Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Delaware Riverkeeper Is Dirty Tricks Arm of William Penn Foundation

Delaware Riverkeeper - Jim Willis reportsJim Willis
Editor & Publisher, Marcellus Drilling News (MDN)

   

The Delaware Riverkeeper, the dirty tricks arm of the William Penn Foundation, is not only hypocritical to the extreme, but has now gone off the deep end.

So irrationally obsessed are the fossil fuel haters that they’ve taken to opposing a proposed new regional electric power line that would run from Pennsylvania to points in New Jersey, New York and Maryland because (follow this twisted logic) – it runs through Marcellus Shale regions and the new power line will be an incentive for power plants to locate in that region so they can tap into cheap, abundant and clean-burning natural gas to generate electricity at a cheaper cost than can be generated in other places.

And, even though fracking has been proven not to contaminate water, apparently the word hasn’t yet reached the Delaware Riverkeeper herself (Maya van Rossum) because she says the power line will be an incentive for more fracking and fracking is evil ’cause fossil fuels are evil and “la la la la don’t tell me, otherwise I’m-not-listening.” So, so tedious and so, so typical of the fractivist mindset.

Delaware Riverkeeper

The Perpetually Angry Maya van Rossum

PPL Corporation, headquartered in Allentown, PA, controls or owns 19,000 megawatts of generating capacity in the United States, sells energy in key U.S. markets, and delivers electricity and natural gas to about 10 million customers in the United States and the United Kingdom. They are in the midst of merging with Riverstone Holdings LLC and if approved, will create Talen Energy Corporation, the third-largest independent power producer in the U.S.

PPL (soon to be Talen) has proposed a 725-mile regional 500-kilovolt electric power line that will cost an eye-popping $4-$6 billion to build. Here’s how they described the project at the end of July, when they announced it:

PPL Corporation announced Thursday (7/31) that its Pennsylvania utility, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, is proposing to build a major new regional transmission line that would make electric service more reliable and enhance the security of the electric grid while reducing the cost of electricity for consumers.

PPL Electric Utilities submitted the project to PJM Interconnection as part of the competitive solicitation process under FERC Order 1000. As currently proposed, the 500-kilovolt line would run about 725 miles from western Pennsylvania into New York and New Jersey, and also south into Maryland.

By delivering lower-cost electricity into the region, and by enabling the development of new power plants fueled by lower-cost and cleaner-burning natural gas, the project is expected to create savings for millions of electric customers in several states including Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and New York, according to the PPL Electric Utilities analysis submitted to PJM.

The project is in the preliminary planning stages. If approved and built as proposed, the line would help replace supplies of electricity that will be lost when existing power plants retire. It also would help prevent power shortages during periods of extremely high demand, like the prolonged severe cold weather this past winter.

“This is a forward-looking project with significant benefits for customers, for several states and for the region as a whole,” said Gregory N. Dudkin, president of PPL Electric Utilities. He noted that the company has extensive experience planning, obtaining approval for and building major regional electricity infrastructure projects.

The company has begun a comprehensive regional planning effort to determine the best route and final details of the proposed line. As always with such projects, the company would have an inclusive public outreach process and would consider public input when making a final route selection.

The project is expected to create jobs, including thousands of temporary construction jobs, and have a lasting positive impact on the regional economy. The project also is expected to foster regional economic development as new employers take advantage of a reliable, secure and lower-cost supply of energy.

“The project would help secure this region’s ability to deliver adequate supplies of energy for decades to come,” said Dudkin. “In addition, it would make the electricity delivery network more reliable and more secure over a wide swath of the Mid-Atlantic region.”

According to preliminary estimates, the cost of the project would be between $4 billion and $6 billion. These potential capital expenditures are not included in PPL Corporation’s most recent capital expenditure projections. PPL Electric Utilities may enter into partnerships to develop and build some or all of the project.

The preliminary timeline envisions completion of the project between 2023 and 2025, assuming all necessary approvals are received and construction begins in 2017. Approvals are needed from various regulatory and regional planning entities.

PPL Electric Utilities will be meeting with appropriate state and federal agencies as planning for the project moves forward. Further details of the project will be made public as they become available.

It took a month or so for the antis to collect their irrational thoughts, but eventually they got it together to oppose this project, because it may lead to more fracking:

But some environmentalists have voiced opposition to the proposed transmission line, since tapping the Marcellus region’s gas supply relies on a controversial process called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Some studies have shown that the wastewater from fracking or leaks in the drilling wells can contaminate groundwater and drinking-water supplies…

“There are a whole wealth of harms that come from drilling for shale gas. And the more we invest in fossil fuels, the less money we have to invest in renewable sources,” such as wind and solar, said Maya K. van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper, who oversees a network of advocates to protect the Delaware River watershed…

“This proposed transmission line is another mechanism for inducing more drilling and fracking, and creating more fracking wastewater,” van Rossum said.

Yep, gotta hate those nasty fossil fuels – the same ones Maya relies on every day of her life. The same fossil fuels that make it possible for her to oppose fossil fuels.

Editor’s Note: Jim’s closing point is closer to the mark than perhaps even he realized when he wrote this piece. It motivated us to see how the Delaware Riverkeeper heats their offices at 925 Canal Street in Bristol, Pennsylvania. They’re located on the Seventh Floor (the penthouse suite, apparently) of this building (look closely and you can see the 925 above the entrance door):

Delaware Riverkeeper Network Headquarters - Bristol, PA

Delaware Riverkeeper Network Headquarters – Bristol, PA

Now, for the close-up of the back:

Delaware Riverkeeper Headquarters - The Natural Gas Meters

Yes, Jim, you were on the money; Maya van Rossum and the Delaware Riverleeper gang put out their hate pieces on fossil fuels, natural gas and fracking from offices heated by the stuff. They’re a bunch of smug hypocrites engaged in trying to impose their utopian schemes on the rest of us from their perches in the comfort of what they would deny us. It’s just the sort of dirty trick the William Penn Foundation funds them to do.

For more great articles on the subject of natural gas development every single day, subscribe to Marcellus Drilling News using this convenient link.

Check out what else is new at NaturalGasNow today!

NGNlogoNew

While you’re at it, follow us on FacebookTwitter and Linked-In!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Email this to someoneShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Digg thisFlattr the authorShare on RedditShare on YummlyShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on TumblrBuffer this pagePin on Pinterest

11 thoughts on “Delaware Riverkeeper Is Dirty Tricks Arm of William Penn Foundation

  1. In light of the amperage drop from long power lines wouldnt it make more sense to build more power plants closer to existing markets ? great artical Mr. Willis ! –Pipes ? Who needs Pipes if we have no drilling permits ? All NY or none !

  2. I don’t see any bicycles, horses, tuk-tuk’s, Razor’s, sneaker’s at the door mat, Segway’s, nor Prius’s…what the ???? Another fossil fueled, hypocrite, NGO, Green Hemp Shirt outfit!

  3. Jim— the activists have been off their rockers due to this topic for some time now and this is painfully apparent to anyone who gets anywhere close to the activists.

    http://pikecountycourier.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130308/NEWS01/130309981/0/ENTERTAINMENT/Protestors-disrupt-DRBC-meeting

    You are mentioned in that article Jim. I saw video from that particular distruption of a DRBC meeting pretty specifically because there were people at that meeting pretending that they in some way represented people in Brooklyn and Queens who had concerns about a pipeline which is now under construction by Williams. From Deleware’s Maya to Catskill Citizen’s Bruce Ferguson and his conspiracy theory on Port Ambrose to the Occupy and Sane Energy folks who have been running around for two years now with flyers full of misinformation– I think the level of the nonsense is so high it is hard perhaps for a reporter to accept just how bananas this has all gotten. But in person this is painfully apparent and it has been apparent for a while at least to me.

  4. Pingback: Delaware Riverkeeper Is Dirty Tricks Arm of William Penn Foundation | ShaleNOW

  5. Let’s be fair, that gas comes from the Gulf coast (1000 miles away) and is therefore OK. It’s only the gas fracked in their backyard that is the problem. Regarding the power plants near the users — users of power of any kind never want the power plants near them. Power plants are for (sniff) rural areas.

  6. I had to send out this article – it is sad but I think many environmental groups are planning to a base and using fear – not trying to name any specific groups or support articles point, The environmental groups working with citizens, industry, and local govts could make real positive change. Also – I think it is time for the environmental groups to put their pants on and own their positions. Do not like gas – do not use. Do not like fossil fuels – do not use. Problem – I do not know how you will be able to monitor streams, travel to educate citizens, or even live in our world. Just my thoughts. For the record, I like conservation efforts, I am ok with climate change, ok with climate adaptation, I have funded 2 alternative/renewable energy expos, facilitate education in alternative/renewable energy, support groundsource heating and cooling, support balanced surfaceowner and property owners rights – and strongly believe we wasted enough time arguing we could have fix most is not all the poorly constructed private wells in the state of PA. Support fact based education – http://www.water-research.net. Also – Curt is a good man ! and Jim I am not sure we meet – but nice article.

  7. Pingback: The Times-Leader Does Special Interest Shale PoliticsNatural Gas Now

  8. Pingback: The Corrupt Influence of Fractivist FoundationsNatural Gas Now

  9. Pingback: The Corrupt Influence of Fractivist Foundations | ShaleNOW

  10. Pingback: The Times-Leader Does Special Interest Shale Politics | ShaleNOW

  11. Pingback: Microgrid Power Plants Powered by Natural Gas SpreadingNatural Gas Now

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


 Powered by Max Banner Ads