When the Moon Hits Your Eye...

No, no, no...

A Transmission Developers' Guide to Developing Deep,
Long-lasting Relationships with Landowners
Using Romantic Analogy

This very lengthy blog post was inspired by 3 things. 

First, I care a lot about what happens with Plains & Eastern, but I’m really looking beyond it, too. Transmission will happen. I don’t want anyone else to go through what the people I’ve met in the last year have. It’s heartbreaking and it’s real. Things have to change.

Second, last week someone said to me, “If I had to explain to someone how not to develop a transmission line, I would point to Clean Line.” Now, that person was talking about more than just landowner relations, but the truth is that the “vocal minority” Clean Line and their allies like to bemoan seem to be the majority of affected landowners and their neighbors.

And lastly, Dave and I were talking about the blog the other day, and the possibility that we might have some readers besides the “vocal minority”, our friends and parents, and of course Clean Line. Readers who might actually invest in or develop transmission. We complain. A lot. But we don’t give a lot of good examples about what you should be doing instead. 

Clean Line hasn’t been all that receptive to our suggestions. Maybe it’s because they see this relationship they’re proposing in a more mercenary light, but the truth is… At some point transmission developers are going have to decide if they want to wade through years and throngs of opposition, or put their big boy/girl panties on and treat landowners (da-dum-dum) the way they would in any other special relationship in their lives. So, let’s try putting that special relationship in romantic language and see if that helps clarify.

The Ten Rules of Woo

1.  To woo or not to woo- This is of the utmost importance. You have to be able to prove a concrete need for your project. A real, actual need. If that need is simple economic development, that’s fine, but don’t expect to be able to access eminent domain without going twelve rounds with the public, the press, and the court system. Yes, you many win, but it’ll cost ya’. And for goodness sake, if you decide to woo, work the rest of the rules. Always remember that no one “owes” you a relationship.

2. Saddle up and be a man/woman- If you’re over 14, notes passed in class are unacceptable. So are vague postcards. And newspapers. Forty years ago, newspapers ads were a fantastic way to reach people. They're still a great way to reach some people, but they’re not enough to reach the most important people: the landowners you’re proposing a long-term relationship with. The same with postcards. It doesn't matter if that's what's legally acceptable or not. You're not trying to get a date with a lawyer, you're trying to get a date with a hottie. Do the work.

Let’s say there’s this person you see at the grocery store every week. Do you tell the guy in the deli how cute she/he is and just hope that he mentions your interest to her/him? Well, you can, but you probably shouldn’t make reservations at Chez Madeline’s for the next night.

I know it can be hard and scary to meet someone for the first time. Especially when there’s something you want from them that they might not be excited to give, but you just have to do it. Be direct. Be nice. Repeat. Be consistent. And, for heaven’s sake, be early. You want to see an angry landowner? Easy. Make them the last to know about a project.

3. Keep the “woo” in your wooing- Yet again, no one owes you a relationship. You might think that they do, but they don’t. If you want to be with someone without getting a martini thrown in your face, you have to work at it. I’m not talking about flowers or candy (although candy is nice), I’m talking about taking the time to get to know someone. You don’t wait until after your wedding to find out if you have shared interests. At least, not anymore. Take the responsibility, and the initiative, to make sure your new friend feels comfortable with you. Be genuine. Call them up. Respect their boundaries. Give them control of the situation. There’s this phrase you see posted in a lot of offices, “A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.” Give yourself the time and space in your development plan to really work with people. Recognize that they may have had bad experiences with developers in the past. Respect those experiences. Go the extra mile to show them you're not that way. Recognize that courting today isn't done the way it was fifty, twenty, or even ten years ago. Respect the shifting values and work with them. You can't rely on, "Well, this is the way wooing has always been done." Not if you want to get lucky.

Clean Line managed to get most of the easements for the Tennessee segment of Plains & Eastern before they even got utility status from the TRA. I listened to the final TRA hearing. They had a landowner testify about what a great experience they’d had with Clean Line. This was at a time when we were still routinely running into landowners in Arkansas who had no idea they were in the corridor or potentially affected.  Now, granted there is opposition in Tennessee which has been less vocal, but what accounts for the difference in the perception of Clean Line in these two states? Contact. Early contact. A willingness to put themselves out there in terms of risk. They could have wound up with 17 miles of easements they had no use for (still well within the realm of possibility), but they did it anyway. They tried to show the Tennesseans they were valued and important. When asked by the TRA commissioners why there was so much opposition in Arkansas, Clean Line admitted it was because they’d had less contact with Arkansans because the route was less certain. Here’s the thing about that. They’ve always had a preferred route. They’ve always known where they wanted to go. My hunch is that the cost of effectually contacting all those people was an issue... and that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission (though more cowardly). I don’t really know though.  What I do know is that people were furious when they found out the project had been in the works for six years without their input… A lack of effective planning and commitment on your part does not constitute an obligation to fall into line on our part.

4. Watch your messengers- We’ve all played telephone. It’s an old story that doesn’t need rehashing. However, the importance of who you pick to represent you can’t be overstated. If you’re going to choose an advocate to lobby your intended on your behalf, at least chose one he/she likes. If you have to remind them not to belittle or minimize the object of your affection, they’re probably not the right person. If you overhear him/her telling your lover that his/her concerns about his/her health and well-being are irrelevant, you probably need to have a heart to heart. If you discover your messenger had planned to try to humiliate your lover into submission, time to rethink your choice. If you find that your advocate has misrepresented you in an embarrassing way, you might not have the right person. Especially if that misrepresentation is something you were (I hope) unaware of (because… dang).

5. The truth will out- In this day and age, the internet is not only forever, but freely accessible to anyone with personal access or a library card. An astounding amount of information is available on everything from RTO studies, to policy development, to real estate and health studies, to resumes. Social networking means that opposition groups across the country can work together to keep tabs on you and share their knowledge. Be honest about yourselves, your company, and your intentions… Lest the jilted lover of your secret lover air your (hopefully false) dirty laundry online. So if you have, say, a ridiculous little graphic showing how energy is transmitted from wind farms to houses, it doesn’t have to be to scale, but it should be at least somewhat reflective of your proposal proportionally. People aren’t stupid as a general rule and they tend to get grouchy when they feel they’re being manipulated.

6. Don’t promise Aunt Pauline the veal before you’ve proposed marriage- You want to see your lover angry? Ask their parents for their hand before you’ve actually asked your intended. Or better yet, promise Uncle Floyd he can live with you after you’re married without the express and full consent of your would be spouse. It’s a pretty common thing to court schools and job seekers as a means to drum up support for a project, but it’s dangerous when you start attempting to leverage that support to force a situation or override landowners. Can it work? Sure, maybe. But when you attempt to divide a community like that there are repercussions. I’m an agnostic, so I’m not talking about the karmic, “judgement of God” kind of repercussions, but the human ones. 

You may believe with all your heart and soul that you’re doing the right thing, but if you’re yanking your lady into your cave by the hair, you’re treating her badly, even if you end up with a wife. The “greater good” is both a fluid and subjective thing. The damage we do to each other is more concrete. If you feel lost or uncertain, or even if you don’t, do a gut check. Go to the mirror and stare at yourself. Imagine yourself as all the other players in your situation. All the players. Try to feel what they’re feeling, think what they’re thinking. Watch to see if you flinch. If the line between your eyes gets deeper. If you start crying… Then decide if you’re on the right path. And if you’re not, think about how you might fix it. By the way, if you don't feel any pangs of conscience, if you're not at all moved by the struggles of others, you need to see a therapist. Immediately.

7. Apologize when you’re wrong- It’s such a simple thing to do and it carries so much weight. I know this is scary, especially for companies worried about lawsuits, but an apology is so, so very powerful. I mentioned the following to one of Clean Line’s big wigs during the EIS hearings. I’m not sure he actually heard me, but it’s worth repeating: the doctors who don’t get sued aren’t the flawless ones, they’re the ones who apologize.

"Mr. Utley, impressed, didn't bother hiring a lawyer. He settled directly with the hospital for an undisclosed amount which he says was far less than he might have been awarded in court. "They honored me as a human being," he explains.

We all want to be honored as human beings. All of us. We want our life’s work respected. Our autonomy, our intrinsic value, our opinions and thoughts to be given weight. We recognize that for developers, this is all business, but for us, it’s personal… and business. 

8. Take her girlfriends/his boys out to dinner- A major bone of contention with this line is that it affects not only the hosting landowners but their neighbors, who go uncompensated. The proposed line is very, very different from a cell tower, so that argument falls flat (although neighbor payments for cell towers deserve their own discussion). There are situations where P&E would pass much closer to a neighbor’s house than it would the hosting landowner. Those people deserve to be compensated. Well compensated. In spite of what Clean Line repeatedly argues regarding property values, the bottom line is that even if the losses aren’t as great as so many people (lawyers, real estate agents, etc…) expect them to be, developers (especially private developers) have a moral and ethical obligation to make people whole. 

I can’t tell you the level of stress this project has caused people. People who’ve sunk life savings into retirement homes and are terrified that this project will make their futures’ financially insecure. And it makes sense that they would be scared. Listen, even if Clean Line is right, and the property value loss is only 10% (which I am not conceding) next to the line, if you had $100 in your pocket to live off of the rest of your life and some stranger came up to you, took $10 and ran away, would you not be furious? Would you not be deeply offended and terrified? Especially if you knew they were going to turn that ten into thousands? It’s wrong. It’s just wrong. I don’t know how else to say it, and I’m kind of amazed that I even have to.

9. Take a frikkin’ shower- Okay.  Put new transmission underground. I know it’s more expensive. I don’t care. Put the damn things in the dirt. You want to see opposition go home? Take away a major bone of contention.  Looks matter. They do. Duke Energy says they do:

"Regarding vistas, we do consider view shed meaning visual impact as opposed to direct impact on a property," he wrote. "I would also say that, based on public input, we will weight certain factors such as view shed more heavily than others.

Senator Ben Cardin said looks matter when he wrote an amendment to the tax extensions package requiring that new transmission go underground to deal with “the NIMBY issue”. The QER talks about it, too. 

Don’t want to deal with NIMBYs? Fix their driving issues. Duh.

People who do the dirty work of hosting the country’s infrastructure deserve to be treated with deference and respect. They deserve to have their needs met. So, when we tell you developers that you need to stop trashing our view, you need to stop trashing our view. And stop trying to shame people for feeling that way. Aesthetic beauty isn’t something that should be the province of only the people who can afford it. Like… investors and wind farm opponents in Nantucket, say. We can keep arguing about this issue or you all can do the work, speed your process, cheapen your overall costs, and make people happy.

10. No means no- I’ve got to finish up because I’m just getting angrier and angrier as I write this, but this, this right here, is the rule you should never get to. If you find yourself considering whether or not to force your project on someone, you better go back and review the other rules because violating this one is not okay. It’s a failure. Once you've taken that step, there is no turning back. That relationship will never be repaired. It will never be healthy, even if it's moderately functional. Just the threat of that kind of violation is enough to irreparably damage a person and a relationship. It's a bell that can't be unrung. It leaves a mark. Not just on the victim, but on the violator. If you are vastly relying on a legal authority to compel acquiescence to your project, you need to take your butt back to the bathroom mirror and perform another gut check. 

I’ve said it before, ad nauseam, but I’ll say it again: allowing a developer blanket eminent domain to force a project is as ridiculous as allowing a single holdout landowner to derail a good project. It’s stupid. It’s ugly, and it’s wrong.  

Happy Sunday.

Money Changes Everything

I should be writing about everything that’s happened over the last few weeks: the Missouri Public Service Commission turning down Grain Belt Express , the end of the Section 1222 comment period, the introduction of the APPROVAL Act in the House (Big hugs to the delegation), Amazon choosing to go with locally generated, on-shore wind in North Carolina , and the spokesman and CEO of an energy advocacy group, counting Clean Line among its members, who swallowed his entire foot with what might be one of the most insensitive statements ever: 

“There’s no production in Arkansas, so people there just see it as a power line coming through their property,” he said.“It’s understandable, but let’s remember we all see hundreds of power lines every day,” Foltz added. “What’s one more?”

(Holy gag, Batman...)

There was also the announcement of another solar farm in Arkansas, a conference call I’m still totally geeking out over, the final draft of the TVA’s IRP which makes it pretty clear that HVDC wind is either the cheapest or vastly most expensive source of wind they could purchase… because utilities just love that kind of uncertainty. Here's an illustrative graphic Dave sent me:

 And, of course, there was the Attorney General of Oklahoma coming thisclose to accusing Clean Line of lying about state regulatory approvals to other states and, well, the feds. From their 1222 comment:

“As demonstrated in comment 2 above, Clean Line has not been consistent in the statements it has made to DOE, FERC or state regulatory agencies. There are numerous material and substantial incorrect, misleading and/or inconsistent statements and omissions in Clean Line's Application materials. DOE should reject Clean Line's proposal based on these conflicting, misleading, incorrect and incomplete statements. In the alternative, DOE should at a minimum perform an independent review and comparison of all statements made by Clean Line to DOE, FERC, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the Arkansas Public Service Commission, the U.S. EPA, SPP, MISO, and all other state and federal agencies, transmission organizations and other entities to whom Clean Line submitted statements and information related to the Plains and Eastern Clean Line Project.”

Sirs, consider yourselves hugged.

There were a host of awesome and substantial comments turned in:

Downwind, LLC

Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (The equivalent to SPRA for the Western Area Power Association)

Southwest Power Resources Association
Center for Rural Affairs (Recommending we reconsider the way we assemble corridors and the use of eminent domain)

If you get the chance, check them out. Either we’re not the only “busload of crazies” out there, or we’re just actually not so crazy. Incidentally, this is our comment, which we wrote with our lawyer Carol Overland, who went above and beyond in working with us. 

I should talk about all that, but I don’t want to. I want to talk about Cyndi Lauper instead.

When I was a little girl I loved Cyndi Lauper. I didn’t just love her, I wanted to be her. I was her actually, for Halloween in second grade. Her voice was so honest and raw… Her songs, too. When I was eight, “Time After Time” was my favorite, but the one that’s resonating with me lately is “Money Changes Everything”. It kind of got lost at the time because money was so huge in the eighties, right? Material girls everywhere, but “Money Changes Everything” isn’t just about the cash, it’s about the damage we’re willing to inflict on each other to get and keep it.

And that’s the bottom line about this situation. Clean Line has poured unspeakable money into these projects. For us, the landowners, we continue busting our knuckles against a brick wall, but the best that we can hope for is to be left alone. 

Clean Line is in this for either a twenty-year return or a quick, profitable sale. We fight and fight, without vast legal or financial resources, and our "preferred outcome" is simply to maintain control of what we have worked to build. We lose no matter what. No matter how "by the rules" we've lived our lives, because we'll never see a "pay day" for what we've been through or the work we've done. 

What's worse is that we're always at risk. Grain Belt Express should be over (by the way, what about the rocks on someone who feels comfortable telling the public service commission that just tossed their project after intense scrutiny that they are “confused” about the benefits? Lol, that’s either total madness or brilliance), but Clean Line can always appeal decisions, as long as they can pay to do so. There are no real consequences for what they put people through (other than failure of one or some of their LLCs).

Which is why it is so incredibly important we have good processes to examine "need", and so intensely infuriating when people (generally with no knowledge of the situation other than what they've been fed by Clean Line or their supporters) feel comfortable shaming landowners for being upset about eminent domain. Especially, I'm going there, when those people are supposed to be "progressive". I have been shocked by some of the ridiculous justifications and knee-jerk judgements and assumptions I've seen come out of the left through this whole process. I thought we were better than that. To argue that eminent domain is appropriate because we've used it before? Please...

Lawlor had likened the conflict to the 1930s, when electric power came to rural America and many farmers didn’t want the intrusion.

“We will always have opposition,” Lawlor said before Wednesday’s vote. “But people opposed to this now turned on their lights this morning and that power came across somebody‬’s land.”

0.o

So in almost ninety years we can't make progress? That makes sense. Because I know people still like to do things the way people did ninety years ago: smoking and drinking through pregnancy, overt legal segregation, compulsory sterilization... Social security was new... and totally suspect.

Sorry, pontificating... again. The bottom line is that Clean Line had an idea that was out of the box. Really out of the box. They just didn't bother to take it all the way out of the box. Because, at it's heart, this idea isn't about saving the world (although that may be part of it) or being truly fair. It's about making money. So it makes sense to minimize landowners. To shove us on "the crazy bus". To make us grasping or greedy, even though this whole situation wasn't of our making. It's easier to hurt people when you can dismiss them as irrational... whether or not that's true.

Just like Principal Vernon, "You see us as you want to see us—in the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions."

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/article26031445.html#storylink=cpy

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!

The cart is still before the horse...

Yesterday a couple of events occurred that represent a kind of perfect microcosm for the entire debacle that has been Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC's outreach efforts for Plains and Eastern.

First, the Cherokee Nation's Tribal Council unanimously approved a resolution in opposition to Plains and Eastern. Please check out the video from that meeting. The Plains and Eastern discussion begins at minute 46. Possibly the most interesting comment comes from a Ms. Watts, who rightfully calls for an investigation as to why no one in the tribe had heard of the line until recently, when Clean Line claims to have been in contact with the CN for the last three years.

Several hours later, Clean Line Energy Partners issued a press release celebrating their approval as a transmission only utility in Tennessee. As we have not yet been able to review the order from the TRA, we can't comment on the specifics. Experience in Illinois tells us that Clean Line is adept at spinning regulatory approval, but regardless of the details, this is a big deal for them... And probably for those last few holdout landowners in Tennessee waiting for them to get that approval before signing easements.

We knew our efforts in Tennessee were a long shot, but we are so proud of the hundreds of people who signed our letter and sent in letters of their own. And, really, part of what we're fighting for is the ability of state and regional planning organizations to maintain their sovereignty. The TRA's decision to allow Clean Line utility status in spite of the objections in Arkansas and Oklahoma are a consequence of that sovereignty. That's not such a bad thing. Click here to view the docket and the letters in opposition.

How does this relate to the project as a whole? Well, once again, Clean Line has put the cart about 700 miles in front of the horse. They have their endpoint all sewn up, while the people in the middle are throwing their hands up and asking, "Clean who?" And, clearly, they're not all that happy with the answer.

How do we know that? Well, Clean Line makes a big deal about it's involvement with local government. Their goal is to get those guys on board. They've been pretty open about that... But there's a big, huge, honkin' problem with that strategy... You can't expect to get away with it if the people, the landowners, aren't on board, too. The local government is elected by the people. Not the people who live two hundred miles away, but neighbors, friends, and family members. So when the grocer's kid calls his local judge crying because the house he just built two years ago is on the route and NOBODY seemed to know about the scoping period, there aren't enough promises of tax income in the world to ease the queasy feeling that judge is going to get in the pit of his stomach. It also doesn't help when Clean Line's reps roll their eyes at landowners during county meetings (Way to go, Mario!! Listen, you can say we're full of it all day, but the bottom line is that if you guys had gone about this whole thing a little differently, we would not find ourselves the situation that we do.)

Where's the proof? Here, here, and here. Three quorum courts. Three unanimous resolutions in opposition to Plains and Eastern. Are they binding? No, but they're important. You want to take the temperature of the mood of the people? There you go. By the way, Pope is one of the two counties that have been suggested as home to the converter station. I guess taxes aren't everything...

Meanwhile, we continue to hold meetings in an attempt to reach people who still don't know about the line... Though we still get the occasional immediately affected landowner who doesn't know, we've seen a huge increase in pissed off neighbors, if I can be so blunt. People who live next to the proposed route, but not on it. I'll let this gentleman explain...

Before I go, I mentioned blossoming Clean Line opposition in multiple states in my last post. I should have just linked to all the different groups. Come visit us:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/blockcleanlinepope/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Arkansas-Citizens-Against-Clean-Line-Energy/1397073527241617
http://arblockcleanline.com/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/BlockPECLOK/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/642766385769035/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Block-RICL-Rock-Island-Clean-Line/133050610203359
http://www.blockricl.com/
https://www.facebook.com/blockgrainbeltexpressmo
http://blockgbemo.com/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Block-Clean-Line-Energy/474445082622090
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Block-Grain-Belt-Express-Illinois/344837389031181
http://ridiculousricl.blogspot.com/