To the Oklahoma Attorney General: A heartfelt thanks from many, many landowners...

This needs to be posted for all to see. Thank you for hearing us, and for lending the considerable weight of your voice to ours...

How many more reasons do you need, Secretary Moniz? It is now PAST TIME!

Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC, becomes South's newest Regional Transmission Organization! (Not really.)

2.2.2 Clean Line Has Developed the Project Using Analyses and Steps That Are Consistent with RTO Planning

SPP’s and MISO’s planning processes for their internal system purposes occur through a series of connected studies and analyses to identify the need, to design a proposed addition, and to ensure these additions meet specific reliability, economic and policy concerns. In designing and implementing the Project, Clean Line has undertaken a similar and consistent series of studies that have shaped the Project into its present form. Similar to SPP’s and MISO’s transmission planning, Clean Line has developed the Project through the following studies and steps: (1) establishing the likely location of wind generation; (2) assessing known areas of congestion; (3) assessing utility demand for wind power; (4) determining the necessary physical infrastructure to meet that demand; (5) considering economic development implications; (6) conducting power flow analyses; and (7) production cost modeling to quantify cost savings to consumers. The Project meets the criteria for consistency in planning under Section 1222(b) through its use of steps and analyses to plan and develop the Project that are consistent with the SPP and MISO planning process.

1. Establishing the Likely Location of Additional Wind Generation 

MISO and SPP plan their respective transmission systems around forecasted locations of wind generation based on wind analysis, the interconnection queue and input from stakeholders. For example, in the process of designing and evaluating the Priority Projects, SPP Staff designed a portfolio of seven gigawatts (“GW”) of new wind projects in six locations around the region. Likewise, MISO’s selection of sites for coordinated wind and transmission expansion dates back to the Regional Generation Outlet Study, performed in 2008 and 2009. The selection of renewable energy zones for further transmission development included wind analysis, site suitability and distance to existing infrastructure. The highest ranking sites were selected to be included in the MISO transmission expansion plan and set the beginning points of many of the MVP Projects.

As noted in Section 2.5.1 of the Draft EIS and supporting technical materials, Clean Line conducted a similar analysis to define the zones from which the Project is likely to connect wind generation. The process incorporated wind development activity and responses to a Request for Information, wind mapping, evaluating distances from the Hitchland substation area, and environmental and land use consideration. The process used by Clean Line to identify the locations of additional wind generation was therefore consistent with the processes used by SPP and MISO. The identification of the most likely locations for wind development was a key step in planning and developing the Project. 

2. Assessing Known Areas of Congestion

In developing their portfolios of transmission lines to connect wind generation to load, both SPP and MISO examine existing congestion due to wind generation. This analysis provides information about where transmission lines could generate economic savings due to reduced congestion costs. For example, SPP’s Board of Directors has noted growing congestion on its system and tasked its staff to “reduce grid congestion” and “better integrate SPP’s west and east regions.” MISO likewise has identified transmission constrained zones which affect the ability to fully utilize wind and designed upgrades to relieve the constraints.

Similarly to SPP and MISO, Clean Line evaluated existing congestion patterns when designing the Project. Early in the Project’s development, Clean Line observed that existing wind generation in the Oklahoma Panhandle region was already experiencing very low prices due to transmission congestion. In its 2009 National Electric Transmission Congestion the DOE identified the Oklahoma Panhandle region as a Conditional Constraint Area (“CCA”). The region is a Type I CCA, meaning wind generation can be developed with existing technology. In that report, the DOE notes that Kansas and Oklahoma have strong wind generation potential that could significantly improve the economic vitality of the states’ rural counties, enhance reliability and potentially reduce consumer electricity costs.59 By creating a direct, HVDC link to the Mid-South and Southeast, the Project assures that the connected generators will not experience congestion and avoid existing transmission constraints.

(You know, in the process Jimmy Glotfelty helped advocate for in the office he created and directed that's the same office that's overseeing this process now back in 2003?)

This one:

(Yeah, that process. The one that was laid out to help identify the "constraints" that led to the "constraints" that resulted in the eventual RFP from the Department of Energy.)

Or, here, after he left DoE in 2005 and became VP of ICF International where he:

(Maybe worked on recommendations about "constraints"?)

3. Assessing Utility Demand Based on Public Policy and Other Factors 

In planning their respective transmission systems, both SPP and MISO conduct a review of regional renewable energy portfolio standards and goals to determine the amount of renewable energy needed. For example, SPP distributed a survey to state representatives in its Cost Allocation Working Group about each state’s mandated or desired level of wind generation. Based on these responses, SPP established a target in 2020 of approximately 11 GW of total wind generation. MISO likewise surveyed each member utility’s renewable portfolio standard requirements in 2021 and 2026 in order to determine how much incremental renewable generation the transmission plan needed to enable. These assessments allow MISO and SPP to build transmission to meet the needs of their member utilities for low-cost clean energy. 

In planning for the Project, Clean Line conducted a similar review based on numerous meetings with utilities and state policies, which is summarized in Section 2.1.3. As discussed there, Clean Line reviewed and identified the need and demand for renewable energy within the Mid-South and Southeast. In determining the size of the Project, Clean Line took into account the large potential demand for low-cost wind power delivered by the Project, and dimensioned the Project so that it could meet a substantial portion of the identified demand. 

4. Determining Physical Infrastructure 

In their transmission expansion plans, SPP and MISO weigh the distances involved and evaluate the economics of different voltages and numbers of circuits. Transmission lines with higher voltages and more circuits can carry more power, but are also more expensive. SPP faced this tradeoff in implementing two of the Priority Projects. SPP had studied the use of 765 kV lines to move larger amounts of power within the SPP region than would be possible with 345 kV lines.62 However, a 345 kV-only portfolio produced better regional cost-benefit metrics and therefore was approved by SPP’s Board of Directors.

MISO also studies the appropriate voltage and circuit level to use in in its transmission expansion. In its 2006 transmission expansion plan, MISO initially examined a series of 765 kV transmission lines to improve access to low-cost and high-capacity factor wind generation.64 However, in its 2011 planning process, MISO concluded that a preferable option was a build out primarily of double circuit 345 kV lines, with some single circuit 345 kV additions and one 765 kV line segment in Indiana.

In developing the Project, Clean Line also analyzed the appropriate technology and voltage for the desired power levels. An initial economic analysis indicated that HVDC was clearly more economic than AC lines of any voltage in light of the power levels and distances involved.66 A review of recently completed projects identified that DC voltages in the 500-600 kV level were most appropriate. Finally, a more detailed analysis of capital costs and electric losses concluded that 600 kV was the most appropriate voltage when considering power transfer levels, losses, and capital costs. Clean Line’s studies, like SPP’s and MISO’s, assured that the Project was consistent with the need to use the appropriate technology and voltage to economically achieve the goals of transmission expansion.

5. Considering Economic Development Implications

Both SPP and MISO seek to ensure that their transmission expansions result in economic development benefits for the region. In fact, both SPP and MISO have employed Brattle Group estimates to assess the economic impact of their proposed transmission expansions. The Brattle Group studies perform an economic impact assessment using IMPLAN and NREL’s JEDI model.68 

Clean Line performed a similar study, which was attached as Appendix 2 to its July 2010 Proposal to DOE. In addition, the Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice Technical Report that Clean Line submitted to DOE as part of the NEPA process extensively analyzes the employment impacts of the Project, which are further discussed in in Section 3.3.

6. Conducting Power Flow Analyses

In their transmission plans, SPP and MISO examine specific power flow cases to identify violations of reliability criteria that would require either additional transmission expansion or modifications of the proposed upgrades. For example, SPP’s Transmission Working Group prepared a series of power flow analyses on the Priority Projects to determine whether this expansion either required additional reliability projects to meet the required NERC and regional standards, or whether the Priority Project actually eliminated other reliability projects that, absent the Priority Projects, were needed to meet the standards. MISO also performed steady state power flow analyses of the MVP projects to see if any NERC or regional reliability standards were affected.

The Project has been the subject of comparable power flow analyses through its interconnection studies with SPP, MISO and TVA. As discussed below in Section 2.2.3, the interconnection studies monitored any violations of reliability planning standards and prescribed upgrades to remedy any violations. The reliability standards used in MISO and SPP transmission planning studies are consistent with and identical to those used in the interconnection studies performed by these entities regarding the Project.

7. Production Cost Modeling

SPP and MISO both use a production cost modeling software, PROMOD, to examine how proposed projects will affect the dispatch of their system. Specifically, the RTOs examine whether the points of injection of new wind power, together with the studied transmission expansion, result in any meaningful amount of curtailment of anticipated power flows. They also examine the extent to which the new transmission projects generate production cost savings for SPP and MISO member utilities.

Clean Line also conducted a similar analysis using PROMOD. An earlier version of this analysis was conducted with GE’s Multi-area Production Simulation (“MAPS”) and was included in the July 2010 Proposal to DOE. Clean Line’s production cost modeling shows that the Project results in minimal curtailment for the connected generators and substantial production cost savings. This is the same purpose for which SPP and MISO use production cost modeling in their transmission expansion plans. In Clean Line’s updated analysis, attached as Appendix 2-G to this Part 2 Application, curtailment for the connected wind generation was reduced to a single hour of the year, in contrast to over 15% curtailment (an economically unfeasible level) for the same amount of wind generation if the Project is not built. The analysis also shows annual production cost savings of $540 million because of the Project. These savings arise because the Project’s low-cost wind generation reduces the cost of the fuel purchases by utilities necessary to serve their load.

Well, there you have it, folks! Given the fact that Clean Line used a "similar and consistent series of studies" as MISO and SPP, they should be given the same weight as an ACTUAL Regional Transmission Organization in their qualification for Section 1222, given that Section 1222 mandates:

(B) is necessary to accommodate an actual or projected increase in demand for electric transmission capacity; (2) is consistent with— (A) transmission needs identified, in a transmission expansion plan or otherwise, by the appropriate Transmission Organization (as defined in the Federal PowerAct) if any, or approved regional reliability organization;

An RTO must:

(j) Required characteristics for a Regional Transmission Organization. A Regional Transmission Organization must satisfy the following characteristics when it commences operation:(1) Independence. The Regional Transmission Organization must be independent of any market participant. The Regional Transmission Organization must include, as part of its demonstration of independence, a demonstration that it meets the following:(i) The Regional Transmission Organization, its employees, and any non-stakeholder directors must not have financial interests in any market participant.(ii) The Regional Transmission Organization must have a decision making process that is independent of control by any market participant or class of participants.

(iii) The Regional Transmission Organization must have exclusive and independent authority under section 205 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824d), to propose rates, terms and conditions of transmission service provided over the facilities it operates. 

Take Clean Line's word for it, guys. They did the studies, too. Their transmission line is needed because they say so! They're really just doing MISO and SPP a favor, here. All of this is really too silly for words. Why are we here, again?

First Impressions...

We're all kind of in a post-Draft EIS comment period stupor, but we did read the Quadrennial Energy Review and, I have to say, we liked a lot of what we read. State involvement, effective public engagement, agency collaboration, and keeping the transmission footprint as small as possible (using underground and existing easements) were all listed as critical to the timely and responsible development of new infrastructure. And long distance transmission for renewables to load centers did not seem to be the "be all and end all" Clean Line claims it is. In fact, the review went so far as to say the need for that kind of transmission is lessening due to the increasing availability of local renewables thanks to rapidly improving tech.

I'd love to write more and add some pictures, but I gotta get the kids to school... And can I just say, it feels like we've been let out of jail. I know this whole fight is long from over, but for the last year we've all been completely consumed by Clean Line. I can't tell you what this fight has cost us. It's been exhausting... emotionally, financially... And while there have been amazing moments between neighbors... friendships built and connections made that will have made us a stronger community. A stronger Arkansas... I can't help lamenting, and being furiously angry, over what we've lost.

Who hitches their cart to a dinosaur?

On the Alternate Route

It's Spring.

Dave and I have to apologize for being absent bloggers lately. It’s not that there hasn’t been a lot going on in the Clean Line world, it’s simply the time of year.  Things that we’ve put off as long as possible to deal with Clean Line can’t be put off any longer. Fences need to be built. Gardens and crops need to be put in the ground. And, as Jennifer Gatrel so powerfully mentioned in her HB 1027 testimony before the Missouri House of Representative’s Environment and Energy Committee, for many of us, our farms are our lives:

“This is our business. This is our place of business. It is our livelihood. It is our vacation destination and it is our retirement… all rolled into one.”

(We should note here that the hearing for HB1027, which would hinder Clean Line's access to eminent domain for its Grain Belt Express line, had to be split into two days because so many landowners came out to testify in favor of the bill.)

In other words, we don’t have the luxury of taking a weekend off to go to a wedding with Anna Wintour...

Okay, do we really care that the Zilkahs rub noses with Ms. Wintour? Of course not. And a truly sincere congratulations to Daniel and Janie. Marriage is a wonderful, infuriating, brilliant endeavor. 

Do we care about Daddy Ziff’s “Rosebud Made of Stone”?  Nah. The idea is awesome, even if the rock thing was sketchy as all get out. The truth is… I’ve worked in Westchester. There’s not a lot that surprises me anymore. 

I just wish all these people’s venture capitalist relatives would get their damn paws off my mother-in-law’s property. And off the property of every angry, hurt, confused, hardworking, taxpaying Okie, Arkie, or Tennessean who actually worked their tail off for their small “piece of the pie”, and who deserve better than to be forced to give up what they’ve busted their knuckles for so rich people can get richer.

As Jenny so perfectly put it, yet again:

“I cannot tell you the amount of work and worry… I have met with veterans that have stood up and cried at the thought of losing their sweat equity in their farm.  I have met with women who have lost their hair and who have had to go on antidepressants.”

You want health effects? I’ll give you health effects. And the line’s not even built yet. Though apparently our only real objection to this project is what it’ll do to the view:

"Clean Line says none of those concerns are backed-up by modern science. They say the real reason for objecting to the line is simpler: people don’t feel like looking at power lines on their property."

Burn, landowners! Burn! So now we know exactly what they think about us. I know, I know—you’re thinking that’s not an actual quote. Surely Clean Line with their “we are so deeply concerned about landowners’ concerns” rhetoric would have denounced such a dismissive statement, but no… Rather, they posted a link to the article on their Facebook page. I think that qualifies as a pretty strong endorsement.

And speaking of the “well-funded”…

Recently, “Team Clean Line Energy Partners”, via Michael Skelly, via the Power of Wind (which oddly claims to be leading a movement for “fairer energy policies”) and the AWEA, issued a plea for signatures on a letter bemoaning the fact that “well-funded anti-wind energy groups are trying to get Congress to oppose the common-sense energy policies that would allow wind power to continue to expand.”

(“Well-funded” is code for Koch money. I can say that because my progressive street cred includes a presidential vote for Nader)

Now, he seems to be talking about the Production Tax Credit (I'm somewhat amazed they didn't bash oil and gas subsidies. It's kind of required...), but I’m going to go on the record here anyway and say that, as a group, we get nothing from nobody. Our flyers, our signs, our gas, our time… all of that comes out of our own pockets. We survive on each other. On the people who give what they can, when they can.  We have no loaded lobbyists, so forgive me if I don’t shed too many tears for one industry fighting a slightly different one. (And Big Wind seems to be operating with a massive Napoleon complex—Nothing must be done that can in any way, shape, or form hinder the holy development of poor, little, falsely maligned wind! NIMBYs and burdensome long-eared bats, consider yourselves warned!) 

Our only lobbyists are the people we elect to send to Washington and Little Rock, and in this situation, though I may disagree with them on much, they have served the people I love well.  You can call that Koch influence if it makes it easier to sleep at night while eighty-five year old Mrs. Stockton sits at her window looking out and worrying about her future. I believe the legislation and resolutions we’ve seen over the last few months are the honest result of the thousands of phone calls, emails, and letters our representatives received in the last year. I believe it’s the system working the way it’s actually supposed to. If you’re not willing to entertain that possibility, you can’t hope to look at this thing objectively. By the way, I should mention that both the cities of Ozark and Dyer passed resolutions in opposition to Clean Line just last night. And Quitman passed one some time ago. We had no idea... just in case anyone was thinking all these resolutions were the result of a few vocal agitators. 

Oh sure, everyone has a bias. I expressed mine pretty clearly in the first section… and in every endless blog post I’ve written on how totally inappropriate eminent domain is in this situation.  But what happens when you don’t learn from your bias? That’s the question… Well, you might try to solve the perceived “balkanization” of the transmission permitting process in our country by using a concept painfully similar to one already rejected by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as by the people most directly affected by it.

I’d like to include some quotes here from the lawyer whose working paper included the argument that local/state control over siting is ineffective because state and local governments are more responsive and accountable to their constituents than federal agencies. However, it clearly states on the bottom of each page that the reader is not to cite or quote from the paper without permission. Odd to reserve a right for yourself so similar to one you readily endorse violating for others.

But here, read Mr. Casey’s testimony regarding the NIETC debacle:

“Basically, what the Federal Government has told us, in essence, implicitly--this is what I derive from their failure to respond to the State of Pennsylvania--is there is going to be a  superhighway of power lines across Pennsylvania, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. The Federal Government is going to take over this effort and put those lines across the State of Pennsylvania. 

Well, I have news for them. Pennsylvania is full of a lot of people who are concerned about this, whether they are in small towns or urban areas, and, as we are going to be speaking to tomorrow, rural areas in Pennsylvania, farm communities. Most of those counties designated there are in rural communities. If the Federal Government and the Department of Energy or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or anyone else in this town wants to fight about this, we are ready to fight, and we will fight morning, noon, and night until our State, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is treated equitably.” 

You want bulldogs? We’ll give you bulldogs.

If you want more on NEITCs, start with this post of Keryn’s  and just keep going. Welcome to the rabbit hole.

Now, if Dave were writing this, right here is where he’d get into Jimmy Glotfelty’s ties to Section 1221 and 1222 (by way of his advocacy of the processes that lead to their creation). No, he wasn’t at the DOE when the sections went through in 2005, but his fingerprints are all over them.

So, how do you ram home a policy that essentially steals the states’ authority to participate in decisions that affect their own constituency? You use two words: “jobs” and “taxes”. Does it work? Well, it sure didn’t in Arkansas, and it looks like Missouri isn’t that impressed either:

Bonus points: Watch Mark try to explain how Clean Line intends to work solely within the confines of Missouri’s state laws/PSC. “Pay no attention to that parked 1222 application for Grain Belt behind the curtain!”

Maybe some of the legislators had already been made aware of Mr. Skelly’s testimony in that regard. I’ve posted it before, but hey…

Skelly said Clean Line’s application for Section 1222 authority for Grain Belt Express is still pending at DOE but inactive. And the company would exhaust efforts to persuade state regulators to approve the project before turning back to the federal government.

“We would look at the no and figure out a way to turn it into a yes,” he said.”

http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2014/11/13/clean-line-pursues-key-approvals-for-transmission-projects/

Or, how about Clean Line's tactic of attempting to obtain the right of eminent domain before signing easements? They wish to obtain easements on a "voluntary" basis, but aren't going to try to do so until they can hit landowners over the head with the "eminent domain" hammer:

Who pays for all that cheap energy? Not the bottom line.

So why? Oh, Lordy, why are we here in the first place? Why build this line at all? There must be some deep, driving need, right? Utilities that can’t keep the lights on? The need for a transmission backbone through the country?

Ah, no. Like Jenny said, it’s all business. It’s the business of development. Of transmission. Of speculation. Of bringing “the very best wind” to markets on the East Coast that haven’t asked for them. If it’s a backbone, it’s a fossil. An idea ten years old being rapidly usurped by newer tech, local utility scale generation, and conservation. Want to know where “the very best wind” is? It’s everywhere. And it’s located close to the load centers that might want to use it. 

With Dragonfly proposing Arkansas’ first real wind farm to deliver 80MW of true homegrown juice (assuming they can buck the Napoleon thing and actually work with surrounding landowners) and AEEC getting into solar farms it’s only a matter of time before Clean Line’s proposed 500MW guilt deposit in our state is a paltry drop in our renewables bucket. It’s certainly not worth the damage it would do to so many people. Why? Because jobs and taxes aren’t everything. And because 500MW of locally produced wind power fueling permanent, local jobs and tax revenue is infinitely preferable to imports. If the cost of wind is coming down as much as Clean Line claims, there is no reason it's generation should be restricted to the panhandle. Last week there was a story about a farmer in Oklahoma who had shifted to wind development as an alternative means for income. Arkansas farmers deserve to be able to make their own decisions on that same opportunity. 

Which brings me, finally, to the question of who’s gonna buy Clean Line’s tainted juice?  I’m not talking about whether rapid response gas plants or other baseload generators will be required to ramp up production to fill in windy gaps. And, yes, we’ve heard them say over and over that there won’t be any end user/utility contracts until after the permitting. You’ve heard us say, over and over, that generation potential and an “if you build it, they will come” attitude is insufficient to justify the use of eminent domain. That’s not what I’m talking about either. I’m asking what company or utility is willing to dip a toe into the “Bog of Eternal Stench” the execution of this project, if permitted, will become?

As someone who actually has talked to hundreds of landowners on the route (as well as their neighbors, who get an extra raw deal since they receive no remuneration for their property value loss), I can tell you that this thing is going to get ugly. Not a threat, but a simple observation. This is seven hundred miles of Bundy Ranch with the exception that the vast majority of these people aren't wealthy ranchers and actually own the land at issue.  And, for them, it’s not just about the money. It’s about respect. Or the lack of it. 

Knock on a front door on the route and ask them the story of their property. In most cases you better have forty minutes and a notebook. These aren’t short-term apartments we’re talking about, but parcels handed down through generations. Sorry, but there aren’t enough windmills in the panhandle to trump this image (and yes, she'd just gotten home from church):  

Not when there are gentler, more effective, and less damaging ways to go green. Who in their right mind is willing to tie their public reputation to a project that unnecessarily steals land from grannies?


**Update** April 15, 2015- Just got word of this beauty. Regardless of what happens with Clean Line, this is a big day for Arkansas: http://content.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2015/04/first-utility-scale-solar-energy-project-proposed-arkansas 

Entergy Arkansas today filed a power purchase agreement with the Arkansas Public Service Commission for a 20-year supply of solar energy from a solar facility near Stuttgart, Ark. The large-scale solar farm will begin construction in spring 2016 and be ready to connect to the grid by mid-2019.

The facility, to be called Stuttgart Solar, will consist of solar panels covering nearly 500 acres of land capable of producing 81 MW of electric power. This will be the first large-scale renewable energy facility in Arkansas.

In response to today's news Glen Hooks, chapter director for the Arkansas Chapter of the Sierra Club, issued the following statement:

“The clean energy revolution has now officially begun in The Natural State. As our first home-grown renewable energy project, this is a truly historic announcement. The Sierra Club congratulates both Stuttgart Solar, Entergy, and NextEra on this move and looks forward to welcoming Arkansas solar energy into our state's power supply.

The Sierra Club has long advocated for Arkansas to generate our own solar and wind energy here at home, just as our neighboring states have done for years. Today's announcement proves Arkansas is ready to get started as a renewable energy leader.”