PTL! Hallelujah! Amen. Somebody get me a hanky to wave cause that’s some mighty fine preachin!
If you have an account to the Wall Street Journal, check out yesterday’s editorial. I don’t know what the industry thinks of me. Maybe I’m just a simple plowboy from Prairie Center, Illinois. Maybe Keryn at StopPathWV is perceived as some West Virginian Mountain hick. And perhaps Mary at www.BLOCKRICL.com is just chorus teacher in the eyes of the energy industry.
In any case, it sure is good to read the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal cut FERC down .
Yes, go out and find that gas station that keeps yesterday’s (February 11th) Wall Street Journal on the bottom of the stack and buy it. If you need to sneak into the Executive bathroom to find a copy, do it! There is a great editorial called the "WIND POWER TAX".
Seriously, it’s good to hear what we as consumers have been saying country and across the internet come from the editorial board of a very fine newspaper. Maybe the industry writes us off as a bunch of NIMBY’s who just don’t want to pay for grandiose powerlines, but it sure is good to hear the WSJ say the same thing. Wind energy is overprice. If wind energy isn’t needed, then the consumers shouldn’t sacrifice to build the powerlines. Below are some exerts from the editorial;
“When we challenged FERC for straying from the user-pays principle, FERC chairman Jon Wellinghoff responded that his agency's pricing proposal "makes clear that only those who benefit from transmission facilities will be allocated the costs of such transmission investments."
Well, now we'll see. The dispute is over what constitutes a "commensurate" benefit. Interstate Power and Light says it doesn't use the wind power, so it shouldn't pay for it. “
Gee…sounds like the same argument Clean Line Energy is attempting to make by protesting PJM to FERC and asking for cost allocation for its Rock Island Clean Line….a proposed merchant transmission line.
“But this is like arguing that Oklahomans should pay to fix potholes in Manhattan because this enhances the national transportation system. In any case, wind power is one of the least reliable sources of electricity due to its intermittency.”
And that’s basically the argument the Illinois Commerce Commission is making in Clean Line Energy’s protest to FERC. We shouldn’t have to pay for a powerline across Iowa where the energy is intended to go to the east coast…where the east coast governors don’t want the energy from Iowa. Socialized powerlines where those who do not benefit doesn’t work.
"It's no secret why FERC is likely to rule against the homeowners in Iowa and Minnesota. The Obama Administration's green vision is to make wind and solar an ever-larger share of U.S. electricity production, regardless of costs."
Wow. Say it like it is Wall Street Journal!
"Wind and solar power are too expensive to compete with natural gas, coal, nuclear and hydropower without government help. The wind lobby already won an extension of its $12 billion production tax credit as part of the recent tax increase. More than half the states also have renewable energy standards forcing residents to purchase wind power. And now the greens want another subsidy for transmission lines."
"In the Interstate Power and Light case, FERC has an opportunity to reinstate the user-pays principle. If FERC won't do that, Congress should step in for consumers and define "just" and "reasonable" pricing for the windy Mr. Wellinghoff."
I think the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board just told Mr. Wellinghoff to
“GO FERC YOURSELF!”
Thank you Wall Street Journal editorial board. Great opinion. I think it might have even violated somebody's precious social media rules. Those of us out in the country fighting these powerline’s for “clean” energy appreciate your comments! Make no mistake these powerlines are the frontline in America’s Energy War.
I think I'll now going to do a Jericho March around a monopole in the pasture now and celebrate this editorial.
Go buy a WSJ, it’s worth reading. With writing like this, maybe the WSJ will even resurrect print.