Who wants some (MORE) Clean Line whine?

If you hadn't noticed, Clean Line is having a pretty rough go of it these days. I thought I would provide a little update, because I wouldn't want anyone who is interested (*coughINVESTORScough*) to miss out on anything important.

1) Clean Line denied a third time in Missouri:

As many of you probably already know, on August 16, Clean Line was denied for a third time in its bid to become classified a "public utility" (with the added benefit of eminent domain) in Missouri. We wrote about that here so I won't go into much detail, but it definitely put a wrinkle in their plan.

2) Tennessee Valley Authority says "thanks, but no thanks" to Clean Line:

This one speaks for itself.

The cost of meeting TVA's power demand also involves more than just the marginal costs of what intermittent power producers such as wind and solar generators can quote for TVA, Johnson said. 

Clean Line Energy Partners, a Houston-based company that proposes to bring wind-generated power from Oklahoma and Texas to the Southeast along a $2.5 billion transmission line, says it could deliver power to TVA at less than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour. 

TVA signed a memorandum of understanding with Clean Line Energy in 2011 to study the proposal. But the utility has yet to commit to buying any of the 3,500 megawatts of wind-generated power Clean Line Energy will bring to the western edge of TVA's territory along its 720-mile transmission line from near Diamond, Okla. 

TVA said it doesn't need more power generation because of the stagnant demand for electricity in its seven-state region, and Johnson said TVA still would have to maintain or build other generation capacity to make up for the Clean Line energy when the wind doesn't blow.  

Johnson said "it is hard for us to fit that [Clean Line Power generation] in our portfolio," but he said "we are evaluating it closely." 

"Wind comes at night between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. when demand dips, so for us to take that we have to turn down nuclear plants, which essentially have no fuel costs, and we really don't want to do that," Johnson said. 

The production tax credits that would help keep Clean Line Energy rates lower are declining and will phase out completely for new wind turbines built after 2020, "so we shouldn't be delaying a decision on this great opportunity," Smith said. 

But Johnson said production tax credits "are really not our issue" and TVA must evaluate the price options for wind, solar and other intermittent sources of power based upon the full costs to the agency. 

"The price [from Clean Line Power], in and of itself, is a good price for wind," Johnson said. "But it actually costs us a lot more to import it and to make sure we have gas plants running or capable of running in case the wind doesn't show up." 

Johnson estimates having the additional capacity to make up for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine typically adds at least 2 cents per kilowatt-hour to the quoted price of such renewable energy. 

"At the moment, we have yet to conclude that [buying power from Clean Line Energy] is the right fit for what we are doing," he said.

3) Clean Line denied rehearing at the Missouri Public Service Commission:

This one is pretty simple. Clean Line requested a rehearing after their denial at the MOPSC. This was more out of procedure for Clean Line so (after denial of the rehearing) they could move on to the appeals process. Which is next on the list...

4) Clean Line appeals Missouri PSC decision and hired big, scary (but voted out), ex-governor Jay Nixon to represent them:

I would think an ex-governor would be fairly expensive, but since Clean Line seems to think money can buy their way through anything, they went ahead and hired former Missouri Governor Jay Nixon as their legal counsel for their appeal. I guess they thought having a flashy ex-governor as their legal counsel might in some way sway the opinion of the court. Good luck with that strategy, guys.

It sort of seems like Clean Line has too many fires and not enough firemen to put them out, doesn't it? It's almost like they start trying to implement one PR strategy and then, within days, another fire gets lit that upends arguments they've made previously. We'll see if they continue to attempt to mislead everyone in the various states they're operating in, or if they will begin acknowledging the situation they currently find themselves in. A good example would be:

5) Clean Line acquires "legal hangnail" (Read: Legal Death Knell) in Illinois for its' proposed "Rock Island" project:

Just a few days after Clean Line hired former Governor Nixon and attempted to convince the media and everyone else that Missouri is the only state holding up the process and that they should just get out of the way, the Illinois Supreme Court handed them a decision that could represent a death knell for both their Rock Island and Grain Belt projects in Illinois.

Quite a while back, the Illinois Landowner Alliance filed an appeal with the Third District Court of Appeals contending that the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) erred in granting Rock Island public utility status. Later, that court determined that the ICC had, in fact, erred, and the order granting them utility status was reversed. Clean Line didn't like this, of course, so they appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. The Illinois Supreme Court took the case and handed down a unanimous opinion reaffirming the lower court's opinion that Clean Line does NOT meet the definition of a public utility in that state.

How does this potentially apply to Clean Line's proposed "Grain Belt Express" line in Illinois? Well, the Concerned Citizens and Property Owners group (composed of landowners and citizens opposed to Grain Belt Express) appealed the ICC's order granting Clean Line a CCN for that project at the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Illinois. While that case is still pending, and the arguments are slightly different, it seems like a near certainty that the Fifth District will also state that the ICC erred in granting Grain Belt Express a CCN for that project.

A decision in that case is expected any time, so watch that one closely. So much for a "legal hangnail." As a good friend of mine stated to me: "Clean Line should be given props for being able to find a silver lining in literally anything."

6) On Monday, the Arkansas congressional delegation met with Secretary Perry about its' concerns with the proposed "Plains and Eastern" project:

Early this week, our full Arkansas congressional delegation went to the Department of Energy (DOE) to meet with Secretary Rick Perry about their concerns regarding the department's participation in Clean Line's proposed "Plains & Eastern" HVDC line. More here, as well.

Now, as anyone who has been paying attention to this issue for the last few years is aware, Clean Line was denied utility status at the state PSC way back in 2011. They saw an opening at the federal level with Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act and they took it.

Over the past few years, there has been plenty of analysis and speculation about why and how a Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued by the DOE with such perfect timing as it applies to Clean Line's project. However, even assuming everything was on the up and up and the sudden "need" for a merchant transmission line was kismet (Ali's word, lol) or simple serendipity, there are issues with the statute and its application to this proposed project.

There are only so many ways you can beat a dead horse, but the process (or lack thereof) as it pertains to Section 1222 has been painfully insufficient and has, quite frankly, sucked. It is nice to see that the desire exists within Secretary Perry's office to revisit that process. Thank you! We stand ready to assist you in providing our experience with it.

7) Cherokee Nation Council rejects resolution to grant Clean Line easement in Oklahoma.

Wow, this is a MUST watch. It sounds like someone sent out a memo that had some pretty threatening language toward the Cherokee Council in it, doesn't it? Classy stuff, guys. It's pretty sickening, if you ask me.

That's all we've got for now! Hope you enjoy. :)

Golden Bridge Comment on Delegation Meeting with DOE's Secretary Perry

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

September 28, 2017

Contact: GoldenBridgeAR@gmail.com

On September 25, 2017, the Arkansas Congressional delegation, composed of U.S. Senators John Boozman (R-AR) and Tom Cotton (R-AR) and U.S. Representatives Rick Crawford (AR-01), French Hill (AR-02), Steve Womack (AR-03) and Bruce Westerman (AR-04), met with Secretary Rick Perry of the U.S. Department of Energy to discuss the preservation of states’ rights as they pertain to transmission line development and to the federal review of Clean Line Energy Partners’ proposed Plains and Eastern Clean Line Project. Senator Boozman’s press release on the meeting can be found here:

https://www.boozman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=58142CB4-200A-4077-BB22-6A4D84DF7967

Golden Bridge, LLC, would like to thank each member of Arkansas Delegation once again for their continued attention to the issues surrounding Section 1222 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act.

As an organization, we believe the process by which the Department of Energy determined to participate with Clean Line Energy Partners was flawed, and that the participation itself is built on a faulty premise that the State of Arkansas lacks authority to review Clean Line’s proposals.

Arkansas maintains robust procedures for the siting and development of transmission lines. Procedures that ensure the protection of local communities and their residents, and provide impacted individuals with a legally recognized process.

We appreciate the Arkansas delegation’s recognition that Section 1222 does not provide the same level of protection for landowners or the state. The ability to submit comments on an application does not provide due process for Arkansas landowners whose property may be taken in a scheme to use federal eminent domain for Clean Line’s gain.

Golden Bridge, along with Downwind, LLC, filed a legal challenge against Department of Energy to address these concerns. The organizations are committed to the cause and will continue their pursuit of these issues in each and every available forum.

“The balance between federalism and states’ rights is a delicate one, even though it’s often generalized and politicized,” said Alison Millsaps, a founding member of Golden Bridge, LLC. “We believe there are serious and valid issues of overreach in this instance. The Arkansas Public Service Commission denied Clean Line’s application for utility status in 2011, and invited Clean Line to return to the Commission when it revised its plans. The federal government should not exist simply as a vehicle to override established state decisions and statutory requirements. Clean Line often purports to have an interest in caring for the landowners and communities they want to put their line through. However, Clean Line’s attempt to go around Arkansas’s regulatory body speaks volumes regarding its true intentions.

###

January 2017: Clean Line Post-Election Update...

Happy (belated) New Year from Ali and Dave!

We sincerely hope you had a wonderful, Clean Line-free holiday season. Unfortunately, with the holidays coming to a close, we all have to remain informed and vigilant. Remember, while many of you only found out about this project in late 2014, Michael Skelly and crew have been actively attempting to execute this boondoggle since 2009... maybe earlier. It's hard to say with certainty exactly when the idea for this first arose. As we have written about before, Jimmy Glotfelty (cofounder of Clean Line) lobbied Congress in 2003 during his stint at the Department of Energy (DOE) in support of the very same provisions (Section 1221 & 1222) that his company is attempting to utilize now. We thought we would take this opportunity to provide you with an update, as well as a few things you should be paying attention to as we move through 2017:

Donald Trump, Scott Pruitt, and Rick Perry

Donald Trump:

As a rule, we keep politics out of this issue. It is not a political issue. It is a private property and states' rights issue. However, as all of us are aware, we had an election last year. Hate it or love it: Donald Trump was sworn in as President of the United States of America on January 20. Elections have consequences. As a good friend of ours stated a couple days after the election: "I'll bet Clean Line woke up and sh*t their pants on November 9." We tend to agree. To say the results of the election were anything less than unexpected would be an understatement. Jimmy Glotfelty has already attempted to set the stage for a change in conversation at the TVA board:

"Election Day was a big sea change in America," Jimmy Glotfelty, executive vice president for Clean Line Energy Partners, told the TVA board last week. "But we believe that just because we've gone from Democrats to Republicans (in the White House) that does not change the need for jobs and low-cost energy in America and we believe we will provide that. We've been before this board for the past seven years and our project dynamics have not changed."

But the truth is that no one can say right now what the Trump presidency means for Clean Line, which is due in part to the very nature of the project. Yes, it represents private investment in infrastructure, but it also represents an example of gross federal overreach in which the Department of Energy virtually ignored not only state law, but an established state PSC ruling.

With past comments like these, it will be interesting to see what his position is:

Scott Pruitt:

As some of you may remember, Scott Pruitt is the Oklahoma Attorney General. During the comment periods for both the NEPA review and the Section 1222 "review", his office issued scathing comments in landowners' and states' favor in opposition to the process being used to advance this project.

Why is that important? Because Scott Pruitt has been nominated to become the next EPA Administrator. He has been a staunch opponent of the "Clean Power Plan" (CPP). The CPP has been a primary justification by Clean Line for the "necessity" of their line. Under a Trump administration, the CPP will likely be nullified. Love it or hate it, it is what it is.

If you're interested in viewing Mr. Pruitt's confirmation hearing, you can do so here (Part 1):

and here (Part 2):

Rick Perry:

Why is former Texas Governor Rick Perry involved in this? Because he has been nominated to be the next Secretary of the Department of Energy. He is sort of a wild card. While he is mostly an oil and gas person, he also supported the so-called "Competitive Renewable Energy Zone" (CREZ) transmission expansion for wind energy in Texas. Many environmental-types seem to see this as a positive attribute in Perry for renewable energy. Others see this support as having been less about wind energy, and more about an economic opportunity for Texas. The CREZ lines were concocted and approved IN Texas, FOR Texas. Whether or not support for larger projects like Clean Line's translates to support from Mr. Perry at the federal level remains to be seen. He is known for being a staunch states-rights advocate. In fact, Mr. Perry wrote in a 2009 blog post:

The Founding Fathers understood that a one-size-fits-all approach just doesn’t work, especially in a country the size of America, and it certainly doesn’t work for Texas. Our economic strength, compared to the federal budget mess and other states’ troubles, is evidence that Texans know what’s best for Texas. 

The Constitution simply does not empower the federal government to override state laws without restraint. 

I agree with Texas’ 7th governor, Sam Houston, who once said, “Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may.”

We didn’t like oppression then and we certainly don’t like it now. Unfortunately, pressure is increasing from a federal government that is growing increasingly oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state.

Also:

In his book, he sets out a view that the founders intended a federal system that allowed “people of like mind” in the states to make their own decisions about how to live, while the national government’s role was properly focused on national security. “From marriage to prayer, from zoning laws to tax policy, from our school systems to health care, and everything in between,” he wrote, “it is essential to our liberty that we be allowed to live as we see fit through the democratic process at the local and state level.”

While we don't have much indication as to which side Mr. Perry will ultimately fall on RE: Clean Line, we are paying attention. We stand ready to work with the new DOE Secretary (whether Perry or someone else) on this important issue. We are hopeful Mr. Perry, if confirmed, will bring the same respect and zeal for states' rights to the Department of Energy.

If you're interested in listening to Mr. Perry's confirmation hearing, it can be viewed here:

Tax Credits for the Wind Industry

Federal Production Tax Credit Down 20% in 2017:

As you may know, Congress passed an extension to the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for the wind industry in late 2015. However, a year-over-year PTC reduction will occur until the end of 2019:

The tax credit is phased down for wind facilities and expires for other technologies commencing construction after December 31, 2016. The phase-down for wind facilities is described as a percentage reduction in the tax credit amount described above: 

• For wind facilities commencing construction in 2017, the PTC amount is reduced by 20% 
• For wind facilities commencing construction in 2018, the PTC amount is reduced by 40% 
• For wind facilities commencing construction in 2019, the PTC amount is reduced by 60%

Oklahoma's Budget Deficit and In-State Wind Tax Credits:

As many of our readers may know (Oklahoma's, especially), Oklahoma has, by state standards, a massive budget deficit. From a recent article:

(Reuters) - Oklahoma's budget deficit will be $868 million next year, higher than recent estimates as sustained low oil prices, tax cuts and corporate tax credits continue to weigh on the state's finances, the Oklahoman newspaper reported on Tuesday. 

Governor Mary Fallin estimated just days ago that the state would face a $600 million gap for the 2018 fiscal budget year, but Finance Secretary Preston Doerflinger told reporters at a news conference on Tuesday that the hole will be deeper.
A $900 million budget shortfall would represent nearly 15 percent of its expected $6 billion in spending power. 

With less money to spend, state lawmakers could choose to make cuts to government services like education and health care or raise taxes. 

"I think it's important for everybody to realize you're not cutting your way out of this situation," Doerflinger said. "We have to have a serious conversation about revenue."

One of the "corporate tax credits" weighing on Oklahoma's budget is a state tax credit for wind energy. Tax credits paid by taxpayers to (mostly out-of-state) wind companies have ballooned in the past few years:

"Oklahoma is bankrupt and unable to pay its bills because of $1 billion worth of tax cuts, hundreds of millions of dollars in gross production tax giveaways to the oil and gas industry, and $2 billion worth of tax credits and exemptions to wealthy corporations, all of which this governor supported," said House Democratic leader Rep. Scott Inman, of Oklahoma City. "That's the reason we're in this mess. To get out of it, we need to roll back those irresponsible tax plans, not raise taxes on working families." 

Another likely target for revenue will be some of those hundreds of millions of dollars in incentives Inman spoke of — specifically a credit for the production of wind energy that an independent consulting group has recommended be capped or ended. Payments under that program have skyrocketed from $3.7 million in 2010 to more than $113 million in 2014.

Numbers were not available for 2015 and 2016, but many, many more wind turbines have been constructed in Oklahoma in those two years. That number would have to be much higher for 2016. What do you think the 2,000 additional wind turbines Clean Line would like to see constructed in the Oklahoma panhandle would do to that figure? Our opinion: since wind tax credits account for at least 15% of Oklahoma's budget deficit, lawmakers in that state are going to be required to get serious about capping or eliminating them in the 2017 session. Will they wind up with a result that is fair to Oklahoma taxpayers? Who knows. In this age of "pay-to-play" politics, we would say that nothing would be surprising.

Relation to Clean Line:

So, how does this relate to the Plains and Eastern (P&E) project? Quite simply, as the years progress, Clean Line's "delivered product" becomes more expensive and less financially appealing to end-use utilities. The price of delivered energy on P&E to an end-use utility (such as TVA, Georgia Power, etc) is composed of the price a wind generator can produce the energy for, added to the cost of delivery Clean Line will charge to deliver the electricity to the TVA system, plus whatever TVA would charge to wheel that electricity through their system to them. If the cost of the electricity rises on the generation end, the cost of the electricity on the receiving end rises, as well. So, how does this relate to the TVA?

Clean Line and the Tennessee Valley Authority

As discussed above, the "prime time" to sign up for capacity on Clean Line's proposed transmission line was by the end of last year. And, Clean Line and others have parsed no words in attempting to push TVA to sign a contract for electricity on Plains and Eastern. Take, for example, this fluffy article from Dave Flessner that seemed to imply that TVA was right on the brink of signing a contract with Clean Line before year's end:

The Tennessee Valley Authority is studying whether to contract this year to buy into what would be one of the biggest wind energy projects in the country. 

Despite last week's election of a new president who has pledged his support for more fossil fuel power generation, TVA President Bill Johnson said the utility is still studying whether to ink a deal in the next six weeks to buy at least some of the wind-generated power windmills a Houston group is trying to transfer across the middle of America. 

Clean Line Energy Partners LLC is planning to build high-voltage, long-distance transmission lines to carry power generated by windmills in Texas and Oklahoma to the Tennessee Valley. The development group wants to reach a deal with TVA to buy its power before the end of this year to take advantage of maximum federal tax incentives for wind generation that will not be as generous after this year.

Or, this earlier article by Mr. Flessner with an equal amount of fluff (there seems to be a pattern with him):

Jimmy Glotfelty, executive vice president for Clean Line Energy Partners, told the TVA board last week that it could deliver wind-generated power from Oklahoma and Texas up to 60 percent of the time at around 3 to 3.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is cheaper than some of TVA's other energy costs. Such wind-generated power could be available in two to three years after new wind turbines are erected in Oklahoma and Texas, where the wind blows more steadily than in the Southeast, and after Clean Line builds its proposed 700-mile line from the panhandle of Texas to Memphis. 

The cost will be cheaper this year because the maximum federal production tax credits, worth the equivalent of 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour, will begin to decrease after Jan. 1."We continue to have strong discussion with utilities in the Southeast and we continue to have productive talks with TVA because we believe this is a very competitive source of clean energy which we think would add value to their portfolio," Glotfelty said.

(If you're interested in watching Mr. Glotfelty plead as an ordinary citizen for TVA to purchase their "product" before the end of 2016 at their August 2016 board meeting, click here and fast forward to minute 138:00 or 2:18:00, or at their November 2016 board meeting by clicking here and fast forwarding to minute 35:00 or 0:35:00.)

Environmental groups have also been lobbying TVA hard to sign a contract with Clean Line by the end of 2016. Back in August, Dr. Stephen Smith of the "Southern Alliance for Clean Energy" even went so far as attempting to offer the Plains and Eastern transmission project as a potential aid in the solution to the Zika virus (it's hard to make this stuff up, folks). In November, Allie Brown (also of SACE) had this to say:

Clean Line’s transmission project is a no-brainer for TVA and other Southern electric companies to buy into. It will help diversify our energy mix, create tens of thousands of jobs, protect natural resources, and provide health benefits by decreasing pollution from fossil-fuel generation in our region. 

Critical deadlines regarding the federal production tax credit for wind power are fast approaching. Fortunately, contracts for wind power can be signed today, but can take delivery as late as December 2020, and still qualify for the important tax incentive. We strongly encourage TVA’s board of directors to immediately contract for at least 1,000 megawatts of wind power on the Plains and Eastern Clean Line. We need your help to urge TVA to buy wind power from Clean Line today:

SACE even created this nifty petition.

This guy even threw his hat into the ring with an op-ed entitled: "Tennessee Valley Authority should get into wind power". Leaving out the obvious fact that TVA is already "into wind power," the opinion piece seemed to be neatly crafted with all of Clean Line's dead-horse talking points. Accident? Probably not. The op-ed was printed after December 31, however, so it's doubtful anyone at TVA actually read it.

Clean Line STILL Has No Publicly Available Contracts:

Despite all the fluff and bluster, Clean Line has still yet to release a single publicly available contract for transmission capacity on Plains and Eastern from TVA or anyone else. As with any business, customers draw more customers, so it seems highly unlikely that Clean Line wouldn't have released information about a major contract with TVA. As we have become accustomed, it seems incredibly hard for them to keep positive news on the proverbial "down low". It would also seem unlikely, with credits being reduced, that a rising "delivered product" price for Clean Line would provide increased incentive for an end-user contract in 2017.

But what do we know? We're just "misinformed" landowners.

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!

NO subscription? NO partnership. PERIOD.

For mobile users, I apologize for the formatting irregularities. Orienting your phone horizontally should fix them.

Clean Line would have you believe they are going to use the lag time before the results of the NEPA and Section 1222 reviews to "inform landowners about the project". That they're being the good guys. Waiting until only after they get regulatory approval and gain the hammer of eminent domain, they hope, to subscribe customers to their unnecessary transmission line. There is only one small problem with this plan (shown above), and it is a problem they had hoped none of us would notice.

Before the Department of Energy agreed to enter into their Advanced Funding Agreement with Clean Line, acting Deputy Secretary Daniel Poneman wrote a letter to Michael Skelly laying out the criteria Clean Line would have to meet to further the partnership.

Clean Line has NO subscription. Not a single megawatt. Zilch. Nada. The Tennessee Valley Authority has indicated that it doesn't want any sort of HVDC wind until 2025 or later (but only if all proverbial stars align):

Unless something drastic changes in the next month (I don't think it will) before the TVA Board of Directors votes on the adoption of their 2015 Integrated resource plan, it appears the graphics above illustrate the near-term plan for TVA. No HVDC for TVA for at least 10 years.

Clean Line has recently tried to downplay TVA's importance to their business plan, even though the entire reason for the project from the beginning has been to deliver wind energy to the TVA:

Michael Skelly, president and founder of Clean Line Energy, said Thursday that TVA is just one of several utilities that seeks wind-generated power. One of those is The Southern Company, which provides power to 4.4 million customers in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Florida.

“The market is much larger than TVA,” Skelly said.

So, I did a little more research on Georgia Power (a subsidiary of Southern Company). Georgia power is one of the other companies Clean Line would love to sign on with. This is going to be long, but for the Clean Line nerds among us, all of it is well worth a read. Seriously, if you have any serious interest in the future of this at all, read both of the following things and the documents in the provided links line-by-line. The following are just a few small excerpts of the analysis Georgia Power did on out-of-state wind purchases. On December 4, 2014, Georgia Power issued an RFP for wind energy. This is a summary of their findings, specifically regarding HVDC (emphasis added):

5.2 HVDC Project Impact. Five responders submitted proposals into the RFI that depend upon transmitting over a proposed HVDC line (the “HVDC Project”), which would facilitate delivery from the Texas/Oklahoma panhandle into the TVA Control Area. The use of this HVDC line has the potential to eliminate delivery risk across the SPP and MISO Transmission Systems. The HVDC Project referenced in these proposals is currently in the development stage with construction planned to begin in 2016 and is estimated to be in service by the end of 2018.

The proposed projects that rely on the HVDC solution are not without concern. Several of these projects were noted as being PTC dependent. Therefore, even if the wind projects were to come online before 2018, the proposed energy could not be delivered to Georgia Power customers until the HVDC line is in service. Any delay in the construction date of the HVDC line will likely affect the ability of these projects to take advantage of the PTC. In addition, transmission rights along the HVDC line have not been awarded, nor has pricing for the transmission rights been established. This calls into question the accuracy and validity of all proposals assuming that the wind resource will be transmitted to Georgia Power through the HVDC line.

And:

6.2 Net Benefits. As a result of the Company’s thorough review of the proposals, Georgia Power calculated potential total net benefits ranging from -$13.58/MWh to $24.31/MWh on a levelized basis. The indicative nature of an RFI suggests that net benefits are overstated, and more likely substantially overstated, as discussed further in the section below on risk.

6.3 Risks. Although the evaluations of the RFI responses forecasted net benefits for some proposals, the appropriate risk and contingency factors must be imputed to these results to get a clear picture of the actual value of the proposals. The total net benefit results are a direct reflection of quality of the inputs and the current assumptions included in the Company’s transmission base cases. Changes to the following assumptions and considerations could have a material impact on the previously noted net benefit valuations:

• The responses provided by developers are non-binding. As a result, respondents shoulder no risk in offering products that are unrealistic in terms of low prices, aggressive schedules, and excessive energy amounts.

• The pricing offered by developers was provided in a context outside the specific terms and conditions of a PPA. The contractual language within a PPA is a large driver in determining the allocation of risk and consideration within a transaction and results in transaction-specific pricing.

• Georgia Power assigned delivery costs based upon current market assumptions for projects offered at the busbar or delivered outside of the SBA. However, the recent merger of the Entergy and MISO transmission systems has created tremendous volatility in neighboring markets. In fact, the cost of firm transmission service through SPP and MISO has increased, by 65 percent and 100 percent respectively, in the past four years. While Georgia Power’s evaluation relied on the latest publicly available information, the current forecast calls for more moderate and stabilizing conditions, which is a very different environment from experiences in the past few years.

• The transmission costs assigned to accommodate additional imports across the SOCO interfaces are based upon the most current base case assumptions. These assumptions reflect commitments by entities external to Southern Company and were developed in a coordinated manner through the SERC and ERAG base case building process. The results provided in this Report are based upon the current conditions, but are subject to change based upon re-evaluations that are regularly performed in accordance with NERC planning and transfer capability guidelines.

• Five responses depended on a speculative HVDC transmission solution. Any potential net benefits from these proposals are highly questionable because the transmission rights along the line have not been awarded, nor has the pricing for transmission rights been finalized.

In addition, there was this: 

With regard to the Clean Power Plan (CPP), Staff Consultants assert that “procuring wind will likely be a method of compliance for the Company to meet Georgia’s goal under the clean power plan.” La Capra Associates Wind Request for Information Review (May 19, 2015), pg 3 (hereinafter “La Capra Report”). Yet no one knows how federal law will view out-of-state wind for CPP compliance purpose, until that issue is addressed in the final rule. Even if out-of-state wind is addressed, the final rule may be stayed and will most likely be litigated, so uncertainty will remain until Georgia’s CPP state or regional compliance plan is developed and approved a few years from now.

It is unnecessarily risky to issue an RFP for out-of-state wind as a compliance option for the CPP without the certainty it will be an actual option for compliance. Without knowing the rules and requirements for how that option will be treated, it would be premature to issue an RFP now. Additionally, if out-of-state wind can serve as a CPP compliance option, it will only mean that a wind purchase would be considered as one item on the collective list of compliance options. It is unnecessarily risky and possibly costly to unilaterally select wind to meet compliance requirements without first giving due consideration to the best mix of resources and options to achieve CPP compliance.

As stated previously, the Wind RFI Report shows there are significant limitations to procuring out-of-state wind products that will require system upgrades and additional costs for customers. The Staff Consultant does not contest this finding. Instead, Staff and its Consultant believe it is better to enter into non-firm transmission deals. However, reliance on non-firm wind opportunities introduces significant risks and cost concerns that undermine potential customer benefits from added wind resources. The La Capra Report states “that it may not be necessary for wind projects to have firm transmission to create benefits for ratepayers.” La Capra Report, pg 3. The Company disagrees. It is inappropriate to issue an RFP based upon conjecture. The marketplace trusts that when Georgia Power issues an RFP, the Company intends to procure new resources. To go fish for potential non-firm energy deals that may actually reduce the benefits to customers and then not proceed with contract execution undermines Georgia Power’s position in the marketplace. Furthermore, importing wind provides significant cost risk to customers, especially if such imports are of a non-firm nature, as Staff recommends. The benefits that non-firm transmission wind products would provide Georgia Power customers may be completely eliminated if customers take on the risk of operation and transmission costs for delivery. Further, Georgia Power will need to know with certainty what wind products it is purchasing and when such products will be delivered if it intends to use such wind resources for CPP compliance purposes. If Staff and its Consultant believe that it is more beneficial to customers to procure non-firm wind products, they should present testimony on that position in the IRP proceeding.

In conclusion, the value at which Georgia Power could procure out-of-state wind over the next 12 to 18 months cannot be predicted with any real level of certainty. There are significant risk factors that could weigh against the perceived value of additional wind resources. Most importantly, no record exists that supports a conclusion that the Commission must move hastily or that additional out-of-state wind is the right option for Georgia Power’s customers. The required record to make an informed decision on additional wind resources may be developed in the 2016 IRP. As always, the Company will continue to work with Staff and Interveners to ensure customers receive the greatest benefits from a diverse portfolio of resources. The Company will also continue to look for unique opportunities to improve its resource portfolio, which may include bringing additional projects of extraordinary advantage before the Commission in compliance with the Commission’s Rules. However, the best place to consider the addition of resources, including new out-of-state wind opportunities, is through the upcoming 2016 IRP.

And:

Georgia’s climate and environment is not conducive to significant domestic generation of wind resources. Therefore, procuring additional wind resources for Georgia means importing energy into the Southern Balancing Authority and into the Georgia Power Electric System. There is a finite amount of intermittent resources that the Georgia Power Electric System can absorb without incurring significant operational costs. While Georgia Power shares in the belief that wind energy has the potential to provide significant value to its customers, Georgia Power customers only realize that value when the benefits exceed the total cost of importing wind energy across multiple states. It makes no economic sense to focus solely on the purchase of out-of-state renewable energy without considering economic and reliable in-state alternatives. The Commission will need to decide whether it is in the customers’ best interest to pay for more in-state renewable resources, like solar, or pay for more out-of-state renewable resources, like wind. More importantly, the Commission will need to decide what additional resources are required, if anything, to serve the needs of Georgia Power’s customers in a reliable and cost-effective manner. These are all appropriate considerations and questions to be asked and answered through the IRP process. There is no evidentiary record proving it is more advantageous and cost-effective to issue an RFP now for out-of-state resources that have inherent transmission risk and operational costs, rather than wait until a more complete resource generation and procurement analysis is in evidence in the 2016 IRP. 

There's more, but I will stop with Georgia Power here. Read the documents in the links above for more.

So, what about Entergy? Arkansas Sierra Club Director, Glen Hooks, effectively stuck his foot straight in his mouth in a recent article in the Arkansas Times by regurgitating the following line Skelly likes to use to try to convince people Entergy is actually interested in purchasing electricity from them:

"Entergy recently did an RFP for wind and reopened it because the price was so good they wanted to buy more," Hooks said.

Entergy took very little time to correct Hooks' error:

CORRECTION: Entergy Arkansas spokesperson Sally Graham said that Entergy did not reopen its renewable energy bidding, as Hooks stated. She said that Entergy has selected the Stuttgart 81 MW solar project.

You'd think the Arkansas Sierra Club would have learned by now that supporting Clean Line is a bad position to hold, wouldn't you? We've been trying to tell them for over a year now.

If you've made it this far, I appreciate it. This is a very complex subject, and understanding that complexity requires countless hours of research and reading between the lines. One finding leads to another, until you've got so many browser tabs open you don't even know where you started. It's really easy to dismiss opposition as NIMBY until you start realizing just how complex and uncertain this whole thing is. Makes you think more than twice about this inexperienced private company obtaining the right of eminent domain to seize over 17,000 acres of land across two full states, doesn't it?

My takeaway:

1. The Plains and Eastern is not feasible without the TVA on board. Clean Line has been relying on TVA for almost 6 years to be its anchor. Their plan all along has been to get TVA to agree to purchase enough of a chunk of their capacity to prove that the transmission line is financially feasible enough to gain a regulatory approval from the DOE. All indications point to this not happening for at least ten years, but more than likely fifteen.
2. Clean Line has no subscription, and will not have any at all unless DOE approves this boondoggle. But, as I have shown you above, according to DOE's own readily available documentation, a partnership is not allowed without "a sufficient (unknown) percentage of its line subscribed to support the Project's financial viability".
   
   Which begs the question: What utility in their right mind would sign onto a firm contract with these guys? Utilities have to provide reliable and cost-effective power. Clean Line has not demonstrated in any way that they can provide reliable and cost effective power, and there is no utility that is going to agree to a firm service agreement with them without ALL regulatory approvals.

Let's face it, if Clean Line thinks they're going to put a shovel in the ground sometime next year, they're dreaming. This thing is going to court if it is approved, and the first lawsuit against the DOE could very well be a result of the very first requirement in the pre-AFA agreement referenced at the top of this blog post. Clean Line has had six years to prove itself as viable. They have failed miserably.

Is the Department of Energy willing to stick its neck out that far for a project that has no demonstrated need? We're not sure, but we're watching.

Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC, becomes South's newest Regional Transmission Organization! (Not really.)

2.2.2 Clean Line Has Developed the Project Using Analyses and Steps That Are Consistent with RTO Planning

SPP’s and MISO’s planning processes for their internal system purposes occur through a series of connected studies and analyses to identify the need, to design a proposed addition, and to ensure these additions meet specific reliability, economic and policy concerns. In designing and implementing the Project, Clean Line has undertaken a similar and consistent series of studies that have shaped the Project into its present form. Similar to SPP’s and MISO’s transmission planning, Clean Line has developed the Project through the following studies and steps: (1) establishing the likely location of wind generation; (2) assessing known areas of congestion; (3) assessing utility demand for wind power; (4) determining the necessary physical infrastructure to meet that demand; (5) considering economic development implications; (6) conducting power flow analyses; and (7) production cost modeling to quantify cost savings to consumers. The Project meets the criteria for consistency in planning under Section 1222(b) through its use of steps and analyses to plan and develop the Project that are consistent with the SPP and MISO planning process.

1. Establishing the Likely Location of Additional Wind Generation 

MISO and SPP plan their respective transmission systems around forecasted locations of wind generation based on wind analysis, the interconnection queue and input from stakeholders. For example, in the process of designing and evaluating the Priority Projects, SPP Staff designed a portfolio of seven gigawatts (“GW”) of new wind projects in six locations around the region. Likewise, MISO’s selection of sites for coordinated wind and transmission expansion dates back to the Regional Generation Outlet Study, performed in 2008 and 2009. The selection of renewable energy zones for further transmission development included wind analysis, site suitability and distance to existing infrastructure. The highest ranking sites were selected to be included in the MISO transmission expansion plan and set the beginning points of many of the MVP Projects.

As noted in Section 2.5.1 of the Draft EIS and supporting technical materials, Clean Line conducted a similar analysis to define the zones from which the Project is likely to connect wind generation. The process incorporated wind development activity and responses to a Request for Information, wind mapping, evaluating distances from the Hitchland substation area, and environmental and land use consideration. The process used by Clean Line to identify the locations of additional wind generation was therefore consistent with the processes used by SPP and MISO. The identification of the most likely locations for wind development was a key step in planning and developing the Project. 

2. Assessing Known Areas of Congestion

In developing their portfolios of transmission lines to connect wind generation to load, both SPP and MISO examine existing congestion due to wind generation. This analysis provides information about where transmission lines could generate economic savings due to reduced congestion costs. For example, SPP’s Board of Directors has noted growing congestion on its system and tasked its staff to “reduce grid congestion” and “better integrate SPP’s west and east regions.” MISO likewise has identified transmission constrained zones which affect the ability to fully utilize wind and designed upgrades to relieve the constraints.

Similarly to SPP and MISO, Clean Line evaluated existing congestion patterns when designing the Project. Early in the Project’s development, Clean Line observed that existing wind generation in the Oklahoma Panhandle region was already experiencing very low prices due to transmission congestion. In its 2009 National Electric Transmission Congestion the DOE identified the Oklahoma Panhandle region as a Conditional Constraint Area (“CCA”). The region is a Type I CCA, meaning wind generation can be developed with existing technology. In that report, the DOE notes that Kansas and Oklahoma have strong wind generation potential that could significantly improve the economic vitality of the states’ rural counties, enhance reliability and potentially reduce consumer electricity costs.59 By creating a direct, HVDC link to the Mid-South and Southeast, the Project assures that the connected generators will not experience congestion and avoid existing transmission constraints.

(You know, in the process Jimmy Glotfelty helped advocate for in the office he created and directed that's the same office that's overseeing this process now back in 2003?)

This one:

(Yeah, that process. The one that was laid out to help identify the "constraints" that led to the "constraints" that resulted in the eventual RFP from the Department of Energy.)

Or, here, after he left DoE in 2005 and became VP of ICF International where he:

(Maybe worked on recommendations about "constraints"?)

3. Assessing Utility Demand Based on Public Policy and Other Factors 

In planning their respective transmission systems, both SPP and MISO conduct a review of regional renewable energy portfolio standards and goals to determine the amount of renewable energy needed. For example, SPP distributed a survey to state representatives in its Cost Allocation Working Group about each state’s mandated or desired level of wind generation. Based on these responses, SPP established a target in 2020 of approximately 11 GW of total wind generation. MISO likewise surveyed each member utility’s renewable portfolio standard requirements in 2021 and 2026 in order to determine how much incremental renewable generation the transmission plan needed to enable. These assessments allow MISO and SPP to build transmission to meet the needs of their member utilities for low-cost clean energy. 

In planning for the Project, Clean Line conducted a similar review based on numerous meetings with utilities and state policies, which is summarized in Section 2.1.3. As discussed there, Clean Line reviewed and identified the need and demand for renewable energy within the Mid-South and Southeast. In determining the size of the Project, Clean Line took into account the large potential demand for low-cost wind power delivered by the Project, and dimensioned the Project so that it could meet a substantial portion of the identified demand. 

4. Determining Physical Infrastructure 

In their transmission expansion plans, SPP and MISO weigh the distances involved and evaluate the economics of different voltages and numbers of circuits. Transmission lines with higher voltages and more circuits can carry more power, but are also more expensive. SPP faced this tradeoff in implementing two of the Priority Projects. SPP had studied the use of 765 kV lines to move larger amounts of power within the SPP region than would be possible with 345 kV lines.62 However, a 345 kV-only portfolio produced better regional cost-benefit metrics and therefore was approved by SPP’s Board of Directors.

MISO also studies the appropriate voltage and circuit level to use in in its transmission expansion. In its 2006 transmission expansion plan, MISO initially examined a series of 765 kV transmission lines to improve access to low-cost and high-capacity factor wind generation.64 However, in its 2011 planning process, MISO concluded that a preferable option was a build out primarily of double circuit 345 kV lines, with some single circuit 345 kV additions and one 765 kV line segment in Indiana.

In developing the Project, Clean Line also analyzed the appropriate technology and voltage for the desired power levels. An initial economic analysis indicated that HVDC was clearly more economic than AC lines of any voltage in light of the power levels and distances involved.66 A review of recently completed projects identified that DC voltages in the 500-600 kV level were most appropriate. Finally, a more detailed analysis of capital costs and electric losses concluded that 600 kV was the most appropriate voltage when considering power transfer levels, losses, and capital costs. Clean Line’s studies, like SPP’s and MISO’s, assured that the Project was consistent with the need to use the appropriate technology and voltage to economically achieve the goals of transmission expansion.

5. Considering Economic Development Implications

Both SPP and MISO seek to ensure that their transmission expansions result in economic development benefits for the region. In fact, both SPP and MISO have employed Brattle Group estimates to assess the economic impact of their proposed transmission expansions. The Brattle Group studies perform an economic impact assessment using IMPLAN and NREL’s JEDI model.68 

Clean Line performed a similar study, which was attached as Appendix 2 to its July 2010 Proposal to DOE. In addition, the Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice Technical Report that Clean Line submitted to DOE as part of the NEPA process extensively analyzes the employment impacts of the Project, which are further discussed in in Section 3.3.

6. Conducting Power Flow Analyses

In their transmission plans, SPP and MISO examine specific power flow cases to identify violations of reliability criteria that would require either additional transmission expansion or modifications of the proposed upgrades. For example, SPP’s Transmission Working Group prepared a series of power flow analyses on the Priority Projects to determine whether this expansion either required additional reliability projects to meet the required NERC and regional standards, or whether the Priority Project actually eliminated other reliability projects that, absent the Priority Projects, were needed to meet the standards. MISO also performed steady state power flow analyses of the MVP projects to see if any NERC or regional reliability standards were affected.

The Project has been the subject of comparable power flow analyses through its interconnection studies with SPP, MISO and TVA. As discussed below in Section 2.2.3, the interconnection studies monitored any violations of reliability planning standards and prescribed upgrades to remedy any violations. The reliability standards used in MISO and SPP transmission planning studies are consistent with and identical to those used in the interconnection studies performed by these entities regarding the Project.

7. Production Cost Modeling

SPP and MISO both use a production cost modeling software, PROMOD, to examine how proposed projects will affect the dispatch of their system. Specifically, the RTOs examine whether the points of injection of new wind power, together with the studied transmission expansion, result in any meaningful amount of curtailment of anticipated power flows. They also examine the extent to which the new transmission projects generate production cost savings for SPP and MISO member utilities.

Clean Line also conducted a similar analysis using PROMOD. An earlier version of this analysis was conducted with GE’s Multi-area Production Simulation (“MAPS”) and was included in the July 2010 Proposal to DOE. Clean Line’s production cost modeling shows that the Project results in minimal curtailment for the connected generators and substantial production cost savings. This is the same purpose for which SPP and MISO use production cost modeling in their transmission expansion plans. In Clean Line’s updated analysis, attached as Appendix 2-G to this Part 2 Application, curtailment for the connected wind generation was reduced to a single hour of the year, in contrast to over 15% curtailment (an economically unfeasible level) for the same amount of wind generation if the Project is not built. The analysis also shows annual production cost savings of $540 million because of the Project. These savings arise because the Project’s low-cost wind generation reduces the cost of the fuel purchases by utilities necessary to serve their load.

Well, there you have it, folks! Given the fact that Clean Line used a "similar and consistent series of studies" as MISO and SPP, they should be given the same weight as an ACTUAL Regional Transmission Organization in their qualification for Section 1222, given that Section 1222 mandates:

(B) is necessary to accommodate an actual or projected increase in demand for electric transmission capacity; (2) is consistent with— (A) transmission needs identified, in a transmission expansion plan or otherwise, by the appropriate Transmission Organization (as defined in the Federal PowerAct) if any, or approved regional reliability organization;

An RTO must:

(j) Required characteristics for a Regional Transmission Organization. A Regional Transmission Organization must satisfy the following characteristics when it commences operation:(1) Independence. The Regional Transmission Organization must be independent of any market participant. The Regional Transmission Organization must include, as part of its demonstration of independence, a demonstration that it meets the following:(i) The Regional Transmission Organization, its employees, and any non-stakeholder directors must not have financial interests in any market participant.(ii) The Regional Transmission Organization must have a decision making process that is independent of control by any market participant or class of participants.

(iii) The Regional Transmission Organization must have exclusive and independent authority under section 205 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824d), to propose rates, terms and conditions of transmission service provided over the facilities it operates. 

Take Clean Line's word for it, guys. They did the studies, too. Their transmission line is needed because they say so! They're really just doing MISO and SPP a favor, here. All of this is really too silly for words. Why are we here, again?