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

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

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

This just keeps getting worse...

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

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

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

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

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

The Problem:

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

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

The Problem:

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

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

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

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

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

 Fourth Page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Priority of Underground Cabling for New HVDC Projects

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

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

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

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

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

3. Next Steps

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

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

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

and: 

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

and: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When the Moon Hits Your Eye...

No, no, no...

A Transmission Developers' Guide to Developing Deep,
Long-lasting Relationships with Landowners
Using Romantic Analogy

This very lengthy blog post was inspired by 3 things. 

First, I care a lot about what happens with Plains & Eastern, but I’m really looking beyond it, too. Transmission will happen. I don’t want anyone else to go through what the people I’ve met in the last year have. It’s heartbreaking and it’s real. Things have to change.

Second, last week someone said to me, “If I had to explain to someone how not to develop a transmission line, I would point to Clean Line.” Now, that person was talking about more than just landowner relations, but the truth is that the “vocal minority” Clean Line and their allies like to bemoan seem to be the majority of affected landowners and their neighbors.

And lastly, Dave and I were talking about the blog the other day, and the possibility that we might have some readers besides the “vocal minority”, our friends and parents, and of course Clean Line. Readers who might actually invest in or develop transmission. We complain. A lot. But we don’t give a lot of good examples about what you should be doing instead. 

Clean Line hasn’t been all that receptive to our suggestions. Maybe it’s because they see this relationship they’re proposing in a more mercenary light, but the truth is… At some point transmission developers are going have to decide if they want to wade through years and throngs of opposition, or put their big boy/girl panties on and treat landowners (da-dum-dum) the way they would in any other special relationship in their lives. So, let’s try putting that special relationship in romantic language and see if that helps clarify.

The Ten Rules of Woo

1.  To woo or not to woo- This is of the utmost importance. You have to be able to prove a concrete need for your project. A real, actual need. If that need is simple economic development, that’s fine, but don’t expect to be able to access eminent domain without going twelve rounds with the public, the press, and the court system. Yes, you many win, but it’ll cost ya’. And for goodness sake, if you decide to woo, work the rest of the rules. Always remember that no one “owes” you a relationship.

2. Saddle up and be a man/woman- If you’re over 14, notes passed in class are unacceptable. So are vague postcards. And newspapers. Forty years ago, newspapers ads were a fantastic way to reach people. They're still a great way to reach some people, but they’re not enough to reach the most important people: the landowners you’re proposing a long-term relationship with. The same with postcards. It doesn't matter if that's what's legally acceptable or not. You're not trying to get a date with a lawyer, you're trying to get a date with a hottie. Do the work.

Let’s say there’s this person you see at the grocery store every week. Do you tell the guy in the deli how cute she/he is and just hope that he mentions your interest to her/him? Well, you can, but you probably shouldn’t make reservations at Chez Madeline’s for the next night.

I know it can be hard and scary to meet someone for the first time. Especially when there’s something you want from them that they might not be excited to give, but you just have to do it. Be direct. Be nice. Repeat. Be consistent. And, for heaven’s sake, be early. You want to see an angry landowner? Easy. Make them the last to know about a project.

3. Keep the “woo” in your wooing- Yet again, no one owes you a relationship. You might think that they do, but they don’t. If you want to be with someone without getting a martini thrown in your face, you have to work at it. I’m not talking about flowers or candy (although candy is nice), I’m talking about taking the time to get to know someone. You don’t wait until after your wedding to find out if you have shared interests. At least, not anymore. Take the responsibility, and the initiative, to make sure your new friend feels comfortable with you. Be genuine. Call them up. Respect their boundaries. Give them control of the situation. There’s this phrase you see posted in a lot of offices, “A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.” Give yourself the time and space in your development plan to really work with people. Recognize that they may have had bad experiences with developers in the past. Respect those experiences. Go the extra mile to show them you're not that way. Recognize that courting today isn't done the way it was fifty, twenty, or even ten years ago. Respect the shifting values and work with them. You can't rely on, "Well, this is the way wooing has always been done." Not if you want to get lucky.

Clean Line managed to get most of the easements for the Tennessee segment of Plains & Eastern before they even got utility status from the TRA. I listened to the final TRA hearing. They had a landowner testify about what a great experience they’d had with Clean Line. This was at a time when we were still routinely running into landowners in Arkansas who had no idea they were in the corridor or potentially affected.  Now, granted there is opposition in Tennessee which has been less vocal, but what accounts for the difference in the perception of Clean Line in these two states? Contact. Early contact. A willingness to put themselves out there in terms of risk. They could have wound up with 17 miles of easements they had no use for (still well within the realm of possibility), but they did it anyway. They tried to show the Tennesseans they were valued and important. When asked by the TRA commissioners why there was so much opposition in Arkansas, Clean Line admitted it was because they’d had less contact with Arkansans because the route was less certain. Here’s the thing about that. They’ve always had a preferred route. They’ve always known where they wanted to go. My hunch is that the cost of effectually contacting all those people was an issue... and that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission (though more cowardly). I don’t really know though.  What I do know is that people were furious when they found out the project had been in the works for six years without their input… A lack of effective planning and commitment on your part does not constitute an obligation to fall into line on our part.

4. Watch your messengers- We’ve all played telephone. It’s an old story that doesn’t need rehashing. However, the importance of who you pick to represent you can’t be overstated. If you’re going to choose an advocate to lobby your intended on your behalf, at least chose one he/she likes. If you have to remind them not to belittle or minimize the object of your affection, they’re probably not the right person. If you overhear him/her telling your lover that his/her concerns about his/her health and well-being are irrelevant, you probably need to have a heart to heart. If you discover your messenger had planned to try to humiliate your lover into submission, time to rethink your choice. If you find that your advocate has misrepresented you in an embarrassing way, you might not have the right person. Especially if that misrepresentation is something you were (I hope) unaware of (because… dang).

5. The truth will out- In this day and age, the internet is not only forever, but freely accessible to anyone with personal access or a library card. An astounding amount of information is available on everything from RTO studies, to policy development, to real estate and health studies, to resumes. Social networking means that opposition groups across the country can work together to keep tabs on you and share their knowledge. Be honest about yourselves, your company, and your intentions… Lest the jilted lover of your secret lover air your (hopefully false) dirty laundry online. So if you have, say, a ridiculous little graphic showing how energy is transmitted from wind farms to houses, it doesn’t have to be to scale, but it should be at least somewhat reflective of your proposal proportionally. People aren’t stupid as a general rule and they tend to get grouchy when they feel they’re being manipulated.

6. Don’t promise Aunt Pauline the veal before you’ve proposed marriage- You want to see your lover angry? Ask their parents for their hand before you’ve actually asked your intended. Or better yet, promise Uncle Floyd he can live with you after you’re married without the express and full consent of your would be spouse. It’s a pretty common thing to court schools and job seekers as a means to drum up support for a project, but it’s dangerous when you start attempting to leverage that support to force a situation or override landowners. Can it work? Sure, maybe. But when you attempt to divide a community like that there are repercussions. I’m an agnostic, so I’m not talking about the karmic, “judgement of God” kind of repercussions, but the human ones. 

You may believe with all your heart and soul that you’re doing the right thing, but if you’re yanking your lady into your cave by the hair, you’re treating her badly, even if you end up with a wife. The “greater good” is both a fluid and subjective thing. The damage we do to each other is more concrete. If you feel lost or uncertain, or even if you don’t, do a gut check. Go to the mirror and stare at yourself. Imagine yourself as all the other players in your situation. All the players. Try to feel what they’re feeling, think what they’re thinking. Watch to see if you flinch. If the line between your eyes gets deeper. If you start crying… Then decide if you’re on the right path. And if you’re not, think about how you might fix it. By the way, if you don't feel any pangs of conscience, if you're not at all moved by the struggles of others, you need to see a therapist. Immediately.

7. Apologize when you’re wrong- It’s such a simple thing to do and it carries so much weight. I know this is scary, especially for companies worried about lawsuits, but an apology is so, so very powerful. I mentioned the following to one of Clean Line’s big wigs during the EIS hearings. I’m not sure he actually heard me, but it’s worth repeating: the doctors who don’t get sued aren’t the flawless ones, they’re the ones who apologize.

"Mr. Utley, impressed, didn't bother hiring a lawyer. He settled directly with the hospital for an undisclosed amount which he says was far less than he might have been awarded in court. "They honored me as a human being," he explains.

We all want to be honored as human beings. All of us. We want our life’s work respected. Our autonomy, our intrinsic value, our opinions and thoughts to be given weight. We recognize that for developers, this is all business, but for us, it’s personal… and business. 

8. Take her girlfriends/his boys out to dinner- A major bone of contention with this line is that it affects not only the hosting landowners but their neighbors, who go uncompensated. The proposed line is very, very different from a cell tower, so that argument falls flat (although neighbor payments for cell towers deserve their own discussion). There are situations where P&E would pass much closer to a neighbor’s house than it would the hosting landowner. Those people deserve to be compensated. Well compensated. In spite of what Clean Line repeatedly argues regarding property values, the bottom line is that even if the losses aren’t as great as so many people (lawyers, real estate agents, etc…) expect them to be, developers (especially private developers) have a moral and ethical obligation to make people whole. 

I can’t tell you the level of stress this project has caused people. People who’ve sunk life savings into retirement homes and are terrified that this project will make their futures’ financially insecure. And it makes sense that they would be scared. Listen, even if Clean Line is right, and the property value loss is only 10% (which I am not conceding) next to the line, if you had $100 in your pocket to live off of the rest of your life and some stranger came up to you, took $10 and ran away, would you not be furious? Would you not be deeply offended and terrified? Especially if you knew they were going to turn that ten into thousands? It’s wrong. It’s just wrong. I don’t know how else to say it, and I’m kind of amazed that I even have to.

9. Take a frikkin’ shower- Okay.  Put new transmission underground. I know it’s more expensive. I don’t care. Put the damn things in the dirt. You want to see opposition go home? Take away a major bone of contention.  Looks matter. They do. Duke Energy says they do:

"Regarding vistas, we do consider view shed meaning visual impact as opposed to direct impact on a property," he wrote. "I would also say that, based on public input, we will weight certain factors such as view shed more heavily than others.

Senator Ben Cardin said looks matter when he wrote an amendment to the tax extensions package requiring that new transmission go underground to deal with “the NIMBY issue”. The QER talks about it, too. 

Don’t want to deal with NIMBYs? Fix their driving issues. Duh.

People who do the dirty work of hosting the country’s infrastructure deserve to be treated with deference and respect. They deserve to have their needs met. So, when we tell you developers that you need to stop trashing our view, you need to stop trashing our view. And stop trying to shame people for feeling that way. Aesthetic beauty isn’t something that should be the province of only the people who can afford it. Like… investors and wind farm opponents in Nantucket, say. We can keep arguing about this issue or you all can do the work, speed your process, cheapen your overall costs, and make people happy.

10. No means no- I’ve got to finish up because I’m just getting angrier and angrier as I write this, but this, this right here, is the rule you should never get to. If you find yourself considering whether or not to force your project on someone, you better go back and review the other rules because violating this one is not okay. It’s a failure. Once you've taken that step, there is no turning back. That relationship will never be repaired. It will never be healthy, even if it's moderately functional. Just the threat of that kind of violation is enough to irreparably damage a person and a relationship. It's a bell that can't be unrung. It leaves a mark. Not just on the victim, but on the violator. If you are vastly relying on a legal authority to compel acquiescence to your project, you need to take your butt back to the bathroom mirror and perform another gut check. 

I’ve said it before, ad nauseam, but I’ll say it again: allowing a developer blanket eminent domain to force a project is as ridiculous as allowing a single holdout landowner to derail a good project. It’s stupid. It’s ugly, and it’s wrong.  

Happy Sunday.

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.