Clean Line's REALLY Bad Couple-a Months...

In what is shaping up to be an incredibly rough couple months for Clean Line Energy Partners, several major blows have been dealt to the speculative development company:

Arkansas Full Congressional Delegation Comes Out Swinging

1) Arkansas' Full Federal Delegation Re-Introduces the APPROVAL Act (03/06/17)

On Monday afternoon, Senators John Boozman and Tom Cotton, along with Representatives Steve Womack, Bruce Westerman, Rick Crawford, and French Hill, re-filed S.529, the Assuring Private Property Rights Over Vast Access to Land ("APPROVAL") Act. The Act would amend Section 1222 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act to allow a state's governor and public service commission chair the opportunity to reject a federal transmission project if they don't feel like the project is in their state's best interest.

2) Arkansas' Delegation Sends Opposition Letter to Secretary Perry (03/07/17)

Alison wrote about this earlier, so I will just leave the letter here for everyone to see. It's a beauty.

3) Senator Boozman Makes Comments on Talk Business Arkansas (3/12/17)

Senator Boozman made comments during an interview with Talk Business Arkansas' Roby Brock further explaining the delegation's position that the use of Section 1222 of the 2005 EPAct by Clean Line is inappropriate:

In his comments, Mr. Boozman also brought further doubt about need for Clean Line's "product" at Tennessee Valley Authority (We know, Mr. Skelly, this is "bigger than TVA," we know. Whatever.), which brings us to:

Things Don't Look Great for Clean Line at TVA

1) TVA Winter Board Meeting (02/16/17)

It all started at TVA's February 16 board meeting. As you may have read in our January 2017 update, Clean Line and a couple environmental groups have been lobbying the Tennessee Valley Authority to sign a contract for a sizable chunk of wind energy from the Oklahoma panhandle and use Clean Line's proposed Plains and Eastern transmission line to deliver it to them. We explained to you that, if TVA were to sign a contract, the prime time to have done so would have been by December 31, 2016. That date has come and gone, and there was no publicly available contract on January 1, and as of today there still is not.

In past TVA board meetings (specifically August 2016 and November 2016), Clean Line sent their revolving door DOE star, Jimmy Glotfelty, to lobby (*read - "beg") TVA to make a commitment to use their transmission line. At the most recent board meeting held February 16, however, there was a specific lack of anyone representing Clean Line. The only person that showed up (and, she always does) to lobby for them was Chris Lunghino of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

Why do we say that things don't look good for Clean Line at TVA? We have a couple key pieces of evidence. The first involves a presentation Mr. Bill Johnson, President and CEO of TVA, gave during his update at the board meeting. Take a look at the following slide:

Do you see what I see? If not, look a little closer... specifically at the amount of wind and solar energy TVA receives in 2017, and is projected to receive in 2026. They remain unchanged at 3%. What does that mean? Well, it would appear that it means TVA has no plans to purchase capacity for a large chunk of wind energy between now and 2026. You can infer from that what you will. Again, we know, Mr. Skelly, this project is "bigger than TVA." But, where are the other customers? We reported earlier that Georgia Power (GP) is likely out for Clean Line, and that still stands. Georgia Power is only allowed to contract 300 mW of wind power through its REDI program, and the in-service dates for GP's don't mesh with Clean Line's fantasy in-service date.

2) Senator Alexander (R-TN) Reaffirms TVA Doubts on the Senate Floor (03/22/17)

It must be really difficult for Clean Line and its' investors to see the senior senator from Tennessee say this on the Senate floor:

Senator Alexander: If you are watching, we would like to give our thanks to you for making these comments!

Oklahoma State Legislature Moving to Eliminate Wind Tax Credits

1) Oklahoma House of Representatives Passes Legislation to Eliminate State-Level Production Tax Credit for Wind Energy (03/10/17)

As we reported in our January update, the Oklahoma legislature is apparently serious about attempting to fix their nearly $900 million budget deficit. The Oklahoma House made the first move to eliminate early the state "Zero Emissions Credit" for wind energy. Without going into many details, the credit amounts to millions of dollars per year that come out of the state's coffers (paid for by Oklahoma taxpayers) to support companies that are mostly out-of-state (or country, in some instances).

Oklahoma gets a decent-sized chunk of its electricity from wind energy produced in state. Much of the energy produced by newer generators is exported out of the state, therefore Oklahomans are subsidizing wind energy companies for producing energy that largely has little-to-no benefit to the citizens of their own state... aside from the royalties landowners receive for voluntarily hosting the turbines on their property.

Meanwhile, Clean Line would like to potentially use (for the first time) federal eminent domain to force a swath 720 miles long of Oklahoma and Arkansas landowners to give up their property rights to construct its' for-profit transmission venture that could also require Oklahoma taxpayers to subsidize an additional ~2,000 wind turbines with zero in-state benefit... again, except to the landowners who voluntarily host the turbines on their property.

Does that seem fair to you? To me, it doesn't.

2) Oklahoma Senate Panel Approves Rolling Back Wind Tax Credit (03/29/17)

According to a report released today:

OKLAHOMA CITY – Legislation that rolls back a state tax credit for the wind energy industry has been approved by an Oklahoma Senate panel. 

The Senate Committee on Appropriations on Wednesday voted 34-6 for the House-passed measure and sent it to the full Senate for consideration. 

The bill modifies the tax credit for electricity generated by zero-emission facilities like wind turbines. It says facilities must be in operation by July 1 in order to qualify for the credit, instead of the current deadline of Jan. 1, 2021. 

Gov. Mary Fallin has proposed eliminating the credit to increase revenue amid a projected $868 million budget shortfall next year. The tax credit will cost $40 million this year and will average $60 million a year over the next 15 years.

The legislation appears to be poised to pass. We will see if the Oklahoma Senate is as serious about it as the House in the coming days. If the Senate passes the bill, it will be delivered to Governor Fallon for signature.

3) Mario Hurtado says: "No Big Deal" to Losing Oklahoma PTC (03/29/17)

In his typical blustery and arrogant (disconnected?) fashion, Clean Line's Mario Hurtado said the following in a recent article:

Hurtado said HB 2298 should have little impact on a $2 billion high-voltage transmission line that will carry wind energy across Oklahoma and Arkansas to Mid-South and Southeast markets. The Plains and Eastern Clean Line transmission line, a 700-mile project that has been in the works since 2010, will have the capacity to deliver 3,500 megawatts of wind-generated electricity from the Oklahoma and Texas panhandles. 

Terminating the tax credits this year, if the bill becomes law, could have an impact on where those wind farms are sited. Hurtado said the companies that will build the more than 2,000 wind turbines needed to feed current through Clean Line’s transmission line base siting decisions on a number of factors, and tax policy is one of those factors. 

“It may change the amount of wind energy that connects to us ... (from) Texas versus Oklahoma — the Oklahoma Panhandle is not that wide (and) the wind doesn’t pay attention to state lines,” Hurtado said. “Unfortunately, that would mean less investment in Oklahoma and the school districts there — that could be a change, and that is certainly something we have made people aware of.”

There you have it, Oklahoma. Whatever, Mario.

4) Mario Hurtado says: "Foundations for generators are being dug and poured in the Oklahoma panhandle right now" (3/25/17)

In another recent article that is full of bluster likely targeted at the Missouri Public Service Commission and Clean Line's investors, Hurtado said the following:

Foundations for generators are being dug and poured in the Oklahoma panhandle right now, Hurtado said. General Electric — which will build converter stations located near Guymon, in Arkansas and near Memphis, Tenn. — has done a lot of engineering work ahead of building the stations, he said.

Pictures or it didn't happen, Mario. Today (03/29/17), you said that if the Oklahoma legislature repeals the in-state PTC, wind developers will just build generators to energize your line in Texas instead of in Oklahoma.

But, just four days ago, you said "foundations for generators are being dug and poured in the Oklahoma panhandle right now." What gives, Mario?

My analysis? Foundations for wind generators are most definitely being "dug and poured" in the Oklahoma panhandle, but they're not being "dug and poured" to supply Clean Line's proposed transmission line. For Mario to imply otherwise is disingenuous, deceptive, and pretty desperate, if you ask me.

You have to have customers for all that stuff to happen, Mario. To date, Clean Line has yet to release a single, legally bound, contractual customer on either the generation or end-use side of its proposed speculative transmission line. Unless and until a sizeable portion of their capacity is subscribed, everything Hurtado and Skelly say is bluster.

Things Don't Look Super Great for Clean Line in Missouri

1) Hearings Held on Clean Line's (latest) Grain Belt Express Application

As you may know, Clean Line had its week-long round of evidentiary hearings at the Missouri Public Service Commission last week. If you're interested about how the hearings went, I will leave that explanation to my friend, Keryn Newman. She wrote an excellent blog post summarizing the events.

2) Neighbors United Scores Victory That Could Dash Clean Line's Hopes in Missouri

In a nutshell, Staff at the MOPSC recommended that: 1) Commissioners deny Clean Line's application, or 2) Commissioners condition Clean Line's CCN with the requirement that they receive assent from all impacted counties. I'll leave you with Keryn's blog post about this decision, which explains how it could affect Clean Line's proposed "Grain Belt Express" line.

Due to State Action, Clean Line's "Rock Island" Project is Effectively Dead

According to a recent article:

House File 603, which Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton, called a “long-awaited bill protecting private property rights,” was approved by the House 93-0. 

The bill addresses what he labeled the state’s “largest blight,” the Rock Island Clean Line, an electric transmission line that would affect 1,500 Iowa landowners, as well the development of a reservoir in Clarke County and property owners displaced by Department of Transportation projects. 

“It should be hard to condemn private property, it should not be possible to condemn private property for personal profit, it should be illegal to condemn private property for anything other than public use,” Kaufmann said.

We're with you, Representative Kaufmann. Iowa landowners are lucky to have you.

In Closing

This is already far too long. So if you have made it this far, I really appreciate you reading it. I hope it has been informative and maybe, just maybe, it gives you a little bit of hope in what can feel like a helpless situation.

I just have to close by asking Clean Line's investors: When does enough become enough for you guys? When do you come to the realization that someone else has spent upwards of $200 million of your money and, after nearly a decade, those people haven't produced a single cent of revenue in return for you? And there's really no return in sight, is there? When do you say to yourselves: "We've harassed these people enough. It's time to throw in the towel"?

Maybe that's why you're holding on for so long. I get it. You've spent a lot of money. But, it doesn't make it right for the harassment to continue.

I think the time is (or should be) fast approaching. If you have any sense of decency about yourselves, you should realize how many thousands of people you have negatively affected for the last many years. Have you no conscience? Do you think things are just magically going to get better?

It is time for you to pull the plug.

Arkansas Delegation Rolls Out the APPROVAL Carpet for Secretary Perry

I'm late. I meant to have this posted yesterday, but... life. Anyway, we're gonna keep this simple because some things don't need a lot of chatter...

On Monday afternoon, the Arkansas delegation filed the APPROVAL Act. 

On Tuesday, they sent a letter to newly confirmed Department of Energy Secretary Rick Perry. And it really perfectly distills the core issue with the Department of Energy's proposed participation in Clean Line Energy Partner's Plains & Eastern HVDC line:

Our objection to Clean Line’s application should not be viewed as a fight against renewable energy; we each understand the importance of having a reliable electricity grid and are strong advocates of a diverse energy portfolio, including wind, solar, hydropower, renewable biomass, and nuclear energy. Likewise, we do not take issue with the building of national infrastructure; robust infrastructure investments, including the enhancement of the electrical grid, are often productive undertakings.

Instead, our objections relate to the vast overreach the Obama Administration employed, allowing this project to skip the necessary protections which exist to protect state sovereignty and private property rights.

Throughout the history of electric transmission, factors for the approval of these lines have been reviewed and decided at the state level. As the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has noted:

“The location and permitting of facilities used to transmit electricity to residential and commercial customers have been the province of the states (with limited exceptions) for virtually the entire history of the electricity industry. State and local governments are well positioned to weigh the local factors that go into siting decisions, including environmental and scenery concerns, zoning issues, development plans, and safety concerns”[1]

The rejection of the transmission line by Arkansas’s (PSC) forced DOE and Clean Line to resort to using Section 1222. This is the first time DOE has used Section 1222 to authorize the development, construction, or operation of transmission facilities, and the only partnership the Department has (to date) with an entity to do so.

Sigh. It's so good, right? Love those guys when it comes to this stuff... my Clean Line BFAPs. As to whether 1222 actually does give the DOE room to use eminent domain... I guess we'll wait and see what a judge has to say.

For a deeper dive into all of this stuff, please check out Keryn Newman's most recent blog post. She hits it as only Keryn can.

I should stop right here, but I can't. I promise I'm only going to address one of the reported responses to this legislation, though... And it actually didn't come from Clean Line (because we've all heard everything they say before. I read it and in my head I hear the noises grown ups make when they talk on Charlie Brown).

It actually came from the IBEW... Guys. C'mon.

Let me preface my comment by saying I am a freak for unions. I'm a Utah Phillips listening, Union Thugs following, right-to-work disdaining, union lover. However, "the IBEW strongly disapproves of politics getting in the way of American job creation"... Please. I'm assuming politics are fine as long as they actually create jobs then? It's just a problem when they get in the way?

Seriously, unions have got to stop allowing themselves to be used as corporate pawns. The whole concept of lifting and protecting the middle class goes out the window when you allow yourselves to be manipulated into strong arming regular people. You want jobs, we want you to have jobs... But we want to be kept whole, too. Is that not fair? We want bread, yes... but we want, what? What?? Roses too. Cripes.

 

My last blog post… Well, so I hope.

This is my last blog post.

At least it is barring some extreme Clean Line shenanigans. I’ve been meaning to write one for a while now. Ever since the Department of Energy’s Record of Decision/Participation Agreement with Plains & Eastern made it absolutely clear this project would end up in a courtroom instead of ending on Moniz’s desk. I don’t really blame the DOE for that decision… How many federal agencies stand up and say, “No, we really don’t have the power or authority to do XYZ”? It doesn’t happen. And in a way, this is better: Congress proposes, an administration acts, and judges rule. Is a law really a law before it’s been tested by fire? There’s this great line from Robert Graves' I Claudius: 

"Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out."

Courtrooms and the discovery process are pretty good places for the hatching out of poisons… And of redacted financial information.

So anyway, what prompted me to finally take up the keyboard for this quasi-final farewell was Clean Line’s self-aggrandizing press release following the defeat of Senator Boozman’s energy bill amendment (thank you, Senator) earlier this week. Don’t worry if you haven’t seen it. It’s not getting much exposure at this point. Maybe it will later. But either way, I promise you... you’ve heard Clean Line say everything in it before. Ad nauseum.

I mean… where to begin? Well, let’s start with the biggest shock. Where is Louis Schmoll? Louis, the landowner from Atkins who gets trotted out and quoted every. single. time Clean Line needs to show how Arkansans support their project. Not enough space to include him and/or Bob AND industry reps perhaps?

Instead, how about we begin with Micheal Skelly’s pleasure at the “bipartisan” nature of the vote? Guess what other big vote was bipartisan? Go on... Guess...

If you were thinking of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, you'd be correct. It passed by an almost 3/4ths majority mix of D&Rs. Compared to that vote, this week’s vote, a.k.a. the “vote to say no” (gag), looks a little weak. And pretty clearly, there are a number of senators ready to tug the reins at the DOE. Is that partisan? Meh, maybe somewhat. But “partisan” isn’t the answer to everything and, if there’s anything we’re learning from this election cycle, it’s that where the politicians are is vastly where the people aren’t.

Now, if you had actually read Clean Line's press release, depending on your point of view, you could have interpreted just a whiff of desperation. A kind of… “Look at us! We won! Pleeeeeeease look at us!” sorta thing. But what exactly did Clean Line “win”? Not much. Legally, this changes nothing. Not the vagueness or contradictions in 1222. Not the attempted application of the law by the DOE. And certainly not the applicability of Plains & Eastern to that law.

They got the adamant support of New Mexico Senator Heinrich (wonder why... WAPA territory, maybe?) and the support of Senators Lankford and Inhofe- yes, he of "snowball on the floor" climate change denying fame- (R-OK) and McCaskill (D-MO). Oh, if only us little people had had an extra $400k to spend in DC last year…  

So, I ask again, what did they win? Besides the chance for the continued confidentiality of certain financials? Well, they won the opportunity to have a senator get up and argue, on the record no less, that Boozman’s amendment… this little report to ensure transparency and fiscal responsibility… is a "job killing amendment". (@3:15:00) Really? Because Plains & Eastern is so vulnerable a report could kill it?

0.o

Yikes. With friends like that, who needs enemies?


Arrivederci


P.S. Omg- I didn't expect to be back so soon. I wrote this on Friday morning. It's now Saturday and all I can say is... clearly, nothing quite has the power to draw the poison out like another proposed amendment. This one, announced by Senator Cotton yesterday afternoon, blocks funding for 1222 projects (thank you, Senator). The response from "Clean Line" was truly breathtaking. Take a look at the sky above you, folks, because if this amendment passes, that sucker is coming down! D.O.W.N! Down! I think they covered just about every threat in the capitalist handbook: Hostile business environment? Check! Harder to build infrastructure? Check! Job KILLER? Check! Higher energy bills? Check! 

Except that... Well, in the interest of time, just read this.  And this. Or, like, open the business section of the Democrat Gazette.

The thing that really grinds my gears, though... The one thing in that statement that doesn't make me snicker into my coffee even a little is the argument that this is going to cause higher energy bills. And to me, it's kind of a perfect example of what I don't like about Clean Line. It assumes we'll pay a higher rate than what they say they can provide for us and presents that as if it were already a reality. The bottom line is that you can't lose what you don't already have.

Finally, this is it I promise, we have this gem: 

The company said the amendment is “a clear example of political meddling targeted at one company and changes the rules in the middle of the game, after tens of millions of private dollars have been invested. The Cotton amendment hurts American consumers and business by undermining the law that was passed under a Republican administration with bipartisan support. 

I have been very careful never to curse on this blog, but oh, how I want to... Instead I'm going to put on my cleanest Battlestar Galactica uniform and say... Frack you, buddy. Frack you.

How about this instead:

Clean Line spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbying efforts in Washington D.C. in direct opposition to the APPROVAL Act is a clear example of big business meddling targeted at a small group of landowners and changes the rules in the middle of the game, after those landowners have spent their lives building sweat and financial equity in their properties, paying their taxes and living like decent human beings. The Cotton amendment is yet another attempt to protect those individuals and their state by bringing attention to a vague and contradictory section of a law that was passed in the era of Cheney's Energy Task Force with a glut of lobbying dollars spent on behalf of industry to provide them with a "piñata of perks".

Meddling.  Phooey.

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!