It was a simply glorious day in Arkansas yesterday. Warm, but not too hot. Sunny, but not too humid. A perfect day to celebrate not only our sci-fi geekdom, but the opening day of 2015’s National Travel and Tourism Week. And to celebrate it in the Natural State:
Where tourism is so much a part of our state economy that our Governor proclaimed May 2nd to 10th "Arkansas Tourism Week".
Where we receive more than $460 million in state and local taxes annually from the hospitality industry.
Where that same industry supports approximately 110,400 jobs.
Where following the governor’s instructions to appreciate and enjoy “the natural beauty of Arkansas” could take you on a ride along the Scenic Highway 7, “the state's first state-designated scenic byway”, “arguably one of the most scenic drives in America”.
Where you could rent a raft from some great folks (btw, if you want a little insight into the anger this project has caused, ask these folks how and when they found out about the project, and how close the preferred route came to their home and business. Ask them what Clean Line's reps said about why) and go on a scenic float down Big Piney Creek, “which ranks among the best float streams in the state”.
Surely anyone planning a major infrastructure project in the state would be cognizant of the importance of tourism and the locations of the areas that rely on it most directly, right? Especially a corporation so concerned with "outreach" and "stakeholders". Even if they had missed the occasional landowner, surely they would have developed a deep and effective working relationship with that state’s agencies that deal with… oh, parks and tourism? Apparently not.
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?)
(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?
We're all kind of in a post-Draft EIS comment period stupor, but we did read the Quadrennial Energy Review and, I have to say, we liked a lot of what we read. State involvement, effective public engagement, agency collaboration, and keeping the transmission footprint as small as possible (using underground and existing easements) were all listed as critical to the timely and responsible development of new infrastructure. And long distance transmission for renewables to load centers did not seem to be the "be all and end all" Clean Line claims it is. In fact, the review went so far as to say the need for that kind of transmission is lessening due to the increasing availability of local renewables thanks to rapidly improving tech.
I'd love to write more and add some pictures, but I gotta get the kids to school... And can I just say, it feels like we've been let out of jail. I know this whole fight is long from over, but for the last year we've all been completely consumed by Clean Line. I can't tell you what this fight has cost us. It's been exhausting... emotionally, financially... And while there have been amazing moments between neighbors... friendships built and connections made that will have made us a stronger community. A stronger Arkansas... I can't help lamenting, and being furiously angry, over what we've lost.
Dave and I have to apologize for being absent bloggers
lately. It’s not that there hasn’t been a lot going on in the Clean Line world,
it’s simply the time of year. Things
that we’ve put off as long as possible to deal with Clean Line can’t be put off
any longer. Fences need to be built. Gardens and crops need to be put in the
ground. And, as Jennifer Gatrel so powerfully mentioned in her HB 1027 testimony
before the Missouri House of Representative’s Environment and Energy Committee,
for many of us, our farms are our lives:
“This is our business. This is our place of business. It is
our livelihood. It is our vacation destination and it is our retirement… all
rolled into one.”
(We should note here that the hearing for HB1027, which would hinder Clean Line's access to eminent domain for its Grain Belt Express line, had to be split into two days because so many landowners came out to testify in favor of the bill.)
Okay, do we really care that the Zilkahs rub noses with Ms.
Wintour? Of course not. And a truly sincere congratulations to Daniel and
Janie. Marriage is a wonderful, infuriating, brilliant endeavor.
Do we care about Daddy Ziff’s “Rosebud Made of Stone”? Nah. The idea is awesome, even if the rock thing was sketchy as all get out. The
truth is… I’ve worked in Westchester. There’s not a lot that surprises me
anymore.
I just wish all these people’s venture capitalist relatives would get
their damn paws off my mother-in-law’s property. And off the property of every
angry, hurt, confused, hardworking, taxpaying Okie, Arkie, or Tennessean who
actually worked their tail off for their small “piece of the pie”, and who deserve
better than to be forced to give up what they’ve busted their knuckles for so
rich people can get richer.
As Jenny so perfectly put it, yet again:
“I cannot tell you the amount of work and worry… I have met
with veterans that have stood up and cried at the thought of losing their sweat
equity in their farm. I have met with
women who have lost their hair and who have had to go on antidepressants.”
You want health effects? I’ll give you health effects. And
the line’s not even built yet. Though apparently our only real objection to this project is what it’ll do to the view:
Burn, landowners! Burn! So now we know exactly what they think
about us. I know, I know—you’re thinking that’s not an actual quote. Surely
Clean Line with their “we are so deeply concerned about landowners’ concerns”
rhetoric would have denounced such a dismissive statement, but no… Rather, they
posted a link to the article on their Facebook page. I think that qualifies as a pretty
strong endorsement.
And speaking of the “well-funded”…
Recently, “Team Clean Line Energy Partners”, via Michael
Skelly, via the Power of Wind (which oddly claims to be leading a movement for “fairer
energy policies”) and the AWEA, issued a plea for signatures on a letter
bemoaning the fact that “well-funded anti-wind energy groups are trying to get
Congress to oppose the common-sense energy policies that would allow wind power
to continue to expand.”
(“Well-funded” is code for Koch money. I can say that
because my progressive street cred includes a presidential vote for Nader)
Now, he seems to be talking about the Production Tax Credit (I'm somewhat amazed they didn't bash oil and gas subsidies. It's kind of required...), but I’m
going to go on the record here anyway and say that, as a group, we get nothing
from nobody. Our flyers, our signs, our gas, our time… all of that comes out of
our own pockets. We survive on each other. On the people who give what they
can, when they can. We have no loaded lobbyists,
so forgive me if I don’t shed too many tears for one industry fighting a slightly
different one. (And Big Wind seems to be operating with a massive Napoleon
complex—Nothing must be done that can in any way, shape, or form hinder the
holy development of poor, little, falsely maligned wind! NIMBYs and burdensome long-eared bats, consider yourselves warned!)
Our only lobbyists are the people we elect to send to Washington
and Little Rock, and in this situation, though I may disagree with them on
much, they have served the people I love well. You can call that Koch influence if it makes
it easier to sleep at night while eighty-five year old Mrs. Stockton sits at
her window looking out and worrying about her future. I believe the legislation
and resolutions we’ve seen over the last few months are the honest result of
the thousands of phone calls, emails, and letters our representatives received
in the last year. I believe it’s the system working the way it’s actually
supposed to. If you’re not willing to entertain that possibility, you can’t
hope to look at this thing objectively. By the way, I should mention that both
the cities of Ozark and Dyer passed resolutions in opposition to Clean Line
just last night. And Quitman passed one some time ago. We had no idea... just in case anyone was thinking all these resolutions were the result of a few vocal agitators.
Oh sure, everyone has a bias. I expressed mine pretty
clearly in the first section… and in every endless blog post I’ve written on
how totally inappropriate eminent domain is in this situation. But what happens when you don’t learn from
your bias? That’s the question… Well, you might try to solve the perceived “balkanization”
of the transmission permitting process in our country by using a concept painfully
similar to one already rejected by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, as
well as by the people most directly affected by it.
I’d like to include some
quotes here from the lawyer whose working paper included the argument that
local/state control over siting is ineffective because state and local
governments are more responsive and accountable to their constituents than
federal agencies. However, it clearly states on the bottom of each page that
the reader is not to cite or quote from the paper without permission. Odd to
reserve a right for yourself so similar to one you readily endorse violating
for others.
“Basically, what the Federal Government has told us, in essence,
implicitly--this is what I derive from their failure to respond to the State of
Pennsylvania--is there is going to be a superhighway
of power lines across Pennsylvania, and there is nothing anyone can do about
it. The Federal Government is going to take over this effort and put those
lines across the State of Pennsylvania.
Well, I have news
for them. Pennsylvania is full of a lot of people who are concerned about this,
whether they are in small towns or urban areas, and, as we are going to be
speaking to tomorrow, rural areas in Pennsylvania, farm communities. Most of those
counties designated there are in rural communities. If the Federal Government
and the Department of Energy or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or
anyone else in this town wants to fight about this, we are ready to fight, and
we will fight morning, noon, and night until our State, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
is treated equitably.”
Now, if Dave were writing this, right here is where he’d get into Jimmy
Glotfelty’s ties to Section 1221 and 1222 (by way of his advocacy of the
processes that lead to their creation). No, he wasn’t at the DOE when the sections went
through in 2005, but his fingerprints are all over them.
So, how do you ram home a policy that essentially steals the states’ authority to participate in decisions that affect their own
constituency? You use two words: “jobs” and “taxes”. Does it work? Well, it
sure didn’t in Arkansas, and it looks like Missouri isn’t that impressed
either:
Bonus points: Watch Mark try to explain how Clean Line intends to work solely within the confines of Missouri’s state laws/PSC. “Pay no attention to that parked 1222
application for Grain Belt behind the curtain!”
Maybe some of the legislators
had already been made aware of Mr. Skelly’s testimony in that regard. I’ve
posted it before, but hey…
Skelly said Clean Line’s application for Section 1222
authority for Grain Belt Express is still pending at DOE but inactive. And the
company would exhaust efforts to persuade state regulators to approve the
project before turning back to the federal government.
“We would look at the no and figure out a way to turn it
into a yes,” he said.”
Or, how about Clean Line's tactic of attempting to obtain the right of eminent domain before signing easements? They wish to obtain easements on a "voluntary" basis, but aren't going to try to do so until they can hit landowners over the head with the "eminent domain" hammer:
Who pays for all that cheap energy? Not the bottom line.
So why? Oh, Lordy, why are we here in the first place? Why
build this line at all? There must be some deep, driving need, right? Utilities
that can’t keep the lights on? The need for a transmission backbone through the
country?
Ah, no. Like Jenny said, it’s all business. It’s the
business of development. Of transmission. Of speculation. Of bringing “the very
best wind” to markets on the East Coast that haven’t asked for them. If it’s a
backbone, it’s a fossil. An idea ten years old being rapidly usurped by newer
tech, local utility scale generation, and conservation. Want to know where “the
very best wind” is? It’s everywhere. And it’s located close to the load centers that might want to use it.
With Dragonfly proposing Arkansas’ first real wind farm to
deliver 80MW of true homegrown juice (assuming they can buck the Napoleon thing and actually work with surrounding landowners) and AEEC getting into solar farms it’s only a matter of time before Clean Line’s proposed 500MW guilt deposit in
our state is a paltry drop in our renewables bucket. It’s certainly not worth the damage
it would do to so many people. Why? Because jobs and taxes aren’t everything. And because 500MW of locally produced wind power fueling permanent, local jobs and tax revenue is infinitely preferable to imports. If the cost of wind is coming down as much as Clean Line claims, there is no reason it's generation should be restricted to the panhandle. Last week there was a story about a farmer in Oklahoma who had shifted to wind development as an alternative means for income. Arkansas farmers deserve to be able to make their own decisions on that same opportunity.
Which brings me, finally, to the question of who’s gonna buy
Clean Line’s tainted juice? I’m not
talking about whether rapid response gas plants or other baseload generators
will be required to ramp up production to fill in windy gaps. And, yes, we’ve
heard them say over and over that there won’t be any end user/utility contracts
until after the permitting. You’ve heard us say, over and over, that generation
potential and an “if you build it, they will come” attitude is insufficient to
justify the use of eminent domain. That’s not what I’m talking about either. I’m
asking what company or utility is willing to dip a toe into the “Bog of Eternal
Stench” the execution of this project, if permitted, will become?
As someone who actually has talked to hundreds of
landowners on the route (as well as their neighbors, who get an extra raw deal
since they receive no remuneration for their property value loss), I can tell
you that this thing is going to get ugly. Not a threat, but a simple
observation. This is seven hundred miles of Bundy Ranch with the exception that the vast majority of these people aren't wealthy ranchers and actually own the land at issue. And, for them, it’s not just about the money.
It’s about respect. Or the lack of it.
Knock on a front door on the route and
ask them the story of their property. In most cases you better have forty
minutes and a notebook. These aren’t short-term apartments we’re talking about,
but parcels handed down through generations. Sorry, but there aren’t enough windmills in the panhandle to trump this image (and yes, she'd just gotten home from church):
Not when there are gentler, more effective,
and less damaging ways to go green. Who in their right mind is willing to tie their public
reputation to a project that unnecessarily steals land from grannies?
Entergy Arkansas today filed a power purchase agreement with the Arkansas Public Service Commission for a 20-year supply of solar energy from a solar facility near Stuttgart, Ark. The large-scale solar farm will begin construction in spring 2016 and be ready to connect to the grid by mid-2019.
The facility, to be called Stuttgart Solar, will consist of solar panels covering nearly 500 acres of land capable of producing 81 MW of electric power. This will be the first large-scale renewable energy facility in Arkansas.
In response to today's news Glen Hooks, chapter director for the Arkansas Chapter of the Sierra Club, issued the following statement:
“The clean energy revolution has now officially begun in The Natural State. As our first home-grown renewable energy project, this is a truly historic announcement. The Sierra Club congratulates both Stuttgart Solar, Entergy, and NextEra on this move and looks forward to welcoming Arkansas solar energy into our state's power supply.
The Sierra Club has long advocated for Arkansas to generate our own solar and wind energy here at home, just as our neighboring states have done for years. Today's announcement proves Arkansas is ready to get started as a renewable energy leader.”
Oh, won’t somebody think of the children. No,
wait! Not thosechildren. These children.
Clean Line is at it again. This time with a truly epic word
ad, excuse me, “press release” that says pretty much the same thing they've been saying all along: We are going to give you (you being a collective term) a ton of moola.Except that this time they added “schools”
and “community services” to make the offer extra shiny.
A political friend, who shall remain anonymous, took
exception with that particular tactic:
“Children are typically off limits in politics, apparently
not for land grabbing out of state speculators... Let's use the kids as human
shields for billionaires.”
They claim to be committed to ad valorem taxes and other
voluntary payments, but don’t discuss the devaluation of the infrastructure or
what happens to those taxes in the event of federal condemnation. They
certainly don’t discuss self-reporting to the Assessment Coordination Department or property value loss to
surrounding landowners, which in turn affects communities. This press release was clearly intended to
garner support from people who have absolutely no idea what’s happening
on the ground here. Wind? Yay! Right, Simon? (Btw, please tell us again how
little land you think is going to be taken out of commission for this line,
because that's so comforting for the hundreds of affected landowners...)
After all this time, Clean Line still has their fingers
jammed in their ears while they dance around the elephant in the room singing,
“Nah, nah, nah-nah, nah!” Again, trust is something you earn through your
actions. Too many landowners found out about this project too late and from the
wrong people. Frankly, Clean Line could issue a press release saying that the
sky is blue and landowners would look at it askance.
And anyway, the money is almost a moot point here because
the mechanism to get it is so flawed and inappropriate. Anyone notice the two
words missing from the press release? "Eminent Domain"
I’m going to go off topic here for a minute, but stay with
me. Last Friday, I testified before the Arkansas House Insurance and Commerce
Committee for a common sense bill that would have restricted the use of eminent
domain by interstate oil pipeline companies. It would have set a standard for
the level of “public good” worthy of eminent domain. Of course we lost. It was
ridiculous. Everyone knew how they were going to vote long before we got there.
The point is, Clean Line is attempting
to use the same inherently coercive practices that pipelines do. In fact, they want access to it so badly,
that they actually said so in their updated application to the Department of
Energy, and contrary to their claims, it’s clearly not just a tool for dealing
with the occasional hold out or absentee owner. We’ve posted it a couple times
already, but it’s incredibly important and can be found on page 53 here:
Anyone who supports Clean Line in this endeavor is
essentially saying that they support the use of eminent domain for this
project. Anyone who supports eminent domain for this project, but not for, just
thinking out loud here, the Keystone Pipeline or the Diamond Pipeline in
Arkansas, needs to do a little soul searching, and vice versa.
The problem with this “press release”, and with any press
release that totes the benefits of a project without the acknowledgement that
people will be forced to sacrifice for those benefits, is that it perpetuates
the idea that those sacrifices are unimportant in relation to economic
development. In other words, it’s perfectly okay to smack around people’s
supposedly “sacrosanct” right to own property as long as you can convince other
people that there’s money to be made… Free market my tuckus. Because, let’s be
clear here, this line is about energy, but it’s not about need. The Tennessee Valley Authority made
that perfectly obvious last week in their Integrated Resource Plan webinar. And while Clean Line, and
certain other individuals, claim to know better what the TVA should do, the
fact remains that the TVA is an experienced planning organization responsible
to all of its customers and not just (to borrow a phrase from Clean Line) a
very “vocal minority”.
“ …will benefit Arkansas residents in several ways. … will
generate approximately $11 million per year in property tax revenue for
communities … will support approximately 1,500 contract construction jobs along
the length of the route during construction and 15 permanent
jobs… conducted a thorough review of the route to identify a suitable
route… These efforts include paralleling existing utilities and pipelines and
avoiding culturally sensitive areas."
“With regard to individuals, we will offer market rates for
all easements that we acquire. We work in good faith with individual landowners
to address the concerns of issues associated with crossing their property. You
know, we want to have a good relationship with landowners”
Oh, wait! I’m sorry. Those quotes are from Diamond Pipeline…
who has already initiated eminent domain proceedings in Arkansas. But they
sound familiar, right? Clean Line claims to be “committed” to negotiated
easements. But they’re all “committed” to negotiation. Every single corporation
that uses eminent domain as a kind of coercive crutch to keep development costs
down is “committed” to working with landowners. Talk is cheap. As Steve
MacDonald of Block Plains and Eastern Oklahoma said in response to Michael
Skelly’s assertion that they “expect to employ hundreds of Arkansans”:
“A lot of us ‘expect to’ do things. I expect to lose 50 lbs
this year. I won't and I doubt CL would put any money on it.”
Which brings us to a few people who actually put
their money where their mouth is: It’s been a busy few days at the Arkansas
State Capitol for legislators passing legislation directly in response to the
Plains and Eastern Project... Dave Ulery:
Today, the Arkansas State Senate officially went on record with a resolution (SR22) opposing the Plains and Eastern transmission project. Thank you for introducing this and seeing it through to adoption, Senator Irvin. This one doesn't need much explanation:
2. HB1908 - TO ESTABLISH A BILL OF RIGHTS FOR A PROPERTY OWNER, passed through the Arkansas House of Representatives. This bill implements a set of standards that must be adhered to when an entity condemns private property in the State of Arkansas. Thank you Representatives Beck and Charlotte Douglas for introducing it:
3. HB1592 - TO CLARIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FROM THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY, was passed in both the Arkansas House and the Senate, and was transmitted to the Governor's Office for signature. Thank you Representative Beck and Cosponsors for introducing the bill and assuring its passage:
To clarify what this bill would do, specifically:
Arkansas code does not allow a "transmission only" company to become a utility in our state. To be deemed a utility within our state, you must both generate electricity within the state, as well as transmit that electricity to customers in Arkansas. Makes sense, right? On May 13, 2010, Clean Line applied to the Arkansas Public Service Commission to become a public utility within the state and was subsequently denied on January 11, 2011. The docket can be viewed here. Taking a closer look:
This would essentially do two things:
Should Clean Line's Section 1222 application be denied by the Department of Energy, they could conceivably come back (if they can afford it) to the Arkansas Public Service Commission and say: "Well, we have now proposed a converter station in Arkansas (they didn't at first), you should go ahead and give us a Certificate for Public Necessity." It is our opinion that the converter station was only a ploy to garner support within the state, as well as hedge their bet in the anticipation their Section 1222 application could be denied. Their intent has never been to serve customers in Arkansas. Their "proposed" converter station was not proposed by Clean Line at all... rather, it is an "alternate" recommended by the Department of Energy. Clean Line's "preferred" plan does not include the converter station.
This would disqualify them because they: 1) are not a public utility as defined by Arkansas statute, 2) primarily transmit electricity; and 3) have not been directed or designated to construct an electric transmission facility from a regional transmission organization and will not in the future because their transmission line is unnecessary. This would basically guarantee their denial of becoming a utility within the State of Arkansas.
This would protect Arkansans from future schemes from out-of-state speculative private companies whose intent is not primarily to serve customers within our state, but rather to use our state as a doormat to transmit electricity to other states.
This is a good thing, no doubt.
We really hate to keep posting this image, Secretary Moniz, but the people of Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Tennessee are growing increasingly tired of putting their lives on hold for this nonsense. It is TIME!
