the seven common propaganda techniques:  Name-calling; Glittering generalities; Transfer; Testimonial; Plain folks; Card stacking and Bandwagon.

Federal control of transmission siting and permitting will subvert your right to due process, help itself to your property through eminent domain and make a mockery out of environmental reviews, just for starters.  Don't play the utilities' kindergarten games and believe that federal control of transmission siting & permitting will do anything other than grease the skids for a quick and regulation-free permitting system that will fill our landscape with unneeded, monstrous transmission towers & wires that we'll all be paying for in our electric bills for the next 70 years, or more.  It will also guarantee the investor owned utilities access to a reliable supply of too-good-to-be-true profit for the next 70 years through the use of FERC-granted transmission incentives and federal cost and rate control systems that are free of oversight.

It can best be summed up by this one sentence buried deep in the Center for Rural Affairs' report on page 21.

"To this end, FERC has issued a proposed rule that would remove much of an individual state’s siting power, instead requiring transmission planning to be handled regionally."

Since they deign to insult our intelligence by using a kindergarten classroom leitmotif in their propaganda, it's only fitting that we continue the pattern in our warning to you.   This is the real game we will be playing and losing if all the pieces of the investor owned utilities' plan come together with a streamlined federal regulatory process.  You may not even notice that you're stuck tight in Molasses Swamp while the utilities are feasting at King Kandy's Castle until it's too late.

It was a dark and stormy night...

Isn't that how all the best scary stories start?  Well, get your security blanket and your flashlight, little ratepayers, and settle in for a tale of terror!

Back in the early 2000s, Dick Cheney gathered his "secret energy task force" to set the stage for a hugely profitable transmission grid build out intended to bring coal-by-wire to every household in the U.S.  The Energy Policy Act of 2005 brought the regulatory plan to fruition.  Since then, the energy companies' scheme has been slowly dismantled piece-by-piece.  The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals watered down FERC's "backstop" authority to overrule state decisions and take over siting and permitting of transmission lines (Thanks, Piedmont Environmental Council!).  The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded regional cost allocation back to FERC (and FERC answered with its recent Order No. 1000).  The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated DOE's National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (Thanks, Sierra Club!).  The effect of this has left plans for a "national grid" stymied.

Not to be discouraged, the energy companies began setting another plan in motion.  The first part of their plan is now complete with issuance of FERC's Order No. 1000, which has brought us interregional transmission planning and cost allocation.  Bill has an excellent analysis of the lone article I've seen that actually gets to the truth behind Order No. 1000.  Dressed in a costume of "you won't pay if you don't benefit," Order No. 1000 now makes it easier for industry cartel Regional Transmission Organizations to find excuses for massive new transmission lines and a way to make you pay for the "national grid's" $220B cost.

So, what else do the energy companies need to pull off their plan?  They need to cut individual states and citizens out of the permitting process because all that burdensome citizens' rights stuff is getting in their way.  The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) lays out the second part of the industry's sinister plan very colorfully for you in Siting Transmission Corridors— A Real Life Game of Chutes and Ladders.  (I wonder if they got permission from Hasbro to use their trademarked name for that cutsie poo presentation?) 

It's all about establishing a streamlined federal transmission project permitting process that will make constructing new transmission lines a snap.  Maybe they can even install a drive-thru at 888 First Street N.E., Washington, D.C., for even faster service for greedy corporations!  NEMA's plan:  "Federal authority over transmission planning, siting, and cost allocation will significantly increase the likelihood that needed facilities will be constructed in a timely manner".  It will also increase the likelihood that transmission lines will be constructed anywhere and everywhere with no rules, oversight or forethought, except that of increased corporate profits (and that's where your wallet comes in!)

NEMA also wants to put FERC in charge of environmental reviews!  That sounds like a great plan, as long as they'll agree to let my auto mechanic perform their next open heart surgery.  Don't worry, NEMA, he's really good with mechanical things like engines and hearts...

Keep in mind what Bill said about the industry and FERC trying to "greenwash" another great transmission build-out renaissance.  It's all a bunch of propaganda and corporate public relations spin.  This is all about corporations making a HUGE profit constructing something that the American public doesn't need or want, AEP's "national grid."

So, what's in it for NEMA?   "Founded in 1926 and headquartered near Washington, D.C., its approximately 450 member companies manufacture products used in the generation, transmission and distribution, control, and end-use of electricity."  $$$

The industry wants to toss costly and time-consuming due process, state sovereignty, need determination and environmental reviews out the window because it's screwing up their plans to make a whole bunch of money. 

But NEMA isn't the only organization penciling "federally controlled transmission siting & permitting" in on their wish list for Santa Claus this year, though.  We've seen something very similar from the Chamber of Commerce recently.  And there are more, lots more!  It's sneaky and pervasive, and it's everywhere!  How many instances of expensive corporate spin pushing for federal jurisdiction over transmission permitting can you find?  Post them in the comments.

Keep your eye on this one and join us for a round or two of the opposition's favorite game, Whac-A-Mole, where we begin dismantling their new regulations again as fast as they create them.

For more about how AEP and other investor owned utilities are using propaganda to greenwash their sinister plan, here's some further reading.  And keep checking back here at StopPATH WV's blog to read the latest as AEP's scheme is uncovered and neutralized.

Today's news in the FirstEnergy Little Blue Run poison pond saga:  The residents of Greene collected signatures on a petition to see if FirstEnergy's bribes in exchange for allowing them to expand their coal ash operation in the town had persuaded anyone.  Before the bribe offer, there were 500 residents opposed to the expansion.  After the bribe offer, there were 534 residents opposed to the expansion.  I guess bribery wasn't such a good tactic afterall.  Money can't buy health or happiness.  Must have come as a real shock to all the corporate fat cats who have more money than they know what to do with.  Maybe Evanson should offer them a membership in the Duquesne Club to sweeten the pot?