Hubris: Clean Line's Michael Skelly and the End of the Plains and Eastern Project...

Another joint update from Ali and Dave...

THIS = Michael Skelly:

See the smoldering ruins behind Michael Skelly over there? The twisted steel and scorched concrete trailing behind him? Those are the bridges he burned in Arkansas. Well, rhetorically, of course... because Michael Skelly never actually built anything here, except a list of enemies.

There’s a difference between innovation and hubris, reality and fantasyland. Maybe you need a bit of both to pull off the project of Skelly’s dreams, but somewhere along the line… between attempting to circumvent state authority and bluffing about local tax payments, Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC, managed to make their project so toxic no one seems to want anything to do with them.

To recap the events of recent weeks: Plains & Eastern, Clean Line’s regulatory crown jewel and the only of its projects to be fully (if questionably) permitted, is DEAD in Arkansas. Hallelujah. Don't take our word for it, though. Let's look at a little evidence:

Clean Line Withdraws from TVA's Interconnection Queue:

Just a little background: Clean Line has three points of interconnection for it's project - at Southwest Power Pool (SPP) in Oklahoma for its proposed converter station at the beginning of the line, at Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) for its proposed converter station in Pope County, Arkansas, and at Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for its proposed converter station in Shelby County, Tennessee. All three are vital to the Project's ultimate success. As you can see in the following screenshot, Clean Line has withdrawn its position in TVA's interconnection queue.

What's missing from the second screenshot (TVA's current interconnection queue)? #219 and #220 (Clean Line). Now, Skelly will likely attempt to say that the position can simply be revived later, but that's not really how the process works according to TVA:

3.5 Withdrawal.

The Interconnection Customer may withdraw its Interconnection Request at any time by written notice of such withdrawal to TVA. In addition, if the Interconnection Customer fails to adhere to all requirements of this LGIP, except as provided in Section 13.5 (Disputes), TVA shall deem the Interconnection Request to be withdrawn and shall provide written notice to the Interconnection Customer of the deemed withdrawal and an explanation of the reasons for such deemed withdrawal. Upon receipt of such written notice, the Interconnection Customer shall have fifteen (15) Business Days in which to either respond with information or actions that cure the deficiency or to notify TVA of its intent to pursue Dispute Resolution.

Withdrawal shall result in the loss of the Interconnection Customer’s Queue Position. If an Interconnection Customer disputes the withdrawal and loss of its Queue Position, then during Dispute Resolution, the Interconnection Customer's Interconnection Request is eliminated from the queue until such time that the outcome of Dispute Resolution would restore its Queue Position. An Interconnection Customer that withdraws or is deemed to have withdrawn its Interconnection Request shall pay to TVA all costs that TVA prudently incurs with respect to that Interconnection Request prior to TVA’s receipt of notice described above. The Interconnection Customer must pay all monies due to TVA before it is allowed to obtain any Interconnection Study data or results.

TVA shall (i) update the OASIS Queue Position posting and (ii) refund to the Interconnection Customer any portion of the Interconnection Customer's deposit or study payments that exceed the costs that TVA has incurred. In the event of such withdrawal, TVA, subject to the confidentiality provisions of Section 13.1, shall provide, at Interconnection Customer's request, all information that TVA developed for any completed study conducted up to the date of withdrawal of the Interconnection Request.

There goes Clean Line's proposed end point.

Clean Line Withdraws from MISO's Interconnection Queue:

This is the one we've been waiting for. A withdrawal from MISO's interconnection queue removes the Project's midpoint (the Pope County, Arkansas, converter station connection point) from the equation. Go here and search for "J319." The evidence:

There goes Clean Line's proposed mid-point.

Long story short: No connection point in Tennessee and no connection point in Arkansas = NO PROJECT IN ARKANSAS. This is fantastic news, Arkansas landowners. The multi-year fight has been unnecessarily taxing and expensive, but this is looking good for you.

In spite of Skelly’s many, many protestations, the simple fact is, absent the Oklahoma portion of the line, whatever Frankenmonster he intends to “someday” cobble together is NOT Plains & Eastern. The Project, as pitched, hyped, and sold to the U.S. Department of Energy, no longer exists, whether or not Skelly believes he could somehow manage to get back into line at the TVA or MISO.

Do Skelly, et al, (meaning those few scraps of leadership left in his company) really not comprehend what they’ve done by selling Oklahoma to NextEra? Who gave this man their investment money? And for goodness sake, why?

Why a company that had the hubris to assume they could jump the appellate queue all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court… a company that never misses a chance to appeal an unfavorable decision, would assume dedicated landowners would stop with a district court ruling is beyond us. This company spent years, YEARS, holding Arkansans hostage. You think we’re going to let the first judge be the end all? Not likely, princess.

No, Mr. Skelly, you will not be allowed to sit in Houston and twiddle your thumbs until a magic buyer comes along. You will not be allowed to hold onto your “permit” with one hand while selling off pieces of your company with the other. You will not be allowed to fail to file updates with regulatory agencies and simultaneously claim the project is still alive. You will not be allowed to do that to so many Arkansans.

Now, the ten-ton elephant in the room falls on NextEra: What about our good friends in Oklahoma? What are your intentions there, NextEra? We think you owe Oklahomans an explanation about what your true intentions are. Are you actually proposing a different transmission line? Maybe to compete with AEP's "Wind Catcher" project? If so, where might that project stop in Oklahoma? Again, these landowners deserve an explanation from you... sooner, rather than later.

And what about the reporters who continue to give this company so much deference? Don't you feel like it's time to do a little bit more digging and put this to bed for landowners in Arkansas and Oklahoma? It's time for you to stop handling these guys with kid gloves, isn't it?

So, go back to your firehouse, Michael Skelly… maybe do a little more glory hounding and dream up your next snake-oil scheme. With the exception of greeniacs like Dr. Smith (BTW, I’m sure Bill Johnson is shaking in his boots. *eyeroll*), everyone can see right through you.

Michael Skelly is now living in a world filled with hubris and fantasy. We'll update you again with more when we know more.

Landowner Groups File Legal Complaint Against U.S. Department of Energy Over Clean Line Decision

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Please refer media inquiries to:

Gill Ragon Owen, P.A.
Jordan P. Wimpy
(501) 801-3816 or jwimpy@gill-law.com

Landowner Groups File Legal Complaint Against U.S. Department of Energy Over Clean Line Decision

Golden Bridge, LLC, and Downwind, LLC, two organizations representing the property rights and interests of member landowners along the entire route of the proposed "Plains and Eastern" HVDC transmission line in Arkansas, filed a legal complaint against the Department of Energy and the Southwestern Power Administration regarding their approval of and participation in the proposed project. "Landowners were never offered an appropriate avenue for due process during the DOE's review of Clean Line's application," said Dave Ulery of Golden Bridge. "An opportunity to comment is not the same as an opportunity to directly participate in the matter in an official capacity. Review is meaningless if those most affected are not given ample and significant opportunity to engage on a meaningful and substantive level."

The legal complaint raises concerns regarding the legality of the Department of Energy’s decision to participate in the project using Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act. “While understanding the importance of infrastructure in the production, transmission, and distribution of electrical energy,” a spokesperson for Downwind noted, “the landowner-managed organization is concerned with the federal government’s legal authority, and the scope and manner of its proposed participation in transmission projects pursuant to Section 1222. There are lingering doubts about the substance and merits of the Department’s determination in this project, with particular concern relating to the potential use of federal eminent domain to condemn private property for the benefit of a private, for-profit company.”

Both groups continue to accept new members. For more information, please go to www.GoldenBridgeAR.org.

Contact:

GoldenBridgeAR@gmail.com
Golden Bridge, LLC
4300 Rogers Ave., Suite 20-148,
Fort Smith, AR 72903

Hannibal BPW not a "good witness" for Clean Line...

In an interesting turn of events, Hannibal, Missouri's Board of Public Works has decided it is in no hurry to be a "good witness" at the Missouri Public Service Commission:

HANNIBAL, Mo. -- The Hannibal Board of Public Works has suspended talks with Houston-based Clean Line Energy Partners about investing in or using its proposed Grain Belt Express transmission line to bring wind-generated electricity to the city.

BPW General Manager Bob Stevenson told the utility's board of directors Tuesday that the BPW has decided to step back and observe developments between the company and other municipalities before moving forward.

"We just decided to sit back, take it easy for a while, and just study what's going [on], keep asking questions, keep researching," Stevenson said. "We've got nothing to put forward. There is no pending contract."

In a pitch to the BPW last month, Mark Lawlor, Clean Line director of development, outlined the possibilities of the utility paying an annual service fee to bring energy from the west to meet its demand or taking part ownership in a Ralls County converter station and a portion of the project's capacity. The latter would allow the BPW to sell what capacity it doesn't use.

And, really, this comes as no surprise because, as with Plains and Eastern and Rock Island, Clean Line has "got nothing":

Stevenson said the BPW has no deadline for making decisions related to the project despite Clean Line's goal of appearing before the commission again this year.

"Without us, they've got nothing," he said. "Just because they're in a hurry doesn't mean we have to be." (emphasis added)

And, Kudos to the Ralls County, Missouri, for understanding the heart of this issue:

Wiley Hibbard, Ralls County presiding commissioner, told BPW board members he was pleased the utility plans to hold off on further consideration of participating in Grain Belt Express. Farmers and landowners have blasted the project over concerns it would hurt land values; make land around the line's infrastructure unusable; and grant a private firm public utility status, which would allow eminent domain. 

"It's not that we're opposed to easements and power lines -- Lord knows we've got hundreds of them throughout the county," Hibbard said. "It's just the sheer immensity of this project."

To read the full story, go here.

It's the Eminent Domain:

It's the eminent domain. It's not the source of energy, it's the eminent domain. Clean Line, being little more than a potential profit center for a few privileged investors, has not justified a need for any of its projects, and shouldn't be granted eminent domain. Let me repeat: It is the eminent domain.

It is a hard pill for landowners to swallow when they understand that Clean Line is potentially planning to offer them what would amount to roughly $18 for each 1' long X 200' wide strip of their land here in Arkansas. It becomes even harder to swallow when landowners read stories about the Ziff family (Clean Line's majority stakeholder) setting records in real estate sales at Martha's Vineyard and also offering up a private compound for sale in Malalapan, Florida, that is topped in price ($195 million) in the United States only by Hugh Hefner's Playboy mansion. If I shell out that kind of cash, do I get to keep the elephant tusks that are on display at 0:53 in the video, or are you taking those with you when you move out?

Investors: It is time to bail. With your help, Clean Line's optics are truly terrible (and only getting worse) and the opposition's resolve is strong across the board against their speculative projects. Landowners have made it clear they're not going to accept this sort of abuse simply to enrich a few at the expense of many. Enough is enough.

So, what happens now in Missouri?

So, all of this begs the question: What is Clean Line's next move in Missouri? Do they re-file there with absolutely nothing more to offer? Now that everyone there is watching closely, I suppose they can hope to get a few more closed-door meetings? They'd better be really sneaky, because quite surely other municipal utilities are watching this outcome at BPW. Just in case they aren't, we'll continue to make sure what is going on in Missouri receives due attention.

Also, what happened to that "parked" Section 1222 application Clean Line has with the Department of Energy and the threats Mark Lawlor lobbed to utilize it after the Missouri Public Service Commission denied their application? If the decision that is going to be handed down from DOE is going to be such a slam dunk for you, Clean Line, why not just totally bypass Missouri like you're trying to do in Arkansas? Should you decide to go ahead with your Section 1222 application, Arkansans stand ready to help our friends in Missouri fight that process.

And, by the way, where is the decision on Arkansas' Section 1222 application? It was supposed to be delivered by the end of last year, wasn't it, Mr. Skelly? We're a month beyond the DOE's timeline showing it would be delivered by mid-January. What's going on there?

Not an oligarchy, yet:

Listen, everyone: This great country in which we all reside is not yet an oligarchy. However, if this speculative group of individuals is allowed access to eminent domain at the hands of our federal government, I am afraid this will be just one more example of and step toward our country turning into one.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not railing against rich folks. I think it is perfectly fine for people to have $200 million compounds if they so choose, because that is part of the freedom of being a citizen of the United States. I think you're totally ridiculous if you do, but it is your right to live as you please, just as it is my right to tell you that I think you're silly for doing so. Where the problem arrives for me, and I think others, is when you use your never-ending wealth to lobby OUR federal government to use eminent domain on your behalf as an investment discount to increase the profits of your purely speculative business model on the backs of thousands of wonderful, hard-working people. We all live under the same Constitution, including the privileged few... at least, we're supposed to.

I will leave everyone with a clear message: The opposition in the beautiful "Natural State" in which I proudly reside is strong, active, and unified. You shouldn't expect us to give up.

When "The Solution" becomes "The Problem"...

Visit Clean Line's website touting the reasons Arkansas landowners should be comfortable with the Department of Energy granting this private company the right of federal eminent domain against unwilling sellers, and what do you find? "The Solution":

So, when does "The Solution" become "The Problem"? When Clean Line says things like this:

Opposition to the Plains and Eastern Project has been screaming for months that, should Clean Line (CLEP) get its way at the Department of Energy (DOE), they will be exempt from paying ad valorem taxes to counties within the state on both: 1) the transmission facilities within the state, and 2) the property that would be taken via federal eminent domain by the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA). Clean Line has been touting the "ad valorem taxes" they would be paying to counties in Arkansas for at least the last year in an attempt to garner support from someone, anyone, in our state. The examples of Clean Line stating this are numerous: Here, here, here, and here. I am sure there are more, but I don't feel like looking for them, honestly.

The truth of the matter: If Clean Line is approved by DOE under their proposed terms, ALL transmission facilities and property obtained by the SWPA via federal eminent domain would, in fact, be tax exempt.

The Problem:

Clean Line has plainly admitted on the first page of the "Agreement" that their facilities will not only be exempt from any ad valorem taxation, but also that any payments that are given to counties are completely voluntary. Unless, of course, each of the twelve counties agrees to the terms of CLEP's agreement that their representatives have been busy bees distributing to them recently. So, given that fact, why is Clean Line still saying that they are going to be providing "tax revenues" to counties in Arkansas along the route? I don't know, but someone with authority should ask them. 

In addition, what happens to the tax revenues on the actual physical property that SWPA "opens up" via federal eminent domain? The portions of the parcels of land that would be owned by SWPA that property taxes are currently collected on would, presumably, become exempt from taxation as well. So, what happens if a large portion of landowners just say "no" in each county, and the SWPA is required to own a significant amount of parcels in those counties? What does that do to county revenues? Hypothetically, the revenues could either be a wash, or even a net negative.

The Problem:

In addition to plainly stating that they would be tax exempt in all counties, Clean Line is asking your county officials (you know, the ones you elected?) to guarantee them that the county wouldn't pass anything to "prohibit or materially burden the development, construction, or operation of the Project, or the enforcement of this Agreement" once it is signed. Read that a couple times for effect. Let's say landowners get really loud about this if it is approved. If your county has signed this agreement with Clean Line, you are powerless as a landowner to peaceably assemble and lobby your local government to do anything on your behalf against them. That seems important.

Further, Clean Line is setting the terms about how and when the "Agreement" can be terminated:

They do this by defining a "Company Default" and a "County Default" on page three: 

So, if a "Company Default" is defined as a "failure of the Company to pay when due the amounts set forth in Section 2" and "such Monetary Breach continues uncorrected through January 15 of the following year", what is the recourse for the county if Clean Line just doesn't pay? Well, Clean Line tells the county that they can break the agreement, or...? Who knows? Take Clean Line to court to enforce the agreement, presumably spending taxpayer money to do so?

Also, who determines that the county has executed a "County Default"? It appears like Clean Line is attempting to define what that would be, too. So, what happens when Clean Line says the county has "Defaulted"? It appears like Clean Line can terminate the agreement with the county. So, what does the county do? Again, take Clean Line to court, expending taxpayer money to try to attempt to enforce a voluntary agreement from this private company, or just not receive any money from CLEP anymore and they become tax exempt again... just as they would have been had the county not signed their agreement and agreed to shut out a sizable portion of citizens of the county in the first place? That seems important, too.

 Fourth Page:

The moral of the story here: if you are an affected party in any of the counties this monstrous private toll road would cross, if your county officials don't agree to shut you out of your right as a citizen to lobby your local government on your behalf, but instead to always side in Clean Line's favor: the county's not getting squat, PERIOD.

All that glitters isn't gold. Read carefully before signing any "solution" that Clean Line is offering... it may end up becoming the problem.

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

The Machine

Keeping the lights on?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But we’re all people, right? 

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

Ask why.

"No Eminent Domain for Private Gain"