Clean Line's desperate times call for desperate measures, and a legislative update...

- Joint Post -

Alison Millsaps:

Oh, won’t somebody think of the children. No, wait! Not those children. These children.

Clean Line is at it again. This time with a truly epic word ad, excuse me, “press release” that says pretty much the same thing they've been saying all along: We are going to give you (you being a collective term) a ton of moola.  Except that this time they added “schools” and “community services” to make the offer extra shiny.

A political friend, who shall remain anonymous, took exception with that particular tactic:

“Children are typically off limits in politics, apparently not for land grabbing out of state speculators... Let's use the kids as human shields for billionaires.”

They claim to be committed to ad valorem taxes and other voluntary payments, but don’t discuss the devaluation of the infrastructure or what happens to those taxes in the event of federal condemnation. They certainly don’t discuss self-reporting to the Assessment Coordination Department or property value loss to surrounding landowners, which in turn affects communities.  This press release was clearly intended to garner support from people who have absolutely no idea what’s happening on the ground here. Wind? Yay! Right, Simon? (Btw, please tell us again how little land you think is going to be taken out of commission for this line, because that's so comforting for the hundreds of affected landowners...)  

After all this time, Clean Line still has their fingers jammed in their ears while they dance around the elephant in the room singing, “Nah, nah, nah-nah, nah!” Again, trust is something you earn through your actions. Too many landowners found out about this project too late and from the wrong people. Frankly, Clean Line could issue a press release saying that the sky is blue and landowners would look at it askance.

And anyway, the money is almost a moot point here because the mechanism to get it is so flawed and inappropriate. Anyone notice the two words missing from the press release? "Eminent Domain"

I’m going to go off topic here for a minute, but stay with me. Last Friday, I testified before the Arkansas House Insurance and Commerce Committee for a common sense bill that would have restricted the use of eminent domain by interstate oil pipeline companies. It would have set a standard for the level of “public good” worthy of eminent domain. Of course we lost. It was ridiculous. Everyone knew how they were going to vote long before we got there. 

The point is, Clean Line is attempting to use the same inherently coercive practices that pipelines do. In fact, they want access to it so badly, that they actually said so in their updated application to the Department of Energy, and contrary to their claims, it’s clearly not just a tool for dealing with the occasional hold out or absentee owner. We’ve posted it a couple times already, but it’s incredibly important and can be found on page 53 here:

Anyone who supports Clean Line in this endeavor is essentially saying that they support the use of eminent domain for this project. Anyone who supports eminent domain for this project, but not for, just thinking out loud here, the Keystone Pipeline or the Diamond Pipeline in Arkansas, needs to do a little soul searching, and vice versa.

The problem with this “press release”, and with any press release that totes the benefits of a project without the acknowledgement that people will be forced to sacrifice for those benefits, is that it perpetuates the idea that those sacrifices are unimportant in relation to economic development. In other words, it’s perfectly okay to smack around people’s supposedly “sacrosanct” right to own property as long as you can convince other people that there’s money to be made… Free market my tuckus. Because, let’s be clear here, this line is about energy, but it’s not about need. The Tennessee Valley Authority made that perfectly obvious last week in their Integrated Resource Plan webinar. And while Clean Line, and certain other individuals, claim to know better what the TVA should do, the fact remains that the TVA is an experienced planning organization responsible to all of its customers and not just (to borrow a phrase from Clean Line) a very “vocal minority”.

And about Clean Line’s claims for local benefits:

“ …will benefit Arkansas residents in several ways. … will generate approximately $11 million per year in property tax revenue for communities … will support approximately 1,500 contract construction jobs along the length of the route during construction and 15 permanent jobs… conducted a thorough review of the route to identify a suitable route… These efforts include paralleling existing utilities and pipelines and avoiding culturally sensitive areas." 

And intentions toward landowners: 

“With regard to individuals, we will offer market rates for all easements that we acquire. We work in good faith with individual landowners to address the concerns of issues associated with crossing their property. You know, we want to have a good relationship with landowners” 

Oh, wait! I’m sorry. Those quotes are from Diamond Pipeline… who has already initiated eminent domain proceedings in Arkansas. But they sound familiar, right? Clean Line claims to be “committed” to negotiated easements. But they’re all “committed” to negotiation. Every single corporation that uses eminent domain as a kind of coercive crutch to keep development costs down is “committed” to working with landowners. Talk is cheap. As Steve MacDonald of Block Plains and Eastern Oklahoma said in response to Michael Skelly’s assertion that they “expect to employ hundreds of Arkansans”:

“A lot of us ‘expect to’ do things. I expect to lose 50 lbs this year. I won't and I doubt CL would put any money on it.”

Which brings us to a few people who actually put their money where their mouth is: It’s been a busy few days at the Arkansas State Capitol for legislators passing legislation directly in response to the Plains and Eastern Project...

Dave Ulery:

1. Today, the Arkansas State Senate officially went on record with a resolution (SR22) opposing the Plains and Eastern transmission project. Thank you for introducing this and seeing it through to adoption, Senator Irvin. This one doesn't need much explanation:

2.  HB1908 - TO ESTABLISH A BILL OF RIGHTS FOR A PROPERTY OWNER, passed through the Arkansas House of Representatives. This bill implements a set of standards that must be adhered to when an entity condemns private property in the State of Arkansas. Thank you Representatives Beck and Charlotte Douglas for introducing it:

 

3. HB1592 - TO CLARIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FROM THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY, was passed in both the Arkansas House and the Senate, and was transmitted to the Governor's Office for signature. Thank you Representative Beck and Cosponsors for introducing the bill and assuring its passage:

 

To clarify what this bill would do, specifically:

Arkansas code does not allow a "transmission only" company to become a utility in our state. To be deemed a utility within our state, you must both generate electricity within the state, as well as transmit that electricity to customers in Arkansas. Makes sense, right? On May 13, 2010, Clean Line applied to the Arkansas Public Service Commission to become a public utility within the state and was subsequently denied on January 11, 2011. The docket can be viewed here. Taking a closer look:

This would essentially do two things:

1. Should Clean Line's Section 1222 application be denied by the Department of Energy, they could conceivably come back (if they can afford it) to the Arkansas Public Service Commission and say: "Well, we have now proposed a converter station in Arkansas (they didn't at first), you should go ahead and give us a Certificate for Public Necessity." It is our opinion that the converter station was only a ploy to garner support within the state, as well as hedge their bet in the anticipation their Section 1222 application could be denied. Their intent has never been to serve customers in Arkansas. Their "proposed" converter station was not proposed by Clean Line at all... rather, it is an "alternate" recommended by the Department of Energy. Clean Line's "preferred" plan does not include the converter station.
   
   This would disqualify them because they: 1) are not a public utility as defined by Arkansas statute, 2) primarily transmit electricity; and 3) have not been directed or designated to construct an electric transmission facility from a regional transmission organization and will not in the future because their transmission line is unnecessary. This would basically guarantee their denial of becoming a utility within the State of Arkansas.
2. This would protect Arkansans from future schemes from out-of-state speculative private companies whose intent is not primarily to serve customers within our state, but rather to use our state as a doormat to transmit electricity to other states. 

This is a good thing, no doubt.

We really hate to keep posting this image, Secretary Moniz, but the people of Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Tennessee are growing increasingly tired of putting their lives on hold for this nonsense. It is TIME!

No Need. No Gain. No Eminent Domain.

In the TVA's recently released Draft Integrated Resource Plan, the soonest they expect that they might potentially be interested in purchasing power from Clean Line is 2025. That scenario also represents the riskiest and most expensive of their available options:

This is where venture capitalism and speculation meet the reality of an entity required by mandate to act in the best interest of the public it serves:

Which brings us to: How long are landowners on the proposed and alternate routes expected to put their lives on hold for this project? Is it even feasible for Clean Line to complete Plains and Eastern should the TVA choose to wait 10 to 20 years to decide if they want to purchase this electricity? That sounds more like a prison sentence for landowners than progress. Twenty years ago we were still rockin' pagers and dial-up connections. Eminent domain is absolutely inappropriate for a "maybe someday" situation.

For more information:

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/tvas-plan-for-future-less-coal-more-gas-and-efficiency/373580/
http://www.chattanoogan.com/2015/3/9/295632/TVA-Releases-Draft-Integrated-Resources.aspx

Secretary Moniz: How many more reasons do you need? It is TIME!

(Psst... Bert's on our side)

Unity? A joint response showcasing grassroots resolve...

*This post will be updated as more resolutions of opposition are obtained.*

Yesterday, Mr. Hurtado sent out an email thanking everyone who came out to the recent Department of Energy meetings. Predictably, landowners were dead last on his list of people deserving kudos. He celebrated the "unity" of the over 1,500 attendees as if he owned it. As if all of us were there not only because of Clean Line, but in support of the project. As if we were somehow there to celebrate the disregard with which his company has treated us.

Well, those of us who attended meetings in Oklahoma and Arkansas saw some unity alright, but not on behalf of Clean Line. Rather, it was among the landowners and local officials who spoke against the project, shouting for bread and roses, and even among the environmental groups who endorsed the project with the caveat that landowners be treated with fairness and consideration... Guess what? Mario saw all that, too. Which makes his email just that side of, well, you can guess...

But, since we're talking about unity, let's take a moment to observe and appreciate the string of entities on the route who have issued letters and resolutions in opposition to Clean Line. You've seen some of these before, but they're worth a second look. Why? Because: From the quorum court resolutions to the proposed federal legislation... they are all just so dang pretty:

Johnson County, AR (01/01/15)

Pope County, AR (01/08/15)

Cherokee Nation, OK (01/12/15)

Letter from Rep. Womack to Secretary Moniz (01/15/15)

Comment Extension Request (01/23/15)

Crawford County, AR (01/26/15)

Letter from Sequoyah County, OK, Commission to DoE (01/26/15)

 Arkansas Joint Energy Committee Letter to DoE (02/09/15)

Introduction of the APPROVAL Act by Senators Boozman and Cotton (02/12/15)

Cleburne County, AR (02/17/15)

Franklin County, AR (02/17/15)

Cedarville, AR (02/17/15)

Conway County, AR (03/03/15)

Quapaw Area Council, Boy Scouts Of America: Letter of Opposition (03/10/15)

Tipton County, TN

Town of Vian, OK (03/16/15)

White County, AR (03/18/15)

Arkansas State Senate Passes SR22 in Opposition to Plains and Eastern (03/25/15)

Arkansas House of Representatives and Senate Passes HB1592 (03/25/15)

HB1908 - To Establish a Bill of Rights for a Property Owner passed by Arkansas House (03/25/15)

Town of Dover (4/21/15)

Arkansas Delegation with Senator Alexander requests Section 1222 comment period extension (06/09/15):

 

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) sends letter to the Department of Energy (06/11/15):

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Secretary Moniz,

I write to express my serious concern with the Plains and Eastern Clean Line Transmission Project.

The Plains and Eastern Clean Line Transmission Project proposes to build a single 700 mile direct current transmission line from Oklahoma, through Arkansas, to deliver wind power to Tennessee and other southeastern states. The proposed project raises several concerns that must be carefully evaluated by the Department of Energy.

First, according to the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) Draft Integrated Resource Plan, TVA would not have a need for this wind power until the 2030s, at the earliest. In other words, the project proposes to fill a need that is not present at this time and could force a comparatively expensive source of energy on Southeastern utilities that don’t need the additional generation.

Second, the Department needs to take the true cost of wind power into account. Wind only has an average capacity factor of about 35%. Therefore, when considering the costs of wind power, the Department should also take into consideration the cost of all of the backup generation needed to support the grid during the 65% of the time wind isn’t producing electricity. Additionally, wind is not effective at meeting the peak demands of the grid, because the wind blows when demand is low (at night) and does not blow when demand is high (during the day). Therefore, the true cost of wind must include the energy storage and dispatch infrastructure that wind energy requires to support a stable grid.

Third, the wasteful wind production tax credit has provided billions in subsidies to the wind industry over the past 22 years. The tax credit has been in place for 22 years and has been extended 9 different times. The subsidy costs the tax payers more than $6 billion over ten years each year it is extended.

The subsidy to Big Wind is so generous that in some markets, wind producers can literally give their electricity away and still make a profit. This phenomenon is called “negative pricing,” and it has the effect of making baseload power plants, like nuclear plants, less competitive and more likely to close. The Department should take into account the impacts of the wind production tax credit when evaluating this proposed project.

Fourth, the Department should take into account the potential problems with relying on a single transmission line from Oklahoma to Tennessee. According to the National Climate Data Center at the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, from 1991 to 2010, Oklahoma and Arkansas averaged over 100 tornados per year. Over the same time, the states averaged nearly six major tornados each year. A single tornado could take down part of transmission line, cutting off the wind farms from TVA. The proposed path of the project makes an inherently unreliable source of energy even more unreliable.

Finally, while the states of Tennessee and Oklahoma have approved the project, Arkansas continues to oppose the project. The use of Federal eminent domain authority would strip Arkansas of their traditional property rights. The Department should carefully consider Arkansas’ concerns and resist efforts to undermine states’ rights.

I appreciate the Department’s consideration of my comments, and I urge the Department to take my concerns into consideration as you evaluate the proposed Plains and Eastern Clean Line Transmission Project.

Sincerely, 

 

Senator Lamar Alexander

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolutions not yet obtained, but passed:

City of Mulberry (02/17/15)

City of Alma

Now, if you didn't get to attend a meeting, you should definitely check out the comments that have been made thus far to the Department of Energy. You can go there directly, but Keryn’s analysis is much more interesting:

http://stoppathwv.com/1/post/2015/03/plains-eastern-eis-comments-the-people-roar.html

And if you’re heading that way anyway, be sure to take a peek at her blog on "Interstate Compacts" designed to override state public service commissions (anything to strip a state of the power to say no)… an excellent and timely read:

http://stoppathwv.com/1/post/2013/01/transmission-siting-interstate-compact-neutralizes-state-authority.html

Why timely? Let's just say there's more to come from both the Arkansas House and Senate, including legislation specifically brought into existence to prevent the Arkansas Public Service Commission from ever giving eminent domain to a company like Clean Line. It’s seriously doubtful that they will do anything to limit the state’s control of transmission line siting after all this.

"Building large-scale infrastructure takes a long time"? Especially when your practices have hardened the locals against transmission and set the mood on wind energy back about fifteen years. Way to go!

Once again, Secretary Moniz: How many more reasons do you 

need? It is TIME! 

The Machine

Keeping the lights on?

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!" -Mario Savio

About 275 people signed into the recent Department of Energy meeting in Ft. Smith. Many others, myself included, attended without signing anything. For several hours, people railed against Clean Line and the process that brought them there that evening. Roughly fifty speakers were able to make comments. Four of them were in support of the project. Among the “anti” speakers were two area mayors, a county judge, and a county commissioner for Sallisaw, OK. All have drafted letters of opposition or adopted resolutions on behalf of their constituents.

While Ft. Smith was certainly the largest of the DOE meetings, it was most certainly not the only one in which the opposition to this line was expressed both in terms of passion and numbers.

There are two questions everyone involved in this project should be asking, top to bottom:

“Why is there so much opposition?” and “What went wrong with the notification process?”

I actually got to ask a couple Clean Line employees those questions in Ft. Smith. The answer to the first (Thanks, Jason) was that it was because of members of the opposition spreading falsehoods…

Number one, individual members of the opposition are not that powerful. I mean, that’s flattering… and I’m sure Arkansans like to be told they’re lemmings incapable of coming to their own conclusions or doing their own research, but no… We’re not thought magicians.

Number two, way to avoid taking responsibility. Again, if anyone is responsible for any misinformation out there, it’s Clean Line. They a) left a void when they failed to adequately engage the public and b) didn’t take the concerns people had seriously. I can’t stress enough just how big a deal that is. There are two things people need to feel for you if you want them to believe what you say: trust and respect. In Arkansas, Clean Line has apparently flubbed both. So when a young woman’s cardiologist tells her that she will have to sell her house and move away from this line because of her defibrillator (true story), she will have zero faith in a stranger who tells her this line was in the works for six years before she found out about it and that it will put out no more EMF than the cell phone in his pocket.

The second question is just as important and I got to ask it of multiple people… The DOE, Tetra Tech, and Clean Line. The best answer came from Dr. Jane Summerson of the DOE, who acknowledged the myriad of people who have felt left out by this process. The responses from Clean Line reps, as you might expect, were a little more defensive.

Can I say how bizarre it is to stand in front of someone arguing that sending a postcard was going “above and beyond” what they were required to do, while in the auditorium beside you people are literally screaming about revolution, property values, health effects, and asking if there’s a Cousin Eddie in the audience who would bring Mr. Skelly to Arkansas wrapped in a bow for the sole purpose of telling him what they think of his plan and its execution a la Chevy Chase? No, he wasn't serious... I don't think... But if you're looking for a gauge of public opinion... It's hard to explain to those not impacted how this nightmare has taken over the lives of so many people.

Clearly, Clean Line’s idea of “above and beyond” doesn’t come anywhere close to Arkansas’ idea of “sufficient” (or Oklahoma’s for that matter, given the number of attendees from Sallisaw). Their insistence that they did more than they had to is much like a guy who accidently starts a forest fire while burning trash in August and says, “But I was using a burn barrel.” It would be comical if the results didn’t have such a huge and serious effect on the lives of real people.

And still, where does that get us? The way I see it, there are three possibilities. All are speculative, of course. 1) There was an intentional lack of notification. I don’t think that’s true, but I can tell you, I’m pretty lonely in that opinion in this movement. 2) Clean Line honestly didn’t know how ineffective their attempt at notification had been. 3) They eventually realized how ineffective the notification had been, but when they had to make a decision on what to do about it, they opted to put their heads down and push through. Regardless, none of these options makes me particularly excited about these people putting a transmission line through two states and a bit.

Trying to shame us or tell us how lucky we are that we even got a postcard is probably not the best tactic either. Yes, in the past transmission siting was done with very little input from landowners. No, that’s not the way things are going to happen anymore. Just ask SWEPCO. 

Why? 

Because people have had enough. From New York to New Jersey, Rhode Island to Virginia, Wisconsin to Missouri, Nebraska to Colorado, Winnipeg to Germany, they are done with business as usual- whether it's intentional or accidental. (Psst- just saying you're interested in landowner feedback doesn't cut it) 

Yesterday Dave (he'll be posting some good stuff on this soon) and I...mostly Dave... spent hours slogging through testimony on the congressional post-mortem of the blackouts in California and New York in the early noughties (the autopsy that shaped the very policies in play today). One thing became achingly and abundantly clear: Landowners were seen at worst as NIMBY’s or BANANA’s (I wonder where the good senator got that?), and at best as obstacles to swift siting and permitting, but never as true partners in development… Except for this marvelous man, who actually gets it. It’s a long quote, but it’s worth it:

"Deregulation certainly short-circuited utility incentives to invest in transmission because the private interests of facility owners come into conflict with the shared public nature of the transmission system. It is a highway, not a market, and especially when you are asking them to make investments that they--for a system they share with their competitors. It is very difficult.

And moreover, deregulation undermines the ability to account for social and environmental questions and constraints. The social cost of transmission is much higher than its mere economic cost. The fundamental problem with transmission is not inadequate incentives to invest. Utilities were willing to do so before deregulation. The problem is public resistance to building additional transmission facilities for environmental, health, and safety reasons.

For these social reasons, scarcity of transmission in an economic sense is likely to be a permanent part of this industry's landscape. That is what our people tell us.

The benefits of the shared transmission facilities are difficult to allocate. This is a network that is shared. The problem is geographic and intergenerational. Today's investments deserve a long-term, long-distance transaction, maybe tomorrow's core for serving native load.

Now, I understand the pressure to do something in the wake of the blackout, but when it comes to electricity, doing just anything will not help. You have to do the right thing or you will make matters worse.

Right now, you do not need to repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act to improve the reliability of the system.

I don't need utilities going into non-utility businesses and creative massive multi-state holding companies that escape regulation in order to improve reliability.

We do not need to impose the standard market design. And the regional transmission organizations that are embodied in it are the wrong ones to create. They are dominated by industry, they preempt local accountability, and they have forced utilities into markets for allocating transmission resources with no assurances that the capacity is adequate today, additional capacity will be built or maintained.

We must not rely on industry self-regulation. The proposal to move from voluntary self-regulation to mandatory self-regulation misses the point. The difficulty is not the voluntary versus the mandatory. It is the ``self'' part. We need clear accountability to public authorities.

Do not create private transmission monopolies. Transmission is a natural monopoly, part of a shared network. Transferring control to unregulated companies will simply allow them to increase their profit and exploit their market power.

So that is what you shouldn't do. What should you do? I personally believe we need transmission organizations, but they have to be organized on a very different model than has been contemplated and proposed. Any transmission organization must be based on fairness and public accountability. Fairness 
requires a process for representation of all interests affected by transmission projects. The way to overcome social resistance to transmission projects is to give people a fair chance to present their case, defend their interest. That is what federalism is all about. It is an ugly, tough process, but it works because it empowers the people.

Accountability demands that the local officials who get the phone calls when the lights go out are the people who are making the decisions, who have the ultimate authority. They didn't call the FERC when the lights went out in Ohio. They called the Ohio PUC. The Ohio PUC must have a fair representation in this process.

Accountability also requires transparency. We cannot have this conflict between the FERC and the DOE and the private companies and the NERC over who has got the data and who is responsible for the analysis.

Finally, even if economic incentives were a problem, and I don't think they are, the solution is not to increase the rate of return but to lower the risk, and that is what the utility model used to do. It established a long-term commitment. It established a stable environment. And frankly, all of the 
people who say we can't raise money in the industry are living in the dot-com 1990's, not the post-bust market. Give me a stock that offers a stable dividend, a slow and long-term growth rate, the widow and orphan stocks that the utilities used to be. They will have no trouble raising capital. But it is public policy that must create that environment that will promote the investment. Thank you."

-Mark N. Cooper, Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America

HEARING before the OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION, SEPTEMBER 10 AND NOVEMBER 20, 2003

Landowners are done being treated as collateral damage. We’re not just stakeholders. We’re the people who actually make personal sacrifices for these things without the hope of great return. So, if new transmission is necessary for the new energy economy, you better believe it’s not going to happen in the same way transmission did for the old energy economy. There is no way the people are going to tolerate the status quo any longer.

Clean Line likes to compare its project to railroads, right? But they never talk about the laws and increased unionization that came about as a direct result of workers who went on strike in the 1870’s and 1880’s because their working conditions became intolerable (and there was that 10% wage cut… 10%... sounds familiar). 

I’m not talking about revolution here, but evolution. Know who was missing from the witness line up for those key policy decision-making sessions? The people. 

But we’re all people, right? 

Except that landowners haven’t been treated as such. Not really. In a recent Jonesboro Sun article on the APPROVAL Act, Mr. Skelly mentioned how long they’ve spent working on this line. That they aren't going to give up. Trust me, the families here who stand to lose land they’ve worked for generations or land allotments they were given after being forced from their own homes know how that feels.  So here we are. 

Ask why.

"No Eminent Domain for Private Gain"