Clean Line Dealt Significant Blow in Missouri...

Three strikes and Clean Line’s OUT in Missouri? For our friends up there, we hope so.

Investors: We hope you’re getting as weary as we think you should be.

Remember back in March when we explained that things weren’t looking good for Clean Line in Missouri? Yesterday, in a devastating (but not wholly unexpected) blow, the Missouri Public Service Commission unanimously denied Clean Line’s application for its’ proposed “Grain Belt Express” transmission project.

The landowners and others who organized to protect property rights in Missouri are amazing! Two different projects with two different sets of landowners unexpectedly came together to help deliver a voice to rural landowners (and a message to special interests) across the country. Let their dedication and hard work be an example for what can be accomplished if you work together and NEVER give up.

We’re going to keep this pretty simple today, because we are absolutely sick and tired of dealing with these “folks." That’s the nicest label Ali and I could come up with… we had others in mind. Let us sum up in the simplest terms possible:

1) Projects must benefit local communities. Not in a vague “taxes, jobs, economic development” kind of way, but in a substantial way that encourages the enthusiastic blessing of the people most directly affected by any project. The experience a company such as Clean Line has with landowners is directly proportional to the respect those landowners are given. Maybe that’s a hint about why you’ve found so much opposition to your projects?

2) You can’t force landowners to participate in venture-capitalist schemes. You just can’t. It is not our job to make you money. We don’t owe you our sweat equity. We’re already productive members of society and many of us have made sacrifices to infrastructure that you wouldn’t tolerate in the backyard of your McMansions. We don’t care about your investors, or their return on their investment. We just. Don’t. Care. It’s not our fault they made a bad investment in you. People make bad investments every single day. Maybe the Ziffs will take one less ride in their private jet this year, or buy one less yacht or “summer home.” Cry us a long and winding river.

3) Whining doesn’t help.

"We absolutely want to do the project," said Mark Lawlor, development director for Grain Belt Express. But he added: "Unfortunately, the message that we're getting from Missouri is that investments of these kind might be better spent in other places."

and:

Lawlor said the four commissioners' belief that the project was worthwhile but not approvable under state law "makes for an interesting argument" if Clean Line decides to instead seek federal permission to proceed.

And, what’s up with the hollow threat (again) to get the feds involved? Another multi-year-long, ~$100 million process? Doubtful. If you feel like you’re up to that challenge, we’re ready and willing to share our experience(s) and knowledge with our friends in Missouri.

Maybe that's why you've spent $750k on lobbyists in DC in the first half of this year, eh? (One such lobbyist being Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson's former Chief of Staff... but, more on that later.) I guess his newfound "opportunity" included being a lobbyist for Clean Line. Revolving-door politics is everywhere.

What really matters:

Despite the bluff and bluster coming from Clean Line, the positive things the Commission said about Grain Belt Express (in what seems like as much C-Y-A as it does genuine praise), and the "Blame Game" going around between Clean Line, the Commissioners, and the environmental groups... at the end of the day, only ONE fact remains:

YOU LOST, Clean Line. You can try to spin it however you like, but you still can’t build that transmission line in Missouri. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Case closed.

Congratulations on your win, Missouri!

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!

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

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

The cart is still before the horse...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Son, the Doctor...

Taking back NIMBY...

I know I promised new writers (and they are coming), but I have to take one more whack at eminent domain. This is why…

So, a banker, an energy industry worker, and a land agent stumble onto a post…

I confess. A few days after ribbing Clean Line for “sponsoring” ads on Facebook, we boosted a post for our petition with the help of the Arkansas Citizens Against Clean Line Energy page. I know, I know… but we thought it would really help us reach more people. We were right. And out of the many, many people who viewed our post, we only got negative comments from three.  The land agent was by far the most entertaining. I’m blocking out his name and picture here on the off chance that he actually works for Contract Land Staff and used some bad judgment in breaking Clean Line’s Code of Conduct.  It’s his job… He’s defensive… We get it. We’re all human.

Of course, as a rule we don’t remove comments. People sometimes, but comments never. Why? Because that’s playing pretty dirty (cough, cough) and because if we can’t defend our position, publicly, we don’t really have one.

Aside from pointing out the obvious irony in his statement, I want you to pick up on the essence of what he’s saying… No, not that we don’t know what we’re talking about. See if you can guess…

Got it? It’s essentially the same thing we got from the other two people… And what I’ve heard from a couple more as well, members of the Sierra Club specifically... 

“We all have to make sacrifices and it’s not like they take the land for free. It’s just NIMBY.”

Now, aside from the fact that the people who say that most often aren’t the ones being asked to make the sacrifice, I have a real problem with anyone who dismisses another person’s situation out of hand because of what they judge it to be. That denotes a rather disturbing lack of empathy and almost seems like a kind of defense mechanism to keep the dismissor from having to think too long and hard about what they’re suggesting. It’s like people who tell other people that they’re going to Hell without the slightest real consideration of what they are so flippantly condemning someone to. Whether you’re a believer of not, especially if you are, that’s not cool.

But how do you really wrap your head around what eminent domain does? How do you explain a taking to someone who’s never experienced it? Because really, there is no other area in our lives where something like eminent domain is acceptable. Yes, we pay taxes… but we all pay them. Some more than others, but still. This gets into why it is so important that eminent domain be so carefully guarded... Used so sparingly and with such thought and consideration. It’s hard to answer the question, “When is eminent domain okay?” It’s almost easier to identify when it isn’t. But rather than get into all that… again, let’s do this…

I propose a thought experiment. An exercise in empathy. C’mon… It’ll be fun and I’ll get to show off my babies.

Babies! What kind of warped mother compares her babies to property?

Ugh, I know! But stay with me through this part and then you can bail if you want… because this is gonna be long.

First of all, there is nothing more precious to me than my kids. For a lot of people on this line, and the others, the same is true… but their land is a close second. Why? Because it’s what they live off of. It’s their retirement plan. It’s what they’ll leave for their children. It’s their past, present, and future. And, like our children, we only get to nurture it for a little while. We are the stewards. The protectors. We are responsible for what it becomes.

Second, children are what is most precious to most of us. At this point, I can’t think of any other group of beings so universally adored and for whom most of us have some kind of connection. So, no, children are not the same as land, but windmills are not the same as transmission lines and goodness knows Clean Line has enough pictures of turbines on their literature, so here we go…

This is my son. He’s in disguise to protect his privacy. He’s nine and he’s brilliant. Not in a “River Tam before the Alliance summer camp” kind of way, but brilliant. He reads at an eleventh grade level. Math comes easy. So does science. Getting dressed, not so much. He comes out of his room with his undershirt over his flannel on a regular basis. His shoes are always untied… or knotted beyond belief with the loose ends trailing behind him. He’s incredibly sensitive to the needs and emotional temperature of other people. He has a deep sense of justice… a regard for the dignity of others.

This is my daughter… burping. You can’t tell from this picture how incredibly beautiful she is. We call her “The General” because, from infancy, she has had a remarkable ability to shape her environment (and the people in it) to suit her needs. She is also brilliant, but where my son is less concerned with the temporal, she has a common sense that is frighteningly efficient.

This is my baby. I’m not sure who he’ll be quite yet. He’s musical. He rocks the harmonica and sings all the time. He’s also a snuggler, apt to run up and hug a stranger’s legs. He likes to grab my face, a tiny hand on each cheek, look deep into my eyes, and nod. I don’t know what he’s nodding at, but he says, “YES!!” with his whole little being.

So, during this experiment you are going to be me. My family is your family… And I am going to come for your son...

I work for a company partnering with the government to find children we think will make excellent doctors. There’s a shortage of doctors, especially primary care physicians, and while we think you are doing a perfectly adequate job of raising your son, if we take him now and turn him into a doctor, the public will benefit in the long run.

How will they benefit? Well, the school we plan to use to train him will benefit from the influx of resources. Eventually, his patients will benefit. And, of course the company will make a profit. And we can’t forget about the nurses. Don’t you care about the nurses? They need jobs. How selfish of you not to give up your son for the nurses. Don’t you care about other people?

Besides, it’s not like you won’t see him. There will be a video feed. Everyday you’ll be able to see him. You can’t kiss him, you can’t hug him, and you certainly can’t make any decisions about his future. You will be required to pay for his room and board, but we’re going to give you a puppy to make this easier for you. Don’t you want a puppy? Fine, we’ll give you two puppies and some cash. There, aren’t you happy now?

No? I don’t understand why not. No offense, but it really doesn’t matter that he wants to be a paleontologist. All nine year olds want to be paleontologists. This is better. This is about a better future. If we want a better future, we all have to make sacrifices. People have been sacrificing their children since Mayan times, why should you be treated differently. This is the way it’s always been done. We can’t change it.

I understand your concerns, but if we wait a few more years, it’ll take him longer to graduate and we’ll lose the income he could have been producing (besides, advances in tele-medicine could make this program obsolete by then). Physician’s assistants? Nurse practitioners? No, those things don’t work. It has to be this way. This is the only way that makes sense for us. And, frankly, you can’t afford to take us to court. We have more money, connections, and expertise than you do, and when it’s all over we’ll just take him anyway. The most the court will give you is more cash and puppies. You don’t get to argue whether it’s fair for us to take him in the first place. Don't bother, you’ll just be giving money to the lawyers. Hey, everybody’s got to have a doctor.

Oh, goodness, no. He won’t come back here to practice. There aren’t enough patients here. He’ll be in Charlotte, or maybe Richmond… We’re not really sure. We don’t have any places set up for him to work yet, but it won’t be here. Maybe he can come back for Christmas, but we can’t guarantee anything. We’re not going to commit to that yet, that’s just one of the alternatives we’re looking at.

Can you have him back if it doesn’t work out? No, you don’t get him back. We’ll just sell him to another firm… Which we might do anyway, in which case, they’ll have different rules for you, but no more cash or puppies.

Why, no... We’ve never done a project quite like this before, though we’ve been in the medical industry for years. We’re brand new. Isn’t that innovative? Don’t you trust us? Here, look at this art deco sculpture of a doctor. Doesn’t that make you feel better? See, I’m smiling. I’m nice, right? You can’t be upset about this if I smile and act nice.

I don’t understand why you say you’ve never heard of us before. We sent you a postcard. No, it didn’t say that we wanted to take your son, but it said we were thinking about starting a school. I don’t know why you wouldn’t have seen it. We’ve been very active in the community-- We’ve been talking to literacy campaigns and state/federal officials about this for years. We took out ads in the paper. You don’t read the newspaper every day? Oh, well. I guess you don’t deserve to have a say in what happens to your kid if you’re not going to read the paper every day.

Now, before I leave, I have to tell you… I’m looking at your daughter. I’m not really sure if I’ll be back for her yet. I have to see how things pan out, but she’s a very smart young lady. Why are you crying? You’ll get another puppy! And you still have your baby. But you should know that I can come back for him at any time also. If fact, I, or someone from another company, can come back for any child you have or may ever have. There’s no requirement that we stop taking them after we’ve taken so many. We may have to eventually pay for you to have another if we’re using the federal government to do it, but not if we’re using the state. Anyway, we can take that child away, too.  It just makes more sense, don’t you see? It's for the public good. You’ve already given up a child. In some vague way here, I’m acknowledging the damage I’ve done to you, but only in the sense that since the damage has already been done, it’s easier to hurt you more than to start fresh with someone else. You don’t want anyone else to be hurt do you? Though I still don’t understand why you’re upset. Puppies! Cash! Yay!

Ugh, I’m so tired of people like you, you know that? All you NOOMK’s. That’s what it is you know, you’re just a NOOMK—Not One of My Kids. You don’t have any real objections to this project. No real justification for not wanting to give him to us. Nothing you’ve said tonight meets our criteria for a real concern. You’re just rationalizing your NOOMK-ism. It’s sad really, that you are so very selfish.

Whew! Okay. Well, I hope that gives someone a little perspective. Now obviously there are going to be some people who are really okay with, or even want, the transmission line (or at least I hope there are since Clean Line seems to think they’ll be able to “negotiate” the majority of the line—with eminent domain at their back of course), and that’s their prerogative (though it may suck for neighbors not hosting the line who'll lose property value). This exercise is about those people who don’t want it. Of course, I've used a touch of hyperbole, but I’m not quite sure how else to get through. I feel a bit like the guy in Whoville trying to find that one last “yip” or “yop” to break through the atmosphere.

We are not unaware of the world around us. We’re not oblivious to climate change. We’re not blissfully revving our engines (at least not most of us). We live the land. The drought that Diana Rivera referred to in her Congestion Study comment… we lived it. All we are saying… Well, all I’m saying... is that there has got to be a better way than this. And if we don’t stand up and say it now, the future of our energy industry is going to work a lot like the past… except meaner and more streamlined, with even less local control.

Let me be clear, the responsibility for the opposition that is blossoming in every state in which Clean Line is proposing a project falls directly on their own shoulders. It has a lot less to do with NIMBY than it does with Clean Line’s failure to effectively and proactively engage the people who will be most directly impacted by their projects. And the people out there, few as they have been, who feel so smug in throwing out the NIMBY label, need to pull their heads out of Clean Line’s pretty, glossy brochures and think hard about what that acronym really means.