Clean Line Energy wins the "Eye Roll Olympics"...

A joint update from Ali and Dave:

Please excuse our absence of late. We've been working on other projects and enjoying a somewhat Clean Line drama free period over the holidays. It's funny... last year at this time we were frantically trying to make sure affected individuals knew they could comment on the Draft EIS. Looking back, while we are incredibly proud of the people who took the time to send in letters and emails, we can't help but feel they were cheated out of a real process. A legal one where they could put their questions to lawyers and have those lawyers put them to Clean Line under oath. Maybe with an impartial decision-making body that hadn't spent five years developing relationships with an applicant. You know, with neutral judges to make a decision based on evidence in the record.

But we digress, while our relative silence over the last month or so may make it look like we haven't been paying attention, rest assured, we have been. Oh boy, have we ever. And now, we'd like to present you with the winners of the Eye Roll Olympics.

Eye Roll #10: Field goes to the Rotary Club.

Why is Clean Line still doing this? Padding "outreach efforts" for the DOE? Planning another run at the Arkansas Public Service Commission? Or, just hoping that with enough schmoozing the local yokels won't realize their proposed "binding agreement" may castrate the counties' ability to respond to the needs and requests of its citizens with ordinances and actions? Perhaps we haven't been clear, or perhaps Clean Line just doesn't get it: the government, especially the local government, is "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Not "for Mr. Skelly and his investors".

"Connecting with the locals". It's a good thing, but Clean Line continues attempting to connect with the WRONG locals, and they have been from the start... except for that one time we ran into Field in the BBQ shop. :) Landowners won't magically disappear because Clean Line shows the Rotary Club a PowerPoint. What's next? Telling a bunch of Farm Bureau members the line is going to save the Monarch Butterfly?

Eye Roll #9: Hiding Facebook comments because they look bad.

There are times when decisions come down that aren't in your favor. We get it. Maybe you don't want your investors, potential customers, or other supporters to know these things happen. The truth of the matter is, there is a vast network of folks who are watching your every move. You're going to get questions about things related to your projects on your posts. You can't "encourage open discussion" when you post things that come down in your favor and then hide anything someone asks that you don't want anyone else to see. That smells like desperation, and it is pretty unfair. Here's the latest example of a member of the opposition asking a fairly straightforward question, and then being accused of harassment by whoever is behind the curtain:

Trying to drown out, isolate, and minimize the opposition to your projects is part of the reason you folks find yourselves in the position you're in. You would think you would have learned by now that attempting to hide information that's readily available on "the Google" to thousands of people who are intimately and anxiously aware of your shenanigans is a bad idea, but you continue to do it. Why? We're not sure, but every time you hide a comment it is documented and will be placed somewhere for everyone to see.


Eye Roll #8: We get it, they're ALL Republicans.

We understand there is journalistic value in identifying the party affiliation of the Congressional delegation like this:

"Members of the Arkansas Congressional delegation, all Republicans, met Thursday with U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz to discuss concerns about the proposed Plains and Eastern Clean Line Transmission Project."

The danger is when journalists, and others, use that information to prop up a biased narrative. Yes, the delegation is Republican. Arkansas is a Republican state. However, not all who are opposed to Clean Line Energy in the state of Arkansas and elsewhere are Republicans (we are not, for example). A bad idea is a bad idea, and pretty much anyone who dives down past Clean Line's headlines realizes fairly quickly that there's more to this than a partisan divide. We have had bipartisan support at the state level, and we'd have bipartisan support if our delegation wasn't comprised of two Republican senators and four Republican representatives.

It has actually been extremely refreshing and humbling for us to have been able to work with such a wide array of the political spectrum while opposing this issue. It is something our country desperately needs more of. And, by the way: this fight is not about conventional versus renewable energy. It just isn't. And, no matter how hard you try to pen it as such, we will always strive to make this about the actual issue at hand: keeping federal eminent domain out of the hands of a private company that could use it as a development discount. That's wrong, and most people understand that it is wrong, and why.

And what if the line's recipients turn out to be not utilities or municipalities, but corporations trying to "green" their image. Amazon and others have shown a laudable interest in moving toward carbon-free operations. The idea that eminent domain could be used to force projects to power primarily private and for-profit business enterprises... Progressives and Democrats should be horrified at the thought. As, in fact, should everyone else.


Eye Roll #7: Why are you still saying "500mW to Arkansas"?

We know, it sounds good to tell people this. It gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling inside to think that 160,000 Arkansans will be served by this transmission line. But, the number is 450, not 500, right? According to your updated application, East Texas Electric Cooperatives has said they might (noncommittally) like to have 50mW of capacity, so why are you still telling Arkansans that they'd be getting 500mW?  Has Entergy Arkansas or any other utility in Arkansas agreed to purchase your non-existent electricity? We know Arkansas Electrical Cooperative Corporation (AECC) has numerous issues with your proposal. How? We read their comment.

The fact of the matter is this: the Arkansas converter station would connect to the MISO South (the blue area here) region. This region includes most of Arkansas, about half of Mississippi, most of Louisiana and, yes, a portion of east Texas. Unless we're missing something, delivery to utilities in Arkansas is not guaranteed, at all. Clean Line is advertising that they'll deliver 500mW to Arkansas when, in reality, there is a possibility that NONE of the electricity would be delivered for consumption in Arkansas. With potential markets in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, what assurances do we have that even one megawatt would go to Arkansas? Especially if the Department of Energy hinges approval of the partnership on subscription. Won't they need someone, ANYONE, to say they want their product? To our knowledge NO utility in Arkansas has signed a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with them that has been made public. Not one.

So unless you're ready to lay it all out there and release any Arkansas PPAs, spare all of us and stop saying you're going to power 160,000 Arkansas homes with 500mW of electricity (that doesn't exist yet). Just stop.


Eye Roll #6: They told us that wind energy couldn't be developed in the Southeast.

It is time for you to stop using the "wind energy can't be developed in the Southeast" talking point to justify your out-dated project. We explained to everyone in January of 2015 (wow, it's been a year?!) that wind energy development would be coming to the Southeastern United States in the near future because of technological advancements in wind turbine efficiency and height. It seems that it has arrived in Tennessee:

"Tennessee has not traditionally been a state that has a lot of wind energy production in it, but Crab Orchard wind will be a 71 megawatt, $100 million project," Goodwin said. "That has been enabled by the advancements in technology over the years. The wind resource in Crab Orchard is excellent, so we will be able to deliver very cost-effective electricity without comparison."

Happily, it turns out there are "Saudi Arabias of wind" all over this enormous country. Time is our friend. Technology is a good thing, folks.

Eye Roll #5: PRIA gets skewered by a repeat editorialist, excuse us, "journalist".

First of all, we have no idea why this article was in the "News" section when it absolutely reeked of bias. It's been a while since we took high school journalism, but we seem to remember a basic tenant being the requirement that you at least attempt to reign in your personal feelings and agenda. Here, Loren G. Flaugh gives us gems like this:

"Probably the most hotly contested claim to emerge from that meeting came when Preservation of Rural Iowa Alliance (PRIA) President Carolyn Sheridan revealed an apparent lack of understanding for how eminent domain works."

Apparently, Flaugh likes to use "apparently" and "apparent". We do, too. On our blog. Because it's a BLOG and not a NEWSPAPER. We might say something like: "Flaugh's use of language revealed he apparently wasn't as interested in the truth behind the sentiment being expressed as he was about making Ms. Sheridan look foolish in his article." After all, it's only our opinion.

Shame. On. You.

First things first, semantics are important, but basing almost an entire article on either 1) an apparent lack of understanding on the consequences of a signed easement, or 2) a very narrow definition of the term "sell" in light of the situation at hand is ill-advised.

In other words, sir, an easement, whether negotiated voluntarily or obtained through the use of eminent domain, in most cases represents a fundamental and permanent change in which the party in possession of the easement becomes the dominant interest on the property in question. The landowner, though they in most cases retain the "ownership" of the land the easement involves, becomes the lesser or servient estate. In other words, the landowner retains the liability and tax burden on the easement, but has virtually no control over anything else. The landowner is largely subject to the condemning entity's determination of the appropriate process, and unless they have a bang-up lawyer or the force behind a landowners' collective, they have very little tangible control of the terms of such a contract. No, it's not the same as being forced to sell. In many ways, it's worse! And while your argument might make more sense in situations where structures on the easement are buried entirely, the landowner in high-voltage line cases loses not only more in the way of use, but in visual value as well.

Finally, journalists (and we have quite a few that we've gotten to know and appreciate as individuals truly devoted to digging into these stories) don't get to decide how other people should feel about what's happening to them. If you can't look at someone worried about this situation and accept that their concern is valid (at minimum to them) and worthy of respect and due consideration, then it's time to put your pen down on this issue and move on to something where you have a little more objectivity.

Eye Roll #4: Beth's response to Iowa lawmakers.

First of all, we absolutely LOVED the open letter to Clean Line from twenty-three Iowa lawmakers. It takes some serious cahones to say something like this:

In Iowa we have a history of working with landowners to obtain energy project rights. 

You don’t seem to understand this concept. Instead, you have fumbled through a disjointed effort to manipulate the system by filing a series of requests to the Iowa Utilities Board.

and:

You are not a utility. You have no intention of letting Iowans plug in to your project, nor do you plan to let us sell power along your route. We hope that it doesn’t have to come to us passing legislation to keep you in check, but we will if it has to come to that. Please have no doubt that the House Government Oversight Committee will be watching your every move. We are tired of your threat to blight hundreds of landowners’ properties while you “weigh your options” or propose newly extended procedural schedules.

In fact, we loved it so much, we'd really like to get those lawmakers connected with state lawmakers in Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois, Oklahoma, and any others who wish to weigh in. Contact us. We can make it happen!

So, the actual groaning happens when you read Beth Conley's (Clean Line) response to those twenty three lawmakers. (You know, the lawmakers elected by the people on Clean Line's route?)

We'll start with the conclusion:

My family and I recently drove past the big substation in Hinton, the delivery point for a lot of hydropower coming into Iowa from Missouri River dams in South Dakota. We were talking about how South Dakota farmers allowed that project to deliver electricity to their fellow Americans in Iowa generations ago, and how we have greatly benefited from it. That was neighborly of them. With the Rock Island project, we are making possible new wind projects that cannot happen without new transmission. Let’s build the future.

First of all, Beth, it's super cute that you have such a quaint, pastoral notion of the noble landowners of the past, but have you actually talked to any of those landowners? Asked them how that whole project went down? Have you talked to any of the landowners on Plains & Eastern whose grandparents already gave land to electrify their "fellow Americans"? To get oil to market? To build railroads? To build roads? Stop. Just stop. Stop trying to shame landowners with pseudo-patriotic rhetoric. Industry standard in siting pretty much guarantees that people on these lines have already done plenty for their country, and many of them would do more if they actually felt like a project was worthy instead of a moneymaker for a select few.

Stop acting like your projects are going to make or break the future of clean energy in our country. The clean energy revolution is coming regardless, and aside from a few environmental organizations, we haven't run into many folks (other than you and our friend Bob) saying your projects (all of them) are desperately needed. You're not the TVA and this isn't the 30's and 40's. It's not right to hold yourself up as a new model for development with one hand while you've got the other in a hundred year old cookie jar.

Landowners didn't ask to be in this position. It is not the landowners' fault the leadership of your company came up with a series of projects that, in light of all your recent actions and filings, appear to require eminent domain for profitability. Landowners didn't choose these projects or your investors. Nice compound, Ziff brothers! We hope your air conditioned tunnel is powered by renewable energy.


Eye Roll #3: Clean Line's THIRD attempt at bifurcation in Iowa.

More from Beth's response to those Iowa lawmakers:

While not used previously by the IUB, this type of schedule is commonplace in a similar form in other states nearby and it is the type of process used by Iowa DOT and other state agencies. While it is true, as far as we know, that no Iowa electric company has been granted a schedule from the IUB like the one we request, we also believe it to be true that no Iowa electric company has ever proposed to build power lines of this significance without any cost to the Iowa ratepayers. This public infrastructure project will bring all of the benefits of new transmission, meeting the needs of the clean energy economy, without putting the cost burden in Iowa.

Rejected! Just stop. Iowa law is Iowa law. Your three attempts to make things more convenient and less expensive for yourselves and your investors, while concurrently making it more inconvenient, confusing, and expensive for the landowners that have already committed too much time and too many limited resources fighting to protect themselves, are more than a little ridiculous. You knew the process going into Iowa, and, as in Arkansas, you've made the lawmakers in Iowa mad enough to threaten you with additional legislation to "keep you in check". We got it done here, and it'll get done in Iowa if necessary. Instead of putting your big pants on and working with the lawmakers, you chose (as you did in Arkansas) to attempt to bend the rules. How's that working out for you?


Eye Roll #2: It doesn't matter how many times you say these projects won't cost taxpayers/ratepayers anything, it's not the whole truth!

Let's go back to Beth's letter for a minute, just because it's handy...

 "...we also believe it to be true that no Iowa electric company has ever proposed to build power lines of this significance without any cost to the Iowa ratepayers. This public infrastructure project will bring all of the benefits of new transmission, meeting the needs of the clean energy economy, without putting the cost burden in Iowa."

Clean Line says this, or some variation on it, a lot. It's Oscar Mayer worthy. The drive behind the cost reallocation that would normally be passed on to the ratepayers doesn't just disappear because a company wants to operate outside the system. These projects are ventures. Investments. If Clean Line can't get reimbursed for their costs on the back end of things, we have to wonder if they're going to try and recoup them on the front end. Take another good look at their proposed compensation for landowners.

Were Clean Line a traditional utility, that offer might be more impressive, if only because eminent domain laws in most states were written in a different era for a different kind of company (can you say municipal utility?). But Clean Line isn't a traditional utility, and for the vast majority of landowners we've talked to, their offer falls flat. These people have expressed virtually no confidence that Clean Line's "fair market value" offers for the proposed "right-of-way" will make them whole. Much less the yearly "bonus payment".

And, for the people we've talked to, Clean Line has done remarkably little to assuage those concerns. Aside from their "eminent domain access or bust!" actions, Clean Line has a habit of backhanding landowners and then claiming to really care about us.  Here's a hint, instead of denying landowners will see any property value decrease as a result of the line, how about agreeing to a later appraisal after which Clean Line would be responsible for any damages in value to the remaining property. No? Too expensive? How about that. Better yet, they could just take eminent domain off the table entirely, thereby treating landowners like the human beings they are.

Yes, Beth, the projects actually are putting a tremendous cost burden on Iowans... and Arkansans, Oklahomans, Missourians, Kansans, Tennesseans, and Illinoisans. Just smaller groups of them that don't have the same resources as consumer groups. Congratulations. Way to treat fellow Americans. How neighborly.

Eye Roll #1: Clean Line Energy's way with words.

We would like to conclude the Eye Roll Olympics with Clean Line Energy's apparently almost total inability to say anything regarding the opposition that doesn't appear to willfully diminish our positions or opinions. Maybe for some reason Clean Line's quotes just translate badly into text, but time and again they've given us tidbits that reek of entitlement and a truly questionable level of self-assurance. A recent example can be found in Michael Skelly's response to our ENTIRE federal congressional delegation after they met with Secretary Moniz to voice their (OUR) concerns about the project:

Clean Line CEO Michael Skelly recently told Talk Business & Politics during a trip to Little Rock that he has sat down and met with Senators Boozman and Cotton one-on-one to hear their concerns. 

“They have their views, and they have articulated those views, and we have a different view,” Skelly said. “But listen, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was passed and signed into law by then President (George) Bush. When we made our application under that law. If the rules change – then we will look at the new rules and try to make our project work.”

But listen, Mr. Skelly: Senator Boozman was in Congress when the 2005 Energy Policy Act was passed. He voted for it. If he thinks your company's business model doesn't meet the criteria of Section 1222, there's probably a good chance that it doesn't.

And, way to help your cause with the state you're trying to build your project in! We're sure comments like that make them more inclined to help you (eye roll).

So, as we all wait to see if the Department of Energy is going to try to use a previously untested law to force a few thousand landowners to capitulate to your vision, Mr. Skelly, you're busy making the media rounds again:

Clean Line may have found a work-around: a 10-year old act of Congress that would give the U.S. Department of Energy jurisdiction over new interstate transmission line projects. Clean Line is pursuing DOE approval for a power line proposed to run from western Oklahoma across Arkansas, into Tennessee. The project ran into stiff opposition in Arkansas, but Skelly says he expects confirmation from the DOE shortly.

And yet, in spite of that "work-around", Clean Line isn't doing as they threatened to shortly after the Missouri Public Service Commission denied their request for utility status... Instead of hitting the feds up for "siting authority" for Grain Belt, it looks like they're going to "sweeten the deal" locally:

Clean Line hasn’t taken the Grain Belt Express proposal to the Department of Energy. The company plans to re-file its application with the Missouri Public Service Commission, sweetening the deal somewhat with promises of low-cost, carbon-neutral power delivered to Missouri, and lots of jobs.

Things not all sunshine and daisies with your application at the DOE? But of course, Missouri and Arkansas have never heard promises of jobs and low-cost energy before, have they? Given another paragraph, there'd be a couple nice sentences about all the tax money they'll be offering Missouri, too! ;)

Mr. Skelly, we dub you: WINNER of the Eye Roll Olympics!

Iowa Utilities Board denies Clean Line's THIRD attempt to inconvenience landowners...

Yesterday, the Iowa Utilities Board denied Clean Line Energy's THIRD attempt to bend state law to make it more convenient and less expensive for them, and more inconvenient for landowners who are fighting the "Rock Island Clean Line" project. Here is the story:

 Associated Press

IOWA CITY, Iowa -- The Iowa Utilities Board has dealt another setback to a proposed $2 billion transmission line to ship Iowa wind energy to customers in Illinois.

The board on Monday rejected the third request by Clean Line Energy Partners to split the case into two separate hearings. The board stood by its plan to decide whether to approve the line and whether to grant the use of eminent domain in one hearing.

The company has said that approach means it has to invest "tens of millions of dollars" acquiring land while running the risk that regulators could reject the line as not in the public interest. Groups representing union workers and wind energy supporters backed its request.

But the board says splitting the case would be inconvenient for landowners fighting the project.

 The IUB decision has several highlights, and can be viewed in its entirety here.

Administrative efficiency and landowner convenience:

Please keep in mind: If the Department of Energy chooses to partner with Clean Line Energy in their pursuit of the "Plains and Eastern" project by granting them Section 1222 authority, landowners in Arkansas and Oklahoma would have NO hearing or opportunity to contest the case. 

Things are NOT going well for Clean Line in Iowa...

Here's what Iowa state lawmakers think of Clean Line's attempted land grab in that state, in part:

You are not a utility. You have no intention of letting Iowans plug in to your project, nor do you plan to let us sell power along your route. We hope that it doesn’t have to come to us passing legislation to keep you in check, but we will if it has to come to that. Please have no doubt that the House Government Oversight Committee will be watching your every move. We are tired of your threat to blight hundreds of landowners’ properties while you “weigh your options” or propose newly extended procedural schedules. 

We staunchly oppose the use of eminent domain for your project, and regulators in Missouri agree. Missouri has denied a “certificate of need and necessity” required to build one of your merchant lines through their state. Their rejection of eminent domain raises further concerns that your Grain Belt Express line will now need to be re-routed through our state and others, requiring an even bigger land-grab from Iowans for your commercial use.

In Arkansas, we agree! To read the rest, you'll have to click here.

Has the Department of Energy forgotten that they work for US?

Well, except when a private company such as Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC is paying the salaries of the people who are completing and analyzing Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC's application, of course. Could this smell any more like collusion and corruption if it tried? What are you hiding, DOE?

The people you work for want answers, and they want them NOW, Secretary Moniz.

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.

Germany is requiring new HVDC transmission lines to be buried, so why aren't we?

The German Federal Cabinet just required new HVDC transmission lines to be placed underground. Why? Apparently Germans object en masse to 150' tall, 200' wide transmission lines being constructed within a stone's throw from residences and marring beautiful countryside, too. Imagine that, right? According to the German Energy Blog:

On 7 October the Federal Cabinet (Bundeskabinett) approved changes of draft bill amending various laws concerning power line extension. The draft bill inter alia gives priority to underground cables instead of overhead lines in case of new high-voltage, direct current transmission lines (HVDC). 

Yesterday’s decision paves the way for a faster and supposedly more accepted grid expansion. This shall lead to more acceptance, as in many places residents raised major concerns against overhead lines, Federal Minister of Economics, Sigmar Gabriel said.

1. Priority of Underground Cabling for New HVDC Projects

The draft bill changes the provisions in the  Act on the Federal Requirement Plan (Bundesbedarfsplangesetz – BBPlG). Draft Sec. 3 para 1 BBPlG gives priority to underground cables in case of HVDC projects. Close to residential areas overhead lines shall be in general not admissible (Draft Sec. 3 para 4 BBPlG).

These changes concern primarily the major north-south routes as SuedLink (South Link) or South East HVDC. Both lines – originally planned as overhead lines – have faced substantial protest of the public, especially in the Federal State of Bavaria. With the amendments pubic acceptance shall improve.

2.  Extension of Pilot Projects for Three-Phase Electric Power Lines 

In opposition to HVDC lines the DC cable projects retain their character as pilot projects. The reason for this difference is that the risks (technical risks and costs risks) of underground cable are lower for DC transmission. Furthermore less experience exists.

Nevertheless the pilot projects shall be extended. The draft bill lists four projects in the BBPlG where an installation of underground cables is admissible if certain criteria are fulfilled (e.g. short distance to residential buildings: less than 400m in case of a zoning plan, less than 200m in outside areas). The draft BBPlG stipulates that an installation of underground cables is also possible if the criteria for an installation are only fulfilled for a section of the entire power line. 

3. Next Steps

The bill will now undergo the parliamentary process, including readings in the Bundestag. The aim is to conclude the discussions in  autumn, so that the law can enter into force quickly and the necessary planning of the transmission lines can be started or continued swiftly.

I had to use Google Translate to translate the document into English from German, but, according to the legislation directly: 

With the changes in the federal law requirements plan is for the planning and Construction of HVDC lines a priority of underground cabling in the Bundesfachpla- tion introduced. The broad acceptance of the citizens is a key element for the success of the energy turnaround. In particular, described the construction of HVDC lines There are special challenges. The increased use of underground cables can optionally contribute to the acceptance of these urgently needed Strengthening projects. From a technical point of view, between the AC and the DC area to distinguish. In the power transmission over long distances by means HVDC underground cabling has fewer risks in terms of technical implementation and the costs as a relatively underground cabling of rotation power lines over long distances. In addition, more experience is available with DC current underground cables over longer distances than with three-phase underground cables before.

and: 

In DC area, the existing principle that the route planning Overhead lines based vice versa. In HVDC lines underground cabling is the rule. In the vicinity of residential areas of the overhead line is even always un-admissible. This is the highest level of acceptance for this new Created DC lines. 

and: 

§ 3 BBPlG - new - is the central norm, the prioritization of underground cabling will be implemented for the new HVDC lines.

So, as a country, what are we going to do? Germany is already going through this. The people have spoken there, and they will continue to speak here: the status quo is unacceptable. The people will not be mowed over by a massive overhead HVDC transmission line in Germany that is necessary, and they most definitely will NOT be mowed over by a private LLC in the United States for a massive overhead HVDC transmission line that is absolutely NOT necessary.

Listen, I am a progressive. I don't get any money from the Koch brothers, and I sure don't think the Keystone Pipeline would be a fantastic addition to our country, but at least the states have the option of choosing whether or not to give eminent domain to TransCanada. I am in favor of renewable energy expansion, but it's going to have to be done properly. The technology exists to put things like this underground, despite what Clean Line tells you. One of the proposed transmission lines in Germany that caused this is a 500 mile, 500kV, 4,000mW HVDC line, the SuedLink. Sound familiar? Clean Line has only one reason they don't want to put it underground: return on investment for the executives and their billionaire investors.

But, you know what? I don't care about Clean Line's return on investment. What I care about is being treated with respect, my friends and neighbors being treated with respect, and I want to see our future infrastructure be built properly. There are going to be a lot of projects that come along. Some of them will be good ones, and some of them will be bad ones. Clean Line's projects, in my opinion, are bad ones, and they are being developed by, quite frankly, a few arrogant and potentially corrupt people. The people aren't going to accept that.

To any progressive lawmakers who may be reading this, or any others for that matter: If you want to get any of this kind of stuff done, you're going to have to start listening to the people. Bypassing state authority isn't going to do it, Senator Heinrich. The status quo is over. Social media will not allow the Clean Line model to work. It just won't. Take a lesson from the Germans who are a few years ahead of us.

Why are we all still here? I don't have an answer for you.

Some folks have some explaining to do, and it isn't us...

I am just going to leave this here. It speaks for itself:

When the Pictures Speak for Themselves...

Houston, we have a MAJOR problem...

Source

What is this "pending energy bill"? The 2005 Energy Policy Act. What did that bill include? Section 1222. The Department of Energy and Clean Line have some explaining to do. The people will not stand for this corporate abuse of power. Conflicts of interest abound.

Secretary Moniz, it is TIME!

Clean Line's proverbial pants are on fire...

So, it seems like Clean Line is a little bit touchy these days about their ties to the wind industry. Wind farms? What wind farms? Wind turbines? What are those? Michael Skelly is doing everything he can in his apparent "media tour" to assure folks that they aren't directly tied to the wind industry to which they wish to serve by building their massive, unnecessary transmission line. They even made a post on Facebook recently asserting this:

In a recent interview with the Sequoya County Times, Skelly reiterated this point:

"President of Clean Line, Michael Skelly, on Wednesday insisted that the wind energy industry is completely separate from the construction of the transmission lines."

Aren't you the folks who keep saying that the "grid is maxed out", and that wind farm development will be severely limited if your transmission line is not constructed? What type of energy are you hoping to move, again? I thought it was wind energy?

"Clean Line Energy is independent from any existing or planned wind energy generation"? Why did Diana Rivera say this in Clean Line's official comments on pages 3 and 4 that were submitted to the Department of Energy's triennial congestion study?

So, which is one is it, Clean Line? Does your project, or does it not, involve wind farms that are already planned, in construction, or currently constructed? Where on earth is your credibility, and how do you expect to gain the trust of the people who are to host your for-profit, unnecessary transmission line when you continue to make claims that contradict themselves? This information is readily available. Did you think we wouldn't find it? You should just come out and say it: "We have friends in the wind industry who want to make money building wind farms, and we want to make money building a transmission line." It is really pretty simple to see, don't you think? 

Since that is out of the way, I would like to take a few moments to show everyone just a few of the connections that Clean Line has with the wind industry. I will pull information directly from Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC's website. 

Let's start with Michael Skelly first. According to his profile:

Prior to founding Clean Line, Michael led the development of Horizon Wind Energy from a two-man company to a leadership position in the U.S. wind industry. Before Horizon, Michael developed thermal, hydroelectric, biomass and wind energy projects in Central America with Energia Global.

Lets take a look at what EDP Renewables (formerly Horizon Wind Energy) does:

EDP Renewables North America and its subsidiaries develop, construct, own and operate wind farms throughout North America. Based in Houston, Texas with 30 wind farms and 10 offices across the United States and Canada, EDP Renewables North America has developed more than 4,000 megawatts (MW) and operates over 3,800 MW of wind farms. With approximately 300 employees, EDPR North America’s highly qualified team has a proven capacity to execute projects and achieve goals. 

I am sure Michael Skelly cut all ties with Horizon Wind Energy when it was sold to Goldman Sachs in 2005, right? Of course! Wind power... what is that, again?

Now, let's have a look at Jimmy Glotfelty, co-founder of Clean Line Energy:

Jimmy worked for George W. Bush, for almost eight years, at both the gubernatorial and presidential levels. He led the Bush Administration’s efforts on electricity issues with Congress and the electric utility industry.  In this capacity, he founded Office of Electric Delivery and Energy Reliability at the Department of Energy (DOE) and served as its first Director.  This program is responsible for applied transmission and distribution (T&D) research and led to the creation of the nationally recognized GridWise Alliance. While at DOE Jimmy led the U.S. efforts to investigate the northeast blackout of August 2003 which called for the adoption of many technologies that have greatly improved the reliability of U.S. transmission system today.  Jimmy serves on the board of the Southeast Coastal Wind Coalition and the Tennessee Advanced Energy Business Council and recently rolled off of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) Board of Directors.

If the first emphasis isn't scary enough, given the fact that the Office of Energy Delivery and Reliability is the agency overseeing this entire process and project, the second, third, and fourth should help. Does anyone think Glotfelty cut ties with AWEA after his departure from the board of directors? AWEA is the leading lobbyist organization for the wind industry, after all. What is wind energy, again? Here's another good summary of Jimmy's career, if interested.

Jayshree Desai, Chief Operating Officer of Clean Line Energy:

Jayshree draws from an accomplished background in the wind energy industry to provide leadership at Clean Line. Before joining Clean Line, Jayshree was CFO of Horizon Wind Energy where she was responsible for corporate and project finance, accounting, tax, and information technology.  As CFO, she led Horizon Wind Energy through its sale to Goldman Sachs in 2005, the subsequent sale to Energias de Portugal in mid-2007, and the IPO of the renewables subsidiary in 2008. Prior to working at Horizon Wind Energy, Jayshree was a Director at Enron responsible for Mergers & Acquisitions and previously was a consultant for McKinsey & Company. Jayshree received a Bachelor’s degree from the University of Texas at Austin and an MBA from Wharton Business School, and serves on the Executive Board of KIPP Houston and on the board of the Wind Energy Foundation.

There's Horizon Wind Energy again. Enron? Do we want someone who was formerly with Enron managing a project that could cross our property? I don't, personally.

Hans Deitweiler, Vice President of Clean Line Energy:

Prior to joining Clean Line, Hans was Director of State Policy for the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), supervising all of AWEA’s direct state legislative campaigns and state regulatory efforts and serving as the primary liaison to AWEA’s regional partners. Previously, Hans was Deputy Director of the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity. Hans has also worked in a variety of policy and advocacy roles with organized labor and other non-profits. Hans holds a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Grinnell College, Grinnell, Iowa.

Dave Berry, Executive Vice President of Clean Line:

Prior to joining Clean Line, Dave was the Director of Finance for Horizon Wind Energy, where he led over $2 billion in project finance transactions and was responsible for investment analysis and transactions. Dave earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics and History from Rice University in 2005. He sits on the Board of the Partnership for the Advancement and Immersion of Refugees.

Wayne Galli, Executive Vice President - Transmission and Technical Services:

Most recently, he served as Director of Transmission Development for NextEra Energy Resources, where he was instrumental in developing transmission projects under the Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) initiative in Texas. 

And what does NextEra Energy do?

NextEra Energy is North America’s top producer of energy from the wind and the sun, with a greenhouse gas emissions rate among the lowest of any large power company.

I am sure I missed a person or two. You get the point. Clean Line trying to imply that it does not have ties to the wind industry and distance themselves from the very industry that they have had and still have intimate ties with is a lie. Rural, we are. Fools, we are NOT.

Secretary Moniz:

If the Southeast and the East Coast want wind energy, they need to develop it themselves...

Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC, would like to have everyone believe that their projects are necessary, and that progress in wind energy development will be stifled significantly if the Department of Energy doesn't elect to grant their for-profit venture the right to eminent domain to condemn roughly 17,000 acres in Arkansas and Oklahoma. This is, of course, a false dichotomy. Technology and progress in both offshore wind, as well as the potential for wind energy development in the Southeast are outpacing any implied need for this project. In short, this project will be obsolete before the first shovel hits the ground.

This is a good thing. The Department of Energy has no business granting favoritism to a private, for profit business venture in the first place. The country needs to be moving renewable energy forward in a smart way that benefits the country as a whole, not just a few billionaire investors.

Clean Line will tell you that the wind resources for the Southeast are inadequate for development, and that their idea is the best one to solve this problem. The reason they tell you this is because they use outdated wind resource maps to justify their (obsolete) position. Let me give you reasoning why.

In all of their supporting documentation, Clean Line likes to use the following image. This image represents the wind resources within the United States based upon an 80 meter turbine height:

Looking at that map, you might just buy into Clean Line's argument that their idea is a great idea for the Southeast. Generally the darker colors represent better wind resources with, apparently, few resources in the Southeastern U.S. The only problem with this: this map was created in 2011. Newer maps based upon newer data, taller turbines, and more efficient blade design have been created.

In the next example, I will show you current technology that is being deployed right now, as we speak, at the 110 meter turbine height. This map was released in November of 2014:

In the above map, as with the first, the darker the color, the higher the strength of wind resource available. You might say: "It still looks like the Southeast lacks the resources for wind to become a viable option for them." I would tell you that you are right. However, let's take a look at what happens to the resource potential in the Southeast when the latest technology in development is deployed. This technology will be deployed in the next few years, and would represent 140 meter turbine height:

In the above map, the Southeast looks just a little bit better for wind energy development, doesn't it? Clean Line won't show you this map, however, because it doesn't fit the narrative for their nearly six year old idea.

Let's now take a closer look at the wind resource in each state in the Southeast and apply new technology to it, shall we?

Arkansas:

 Tennessee:

North Carolina:

South Carolina:

Louisiana:

Mississippi:

Alabama:

Georgia:

Florida:

As you can see in the above up-to-date maps, the Southeast will be available for wind development in the very near future. This, however, doesn't even take into account the vast resources that are available off our coastlines, and particularly the Atlantic coast to which Clean Line would like to serve. The image below represents the potential wind resource that is housed within our coastal waters:

According to the Department of Energy:

Offshore wind resources are abundant, stronger, and blow more consistently than land-based wind resources. Data on the technical resource potential suggest more than 4,000,000 megawatts (MW) of capacity could be accessed in state and federal waters along the coasts of the United States and the Great Lakes. While not all of this resource potential will realistically be developed, the magnitude (approximately four times the combined generating capacity of all U.S. electric power plants) represents a substantial opportunity to generate electricity near coastal populations.

We are moving in that direction. In a recent article, it is noted that the Interior Department recently announced an environmental study that supports the lease of 300,000 acres off the coast of North Carolina. According to the article:

The Interior Department has released an environmental study that supports the potential lease of 300,000 acres off the North Carolina coast for wind farms. 

Leases could be sold to wind developers in three areas of federal waters off the coast. At least five companies have expressed interest in developing wind projects off North Carolina. 

“In close coordination with our partners in North Carolina, we are moving forward to determine what places make sense to harness the enormous wind energy potential off the Atlantic seaboard,” Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said in a statement Thursday.

The areas selected include about 122,000 acres 24 miles off Kitty Hawk, on the Outer Banks. An area of 51,000 acres is 10 miles off Wilmington and 133,000 acres is 15 miles off Bald Head Island near Southport, on the state’s southern tip. 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, part of the Interior Department, says those areas were picked because they protect views from shore and wildlife habitat. The wind zones would also not conflict with military operations, fishing or shipping.

Other areas are being investigated for development, as well. I will provide a more detailed offshore wind post in the future, as I don't want to make this post too long. If you have managed to make it this far, I appreciate your interest in this issue.

In closing, we are at a crossroads in this country regarding the development of renewable energy. With this post, I am not attempting to sway any person's opinion about any given source of energy. I haven't even gotten into the potential for distributed generation via solar and micro wind, biomass, and other technologies that are available. I simply write this to show everyone that, of all the options we have, Clean Line's is likely the most damaging to private landowners, the least environmentally responsible, and the least beneficial to the country as a whole.

As the states of Oklahoma and Arkansas, and as a country, we are going to have to decide which direction we are going to take. Are we going to allow an inexperienced company that was formed in 2009 that has never built anything with an outdated idea trample all over private property rights by using Section 1222 federal eminent domain to construct a 720 mile long transmission line through tornado alley, areas sacred to tribes, thousands of parcels of private land that people have been planning their futures around for multiple generations, obsolete before construction has commenced, all for the private gain of a few billionaires? Or, are we going to embrace new technologies that are local to the load centers they are to service, beneficial to local economies that are spread across the country, more secure and more efficient, and less damaging to individual populations?

I happen to think the answer is pretty clear. In a letter from Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman, dated April 5, 2012, he laid out the conditions by which the DoE would enter into an advanced funding agreement with Clean Line. One of the conditions is as follows:

There are literally thousands of people who are under tremendous amounts of stress, putting future plans on hold, wasting countless hours of time, money, and resources, on behalf of this bad idea. It is time for Secretary Moniz to utilize his exit clause.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2015/01/22/4495889/feds-propose-wind-energy-leases.html#storylink=cpy