The US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration's 2010 Annual Energy Outlook report states that energy consumption will increase 14% between 2008 and 2035, an annual increase of .5%. To arrive at this figure, they use a 'reference case' that assumes that current energy laws and regulations remain in effect. They also pose other scenarios using a more realistic view of changing energy policy, which only serves to further lower the percentage of increase in consumption.

Electricity demand is expected to increase 30% between 2008 and 2035, an annual increase of 1%, again using a 'reference case'. The power companies love to tell you that the huge drop in electricity consumption in 2008 and 2009 is due to the economy, however the Annual Energy Outlook points out that falling demand is due to efficiency gains.

So where did the 'coalitions' get their wacky numbers? If you looked at the Marylanders for Reliable Power's presentation, you will see they reference the EIA's 2007 and 2009 Annual Energy Review and Outlook, which are outdated. Nothing like a little selective harvesting of 'facts' to beef up the propaganda, is there?

Fiction

From West Virginians for Reliable Power's Energy's FAQ

How safe are transmission lines?

They are perfectly safe. There have been countless studies over the years, including one by the National Academy of Sciences, to determine possible health effects from transmission lines and no ill health effects have been documented.

Fact

In 1998, the National Institute of Environmental Health Science's EMF RAPID program classified EMF from transmission lines as 'a possible human carcinogen'. Read this interesting article in Microwave News about industry influence in that study. Remind you of the tobacco companies?

For an updated look at today's science and an easy to read explanation of how EMF affects human cells and DNA, read the testimony of Professor Martin Blank of Columbia University in the Virginia SCC PATH case, dated October 2009.

What about the coalition's National Academy of Sciences study? It's from 1992, nearly 20 years ago! Again, selective harvesting of old data presented as 'fact'. I could probably locate a 1950 study saying cigarettes are perfectly safe too.

Fiction

'We need transmission lines to alleviate congestion so we can connect renewables like mid-West wind and South-West solar to demand in the East.' -- Susan Eisenhower, West Virginians for Reliable Power, May 4, 2010

Fact

The best sources of wind power in the U.S. are located off the East and West coasts and the Great Lakes, close to population centers. Unlike land-based wind, off-shore wind is constant. Does it really make sense to transport electricity thousands of miles when a better resource is close at hand? A 'national grid' will end up costing electric ratepayers billions and makes absolutely no sense. See Piedmont Environmental Council's map showing wind potential and the real reason behind a national grid. Just like PATH and TrAIL in the East, this is a profit center for the energy companies that enables them to ship their product to market at the expense of ratepayers.

Fiction

From West Virginians for Reliable Power's Energy's FAQ

Is congestion a costly problem?

Electricity congestion directly translates into higher electricity bills and reduced reliability. In fact, a national study by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) urges that "we do everything we can to facilitate investment in new generation and transmission capacity." DOE has estimated congestion costs U.S. consumers about $8 billion per year.

Fact

Now you're comparing apples to oranges with a bunch of industry-speak that the average person doesn't understand, but it sounds real expensive to us consumers, doesn't it? It's a bunch of crap, too. What PATH is designed to fix is economic congestion, which simply means that an unlimited supply of coal-fired power may not be available on the East coast during peak use times. It doesn't mean that those folks will be in the dark, it means that they may have to supplement with some more expensive local, cleaner generation on the hottest days, which may make the average bill in New Jersey go up if they don't turn their air conditioner down. The only reason that coal is "cheaper" for these folks is because us ratepayers are paying for the infrastructure to get it there (PATH and TrAIL). Do you want to pay more for your power every month so that some energy hog in Newark can pay less every summer? And guess what? The power companies can sell the same dirty coal power for more money in Newark than they can in Charles Town, so they make a higher profit. Now our focus is a little clearer -- no industry-speak required!

This congestion cost figure may or may not be true, but in PJM it is irrelevant because congestion costs are rebated to all PJM consumers, including all WV consumers, through PJM's "financial transmission rights" system. While the US electrical system may generate $8 billion in congestion costs per year, there are plenty of mechanisms that power companies use to reduce or eliminate these costs for consumers, as in PJM.

In reality, building transmission lines does nothing to "eliminate" congestion costs, it just transfers those costs from power companies to consumers through the FERC cost recovery system. Building new power lines is the most expensive solution to the congestion cost problem. Reducing demand in high use areas and building new power plants in those areas are both faster and, in the case of reducing demand, much faster. Check out PJM Expects To Have Adequate Resources To Meet Forecasted Peak Summer Conditions. Another front group fairy tale bites the dust.

Have other coalition 'facts' that you'd like to see debunked here? Email me at info@wv4reliablepower.com