Fake Newsiness

"A pre-inaugural list of top infrastructure projects, attributed to the transition team of President Donald Trump, doesn't reflect the administration's official views, White House officials say. 

In emails to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette late Tuesday, presidential spokesman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the list isn't a White House or a transition team policy document."

In my last solo blog post, I promised I would only write again if something really egregious

happened.

Guess what?

In the grand scheme of things, the 50 project infrastructure document "leaked" last week is not a big deal. Don't get me wrong, it's dubious as all get out. But the more that comes out about it's origins (consulting group= lobbyists), the clearer and clearer it becomes that this is more of a Governor's Association/Industry boner list than a well thought out proposal. If you're interested in reading more about the history of the list and don't have a subscription to Politico Pro, try these:

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/economy/2017/01/24/report-trumps-infrastructure-priorities-include-two-big-texas-projects

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/01/25/donald-trump-tweets-a-motive-for-voter-fraud-claim/

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2017/01/25/1624695/-First-hints-of-just-what-might-be-in-Trump-s-infrastructure-bill-released-maybe-Or-not

Yes, you would expect some of these projects to be under consideration regardless of who was looking, but no... consideration doesn't equate to an action item. And in a time where "fake news" has become the rallying cry for anything one disagrees with, the fact remains (true, not alternative) that some of the reporting on this issue was grotesquely optimistic... I'm lookin' at you Arkansas Times ;) (P.S. If you're gonna quote a girl, call a girl) That witty, snarky banter makes for a nice echo chamber noise, but it's more truthiness than truth, Ernie. Why? Oh, because the truth is boring... and hard to get at... and maybe, just maybe, a little gray.

So, just for fun, let's talk a smidgen about permitting. I'm going to run defense for the entire Arkansas delegation for a minute here. Hold my coffee, Mr. Koch. Just kidding...

Ok, so both of the aforementioned Times articles push the idea that the delegation's support of the Keystone XL is evidence of their hypocrisy in terms of their stance on Clean Line. I understand. I get it. I cried for days after the election and I went to the Women's March in Little Rock. This last weekend was both heartbreaking and inspiring. We all approach issues from our own worldview. I believe there are valid reasons to challenge the delegation's general support of pipelines. And, honestly, if you want to go after them for taking money from the Koch brothers? Have at it. Just make sure you're publishing Clean Line's lobbying expenditures, too (Like you did on the $400 lunch)... And the AWEA... And every other moneyed special interest group that actually moves politics in this country.

If you want to go after them because of eminent domain, I'll pull your collar just a little, even though that's my primary area of interest. Same thing with permitting. Why? Because different types of infrastructure projects have different permitting requirements. Some happen at the state level (like transmission lines) and some happen at the federal level (like natural gas and some aspects of oil lines). Before we let our snark monsters rage at these guys, it's helpful to understand what's going on.

Keystone XL, DAPL, and Diamond require some level of federal permitting to build. Transmission lines, with a very few exceptions, are the providence of the state. Clean Line lost their bid for a CCN at the state level. Why? Because our state laws are not set up to permit merchant transmission lines without instate assets and with no mandate from an Regional Transmission Organization (RTO). This is not necessarily a bad thing depending on which side of the bench you're sitting on. If you're on Clean Line's side, it's a hindrance to development. If you're on the side of landowners, states rights advocates, and existing utilities, it protects the state and its residents from fly by night operations with no real intention of making a positive local impact. Mr. Dumas has no problem with Clean Line running to the Department of Energy (DOE) to kiss their CCN rejection boo-boo. Whatever, that's his prerogative, but the state legislature had a problem with it. So did the impacted landowners... And the federal delegation... because it's a valid complaint. Keep in mind that the legislation Dumas referred to was passed after Clean Line applied to the DOE, not before. They didn't try to fix it instate. They should have.

Now, if the argument is that the "balkanization" (they love that word, and all that it implies) of processes makes permitting huge projects like Plains & Eastern hard, there is every reason to have that discussion as a country, but you better bet your bottom dollar that the states aren't going to just roll over and hand the power that ensures their people are treated fairly to the feds. Especially if that means the feds use that authority to permit private projects that can't demonstrate necessity. Something tells me the RTO's won't be dancing in the streets about it either.

If anyone out there ready to rage against the delegation for their support of Keystone XL and DAPL... or Diamond for that matter, wants to help effectively (instead of just screaming into the abyss) they need to refocus their attention on the laws that govern regulatory agencies and the permitting processes that allow these projects to go through the way they do. Yelling at the delegation, the Corps of Engineers, or the PSC is like trying to put spilled milk back in a cup with a toothpick. If you want to effect change, you've got to change the laws. Bottom line... Or be ready to spend a lot of money on legal. The Diamond Pipeline is a four-hundred mile, 20" crude oil pipeline that was permitted without a comprehensive EIS because it didn't trigger a NEPA process and there is NO STATE LEVEL REQUIREMENT for one. If you're going to be pissed about something, be pissed about that.

Back to Clean Line... To be clear, both Keystone and DAPL were lacking permits that they needed to finish. In other words, there was a clear path the new administration could take to give those projects a push. How is that different from Clean Line? Well, for all intents and purposes, the Plains & Eastern project has been "approved" by the Department of Energy. Whether that "approval", or the process they used to get there, holds up in court is one thing, but the fact that they haven't started construction yet has nothing to do with the feds holding up their project and everything to do with the fact that Clean Line just can't seem to get it done. The Department of Energy set up specific requirements Clean Line has to meet before they will give them the go ahead to start construction on the line... These requirements (Conditions Precedent) for financing, subscription, etc... were established to protect the people of Arkansas, the SWPA, and the taxpayers in general. So what steps exactly could a new administration take to push P&E? Well, I don't know, but they'd have to be pretty creative. (By the way, if the new administration tried to get creative like that with a pipeline, the same people getting all warm and toasty over the possibility it could happen for Clean Line would be losing their marbles). And with all Skelly's bellyaching about changing the rules mid-process regarding the APPROVAL Act, they should be ready for a pretty significant backlash should they try anything sketchy.

While all these things seem kind of academic, it's pretty clear from Mario Hurtado's interview with NewsOK that the truthiness of this list isn't going to stop Clean Line from spinning it in a way they can use to preen (beg?) for financing and to pressure landowners.

"When the Trump campaign was looking at infrastructure, we thought it was a good thing to mention. We're just happy to be part of the conversation."

Like, when did you just happen to mention it? Did you run into them in the grocery store? How much did that conversation cost?

I'm not going to get into the potential psychological damage that comes from all these "nice" conversations my friend Mario claims to be having with people. I'm sure some of them probably are. Some of them probably aren't... and as I mentioned to an acquaintance the other day, we have a word for people who repeatedly contact you in spite of a clear request to be left alone. Who call you all the time and show up at your work and home uninvited. Who pressure you repeatedly into something you don't want to do, threatening you with financial harm. Who contact your family members to try and get in touch with you. Who make you feel alone and at risk... They're called "stalkers" and there is no other situation in society in which this kind of behavior is acceptable. By the way, is a "fair deal" an easement "option"?

This is already too long and I have other things to do today, but... in closing. There are three things everyone needs to remember in this somewhat surreal situation:

1. There is still an outstanding federal lawsuit against the Department of Energy regarding this project.

2. The Department of Energy has yet to announce that Clean Line has met the Conditions Precedent they need to move forward.

3. Lobbyists are constantly working on behalf of their clients. At the federal level and at the state level. So this kind of stuff... this "newsiness" is only the beginning. As the new administration settles in and establishes its goals, the swamp ain't going anywhere without a fight. And you can bet that whatever infrastructure plan, commission, or law finally takes place, it's going to have their greasy little fingerprints all over it. The ONLY way for people to get adequate representation in that process is for them to engage and fight for it. My generation was asleep and at war when the 2005 Energy Policy Act was passed. We've woken up. Stay awake.

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.

Landowner Groups File Legal Complaint Against U.S. Department of Energy Over Clean Line Decision

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Please refer media inquiries to:

Gill Ragon Owen, P.A.
Jordan P. Wimpy
(501) 801-3816 or jwimpy@gill-law.com

Landowner Groups File Legal Complaint Against U.S. Department of Energy Over Clean Line Decision

Golden Bridge, LLC, and Downwind, LLC, two organizations representing the property rights and interests of member landowners along the entire route of the proposed "Plains and Eastern" HVDC transmission line in Arkansas, filed a legal complaint against the Department of Energy and the Southwestern Power Administration regarding their approval of and participation in the proposed project. "Landowners were never offered an appropriate avenue for due process during the DOE's review of Clean Line's application," said Dave Ulery of Golden Bridge. "An opportunity to comment is not the same as an opportunity to directly participate in the matter in an official capacity. Review is meaningless if those most affected are not given ample and significant opportunity to engage on a meaningful and substantive level."

The legal complaint raises concerns regarding the legality of the Department of Energy’s decision to participate in the project using Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act. “While understanding the importance of infrastructure in the production, transmission, and distribution of electrical energy,” a spokesperson for Downwind noted, “the landowner-managed organization is concerned with the federal government’s legal authority, and the scope and manner of its proposed participation in transmission projects pursuant to Section 1222. There are lingering doubts about the substance and merits of the Department’s determination in this project, with particular concern relating to the potential use of federal eminent domain to condemn private property for the benefit of a private, for-profit company.”

Both groups continue to accept new members. For more information, please go to www.GoldenBridgeAR.org.

Contact:

GoldenBridgeAR@gmail.com
Golden Bridge, LLC
4300 Rogers Ave., Suite 20-148,
Fort Smith, AR 72903

Who wants some Clean Line whine?

Drink up! It's free, and Dave Berry has been handing it out without restraint in Georgia recently. Full disclosure: this post is long and nerdy. I am completely convinced that no normal person would want to read this stuff.

Introduction

Many of you are aware: Clean Line (and all of us, unfortunately) has a long road ahead of them with their "Plains and Eastern" project. Landowners oppose the project in record numbers, the entire Arkansas federal congressional delegation supports us (thank you!), and they have quite a few hurdles to jump before any shovels hit the ground. After the Department of Energy's recent approval, one of the biggest hurdles Clean Line has to jump over is obtaining customers. Not "letters of intent" or the like, but REAL, firm, and enforceable contracts for capacity on their line.

They need customers, customers, customers... like, yesterday. Customers are the butter for their bread. Without them, they can't use eminent domain against us, the DOE won't help them with landowner negotiations, they can't get financing, the line becomes financially unfeasible, and it doesn't get built. Period. As frustrating as it is... in this case, time is our friend.

These things being said, I would just like to say that being as immersed as we have been in this process and opposition for going on three years now, it is a spectacular emotional (and physical) roller coaster. There is constant worry, and you're always trying to find something, anything, to ease your mind a bit. If there's anything we've learned about Clean Line, there are two sides to them: There is the public, rosy aura that they want you to perceive, and then there are the things that are going on behind the scenes to accomplish their goals. Sometimes it takes a bit of digging to get the full picture. I hope you enjoy.

Clean Line Needs Customers

Really, Clean Line has just has about three options when it comes to subscription:

1. Large utilities such as the TVA, Southern Company and it's subsidiaries, Entergy Arkansas/Louisiana, etc, can buy large chunks of their capacity. One would have to assume that this option would be preferable to CLEP because it is the easiest for them.
2. Smaller municipal electricity co-ops throughout the "midsouth and southeast" can sign much smaller capacity contracts in the 25-50mW range. It takes a LOT of those to fill the capacity of a 4,000mW line.
3. There are some corporations that want to "green" their image. Imagine the scenario where a few private, for-profit "Fortune 500" companies are alright with other another private, for-profit company seizing land from private landowners to aid in their quest to make themselves look good. Yeah, that's the point we've gotten to in this country. Here's evidence:

Enjoy your Corn Flakes, folks!

One of the potential customers Clean Line has been courting (or attempting to strong-arm, depending on your perspective) is Georgia Power (GP). Now, for a little bit of clarity and perspective, GP is a subsidiary of Southern Company, and here is their service territory:

According to Wikipedia:

Georgia Power is an electric utility headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, United States. It was established as the Georgia Railway and Power Company and began operations in 1902 running streetcars in Atlanta as a successor to the Atlanta Consolidated Street Railway Company.

Georgia Power is the largest of the four electric utilities that are owned and operated by Southern Company. Georgia Power is an investor-owned, tax-paying public utility that serves more than 2.25 million customers in all but four of Georgia's 159 counties. It employs approximately 9,000 workers throughout the state.

The Georgia Power Building, its primary corporate office building, is located at 241 Ralph McGill Boulevard in downtown Atlanta.

Unlike Clean Line, they're a serious utility, much like Entergy within the state of Arkansas. They're also leading the way in the southeast for emissions reductions, apparently now without Clean Line. Why do I say this? Let me explain:

Back in January, Georgia Power released their latest proposed Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), in which they lay out their generation requirements for the next twenty years. Here's the full docket. Where Clean Line enters this IRP mix is directly tied to their "REDI" program which is nested within their broader IRP on page 10-106:

As part of its continued effort to responsibly grow the renewable generation market in Georgia and provide energy benefits to all customers, the Company is proposing the procurement of an additional 525 MW of renewable capacity through 2019 if such procurement can be obtained below the Company’s projected avoided costs. In order to provide the maximum amount of benefit to customers, the Company is proposing to procure this energy through three distinct programs: (1) RFPs from renewable developers with utility scale projects to fulfill an annual portfolio capacity target; (2) RFPs from developers with smaller, distributed scale projects to fulfill an annual portfolio capacity; and, (3) smaller, distributed scale solar purchase offerings from Georgia Power customer-sited projects.

Where Clean Line's part would come in:

Under the utility scale portion of the REDI RFPs, Georgia Power proposes to purchase energy from up to 425 MW of renewable generation scheduled to achieve commercial operation no later than December 31, 2019. The Company will file a detailed RFP schedule in September 2016 that will outline the timeline for the 425 MW RFP. The Company will accept proposals for solar, wind, and biomass projects with 2018 or 2019 commercial operation dates (“COD”) based on transmission impacts and overall value. The Company will take ownership of all Renewable Energy Credits (“RECs”) produced by these facilities. Third-party proposals that allow for Georgia Power ownership will be considered.

For utility scale resource bids, the Company will accept proposals for projects that are greater than 3 MW in size, but no larger than 210 MW in size that can attain commercial operation in 2018. The Company will also accept proposals for projects greater than 3 MW in size but no larger than 215 MW in size that can attain commercial operation in 2019. Consistent with the ASI-Prime utility scale RFP, the PPAs will be for a term of up to 30 years. 

For all renewable resources bids, the Company will accept both “as delivered” proposals and “firm block” proposals. The cost of upgrades on Southern Company’s electric system to deliver to Southern Balancing Authority Area load, if required, will be imputed into the total bid costs.

However, for renewable resources located outside of the Southern Balancing Authority Area, proposals must bear all transmission delivery cost and risk to the point of delivery at the Southern Balancing Authority Area interface. The Company will accept proposals for delivery to the Southern Balancing Authority Area interface across high voltage direct current (“HVDC”) lines.

That sounds good for Clean Line, right? Georgia Power accepting proposals from HVDC would be a great thing for them. There's only one problem with it: Those pesky in-service dates. See, Clean Line is pushing the idea that their transmission line will be energized by 2020. My opinion is, even if everything goes exactly as planned for them, there's less than a snowball's chance of that, but that's another post entirely (I think GP knows that, too). The problem with GP's IRP for Clean Line revolves around their proposed "Request for Proposals" (RFP). In the original IRP, the RFP is laid out to be executed as follows:

For utility scale resource bids, the Company will accept proposals for projects that are greater than 3 MW in size, but no larger than 210 MW in size that can attain commercial operation in 2018. The Company will also accept proposals for projects greater than 3 MW in size but no larger than 215 MW in size that can attain commercial operation in 2019. Consistent with the ASI-Prime utility scale RFP, the PPAs will be for a term of up to 30 years. 

Clean Line really wants Georgia Power as a transmission customer. REALLY wants them. Where the "Clean Line whine" enters the picture is with their own David Berry's intervention into the docket to approve Georgia Power's 2016 IRP. See, Clean Line wants everyone in the southeast to have renewable energy as quickly as possible, unless it's not Clean Line's renewable energy. When it turns out that it might not be Clean Line's renewable energy that will enter Georgia Power's mix via their REDI program, they send one of their top guys to try to get the Georgia PSC to maybe persuade GP to change their IRP a little bit to help them out:

1. Authorize and direct the procurement of additional renewables beyond the 525 MW currently identified in the IRP so long as the resources are below Georgia Power’s avoided cost. Georgia Power currently proposes initiating a Renewable Energy Development Initiative (“REDI”), which includes plans to procure an additional 525 MW of renewable capacity through a REDI Request for Proposal (“RFP”). As identified in the IRP on page 10-104, Table 2: Components by Resource Type- Wind & Biomass, integrating wind resources results in significant benefits due to avoided fuel and purchased power costs, avoided operations and maintenance costs, avoided environmental compliance costs, and avoided capacity costs. The Commission should authorize and direct Georgia Power to procure more than 525 MW of renewables if additional proposals are received that have a higher benefit to Georgia Power ratepayers than cost, which will result in downward pressure in rates.
   
2. Maintain the RFP’s flexibility across technologies. Renewable energy technologies, particularly wind and solar, are complementary resources. Wind energy is typically the lowest cost resource, produces more energy per megawatt (“MW”) installed, contributes substantially to meeting winter peak demand and provides for economic development opportunities in the supply chain. Solar energy contributes substantially to meeting summer peak demand and provides for local construction job opportunities. The two resources also complement one another on a time of day basis, and a portfolio of both wind and solar produces less system variability. By increasing the size of the RFP, there will be substantial opportunities to include both cost-effective wind and solar generation into Georgia Power’s supply portfolio.
   
3. Accelerate the timing of the RFP to align with the wind Production Tax Credit phase out, resulting in lower costs of wind generation. The REDI RFP should begin as soon as possible to ensure that the wind proposals received capture the full value of the Production Tax Credit (“PTC”). 2016 will be the last year that new wind project construction will be eligible for the full value of the PTC. Wind generators can preserve this value by incurring 5% of the total cost, or starting construction, of the facility during 2016. However, without firm commercial commitments from Georgia Power, wind generation companies are unlikely to invest the significant capital needed to qualify wind farms for the full PTC value in order to supply the lowest cost wind power. Delaying the start of the RFP until late this year, or until 2017, will result in wind generation proposals that are more expensive due to a lower PTC value. 
   
4. Allow proposals commencing operations as late as 2021 if they offer higher net benefits to customers. The current construct of the RFP proposes procuring 210 MW of utility scale renewable projects that can attain commercial operation in 2018 and 215 MW of utility scale renewable projects that can attain commercial operation in 2019. This does not provide sufficient time for wind generators using Plains & Eastern or other new transmission lines to come online. Clean Line believes that the lowest-cost renewable resource available to Georgia Power is Oklahoma Panhandle wind power delivered via Plains & Eastern, which will begin delivering energy to the Southeast in 2020. Closing the RFP to such a resource would likely increase costs for Georgia Power customers.
   
5. Encourage Georgia Power to evaluate ownership of wind assets. Finally, the RFP should consider the additional benefits to ratepayers if Georgia Power were to own the wind facilities. Clean Line supports the following statement from pg. 10- 106 of the IRP: “third-party proposals that allow for Georgia Power ownership will be considered.” Investments in wind will likely result in a lower delivered cost of energy than the same resource procured via a power purchase agreement, due to Georgia Power’s low cost of capital and efficient use of tax credits. 

Also:

Q. Please explain how specifying required online dates may limit the responses received in the REDI RFP

A. The current construct of the RFP proposes procuring 210 MW of utility scale renewable projects that can attain commercial operation in 2018 and 215 MW of utility scale renewable projects that can attain commercial operation in 2019. The lowest cost wind resource available to Georgia Power is likely to be Oklahoma Panhandle wind delivered via Plains & Eastern, which will begin delivering energy to the Southeast in 2020. Clean Line plans to allocate a majority of the 4,000 MW of transmission capacity to the Southeast to generator-shippers in 2016 and early 2017. This finite resource will not be available if Georgia Power waits until the next IRP cycle in 2019 to evaluate delivered Plains & Eastern wind, and maintaining a 2018 or 2019 required online date may preclude these resources from competing in the proposed REDI RFP.

It would be incredibly convenient for Clean Line if the Georgia PSC directed Georgia Power to adopt these recommendations, wouldn't it?

So, did Mr. Berry get what he wanted? It doesn't appear like he will. Georgia Power did, in fact, increase the amount of renewable energy they'd procure. It also appears that they added a stipulation that only 300mW of energy procured through REDI could be wind. That doesn't help. Did they bend their RFP dates for the sole benefit of including Clean Line? No. Did they say they would consider projects with an in-service date in 2020-2021 in their 2017 RFP? No. Doesn't do a lot to help them:

3. The Renewable Energy Development Initiative ("REDI") is approved and shall be increased such that it will procure 1,200 MW (150 MW of Distributed Generation ("DG") and 1,050 MW of utility scale resources.) Utility scale procurement shall take place through two separate Requests For Proposals ("RFP"). The first RFP will be issued to the marketplace in 2016 and will seek 525 MW of renewables with in service dates of 2018 and 2019. The second RFP will be issued to the marketplace in 2019 and will seek 525 MW of renewables with in service dates of 2020 and 2021. No more than a total of 300 MW of wind resources shall be procured through REDI...

Conclusion: There's a good chance we can cross out Georgia Power from Clean Line's list of potential customers (at least until 2019). It's good news.

Time Is Our Friend

Mr. Berry outlines perfectly on page 19 the reason their project's success is related directly to the Production Tax Credit (PTC). Any pesky delays from landowners or other entities makes their project increasingly less financially feasible as the clock ticks:

V. The REDI RFP should begin as soon as possible, and should allow proposals for delivery later than 2018. 

Q. How will the timing of the REDI RFP affect the wind prices that are received?  

A. The timing of the RFP will have a large effect on the wind proposals received, as the Production Tax Credit will begin a multi-year phase out in 2017. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2015 extended the Section 45 PTC for electricity produced from wind generation retroactively to January 1, 2015, and prospectively through the end of 2019. After 2016, the credit will be reduced by 20% for projects that begin construction in 2017, by 40% for projects that begin construction in 2018, and by 60% for projects that begin in 2019. The wind PTC would expire for projects that begin construction on or after January 1, 2020.

Under guidance previously issued by the IRS interpreting the “beginning of construction” rule for qualified renewable power facilities there are two methods that a taxpayer may use to establish that construction of a qualified facility has begun:

1. A taxpayer may establish the beginning of construction by: (a) starting physical work of a significant nature (Physical Work Test) and (b) thereafter maintaining a continuous program of construction. 

2. Under the second method, a taxpayer may establish the beginning of construction by meeting the so-called “5% safe harbor,” which provides that construction of a facility will be considered as having begun if (1) a taxpayer pays or incurs five percent or more of the total cost of the facility before the applicable expiration date, and (2) thereafter, the taxpayer makes continuous efforts to advance towards completion of the facility. 

Wind generators need certainty of offtake arrangements prior to incurring five percent of the total cost of the facility or commencing construction. Georgia Power currently plans to file a detailed RFP schedule with the Commission in September 2016, which would lead to the issuance of the RFP likely in early 2017. This timing would eliminate the potential for wind proposals that include the full value of the PTC. Georgia Power should release the RFP as soon as possible.

This declining PTC value means that the lowest cost wind will be procured in 2016, and the cost of wind energy will rise between 2016 and 2020 as the tax credit is phased out. Improvements in wind turbine technology have significantly increased the capacity factor of wind, thereby lowering the delivered cost of energy, but near-term improvements in turbine technology will not be sufficient to compensate for this lost PTC value. 

Thanks for that description, Mr. Berry. I haven't been able to find a better one anywhere else.

Plains and Eastern is Not "Clean" Anymore

Not only that, but David Berry also admits something that we've known all along, but Clean Line says nothing about: Clean Line is no longer a "clean" line anymore, either. This is found on page 13 of the testimony linked at the top of this section:

Q: Are there any additional value components associated with transmission service across Plains & Eastern that should be evaluated during the renewable RFP process?

A. Yes. In addition to transferring low cost wind, transmission capacity on Plains & Eastern can be used to deliver bulk power from the SPP system during the hours when wind generation is not using the entire capacity of Plains & Eastern. Clean Line has estimated that the ability to deliver SPP market power could save Georgia ratepayers approximately $9 million dollars a year. This calculation assumes that Georgia Power or a wind generator has obtained enough transmission service across Plains & Eastern to deliver 1000 MW to the Southern system.

So, translation: As we all know, the wind doesn't blow all the time. What Mr. Berry is saying here is that, when wind generation isn't supplying full capacity on the line, that extra available capacity could very well be filled with coal-generated power from the bulk SPP system. While Clean Line has been portraying this line as the "green" way to go, it turns out that isn't the whole truth. Who would have thought, right? All of us.
 
What say you Glen Hooks and Bob Allen?

Conclusions

1. Clean Line needs customers, they seem borderline desperate, and Georgia Power is not likely to be one of those customers anytime soon.
2. In this case, time is our friend.
3. The Plains and Eastern "clean line" isn't quite as clean as it has been portrayed. It's turning into a regular old transmission line.

If you made it this far, thanks for reading! :)

My last blog post… Well, so I hope.

This is my last blog post.

At least it is barring some extreme Clean Line shenanigans. I’ve been meaning to write one for a while now. Ever since the Department of Energy’s Record of Decision/Participation Agreement with Plains & Eastern made it absolutely clear this project would end up in a courtroom instead of ending on Moniz’s desk. I don’t really blame the DOE for that decision… How many federal agencies stand up and say, “No, we really don’t have the power or authority to do XYZ”? It doesn’t happen. And in a way, this is better: Congress proposes, an administration acts, and judges rule. Is a law really a law before it’s been tested by fire? There’s this great line from Robert Graves' I Claudius: 

"Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out."

Courtrooms and the discovery process are pretty good places for the hatching out of poisons… And of redacted financial information.

So anyway, what prompted me to finally take up the keyboard for this quasi-final farewell was Clean Line’s self-aggrandizing press release following the defeat of Senator Boozman’s energy bill amendment (thank you, Senator) earlier this week. Don’t worry if you haven’t seen it. It’s not getting much exposure at this point. Maybe it will later. But either way, I promise you... you’ve heard Clean Line say everything in it before. Ad nauseum.

I mean… where to begin? Well, let’s start with the biggest shock. Where is Louis Schmoll? Louis, the landowner from Atkins who gets trotted out and quoted every. single. time Clean Line needs to show how Arkansans support their project. Not enough space to include him and/or Bob AND industry reps perhaps?

Instead, how about we begin with Micheal Skelly’s pleasure at the “bipartisan” nature of the vote? Guess what other big vote was bipartisan? Go on... Guess...

If you were thinking of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, you'd be correct. It passed by an almost 3/4ths majority mix of D&Rs. Compared to that vote, this week’s vote, a.k.a. the “vote to say no” (gag), looks a little weak. And pretty clearly, there are a number of senators ready to tug the reins at the DOE. Is that partisan? Meh, maybe somewhat. But “partisan” isn’t the answer to everything and, if there’s anything we’re learning from this election cycle, it’s that where the politicians are is vastly where the people aren’t.

Now, if you had actually read Clean Line's press release, depending on your point of view, you could have interpreted just a whiff of desperation. A kind of… “Look at us! We won! Pleeeeeeease look at us!” sorta thing. But what exactly did Clean Line “win”? Not much. Legally, this changes nothing. Not the vagueness or contradictions in 1222. Not the attempted application of the law by the DOE. And certainly not the applicability of Plains & Eastern to that law.

They got the adamant support of New Mexico Senator Heinrich (wonder why... WAPA territory, maybe?) and the support of Senators Lankford and Inhofe- yes, he of "snowball on the floor" climate change denying fame- (R-OK) and McCaskill (D-MO). Oh, if only us little people had had an extra $400k to spend in DC last year…  

So, I ask again, what did they win? Besides the chance for the continued confidentiality of certain financials? Well, they won the opportunity to have a senator get up and argue, on the record no less, that Boozman’s amendment… this little report to ensure transparency and fiscal responsibility… is a "job killing amendment". (@3:15:00) Really? Because Plains & Eastern is so vulnerable a report could kill it?

0.o

Yikes. With friends like that, who needs enemies?


Arrivederci


P.S. Omg- I didn't expect to be back so soon. I wrote this on Friday morning. It's now Saturday and all I can say is... clearly, nothing quite has the power to draw the poison out like another proposed amendment. This one, announced by Senator Cotton yesterday afternoon, blocks funding for 1222 projects (thank you, Senator). The response from "Clean Line" was truly breathtaking. Take a look at the sky above you, folks, because if this amendment passes, that sucker is coming down! D.O.W.N! Down! I think they covered just about every threat in the capitalist handbook: Hostile business environment? Check! Harder to build infrastructure? Check! Job KILLER? Check! Higher energy bills? Check! 

Except that... Well, in the interest of time, just read this.  And this. Or, like, open the business section of the Democrat Gazette.

The thing that really grinds my gears, though... The one thing in that statement that doesn't make me snicker into my coffee even a little is the argument that this is going to cause higher energy bills. And to me, it's kind of a perfect example of what I don't like about Clean Line. It assumes we'll pay a higher rate than what they say they can provide for us and presents that as if it were already a reality. The bottom line is that you can't lose what you don't already have.

Finally, this is it I promise, we have this gem: 

The company said the amendment is “a clear example of political meddling targeted at one company and changes the rules in the middle of the game, after tens of millions of private dollars have been invested. The Cotton amendment hurts American consumers and business by undermining the law that was passed under a Republican administration with bipartisan support. 

I have been very careful never to curse on this blog, but oh, how I want to... Instead I'm going to put on my cleanest Battlestar Galactica uniform and say... Frack you, buddy. Frack you.

How about this instead:

Clean Line spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbying efforts in Washington D.C. in direct opposition to the APPROVAL Act is a clear example of big business meddling targeted at a small group of landowners and changes the rules in the middle of the game, after those landowners have spent their lives building sweat and financial equity in their properties, paying their taxes and living like decent human beings. The Cotton amendment is yet another attempt to protect those individuals and their state by bringing attention to a vague and contradictory section of a law that was passed in the era of Cheney's Energy Task Force with a glut of lobbying dollars spent on behalf of industry to provide them with a "piñata of perks".

Meddling.  Phooey.

Hannibal BPW not a "good witness" for Clean Line...

In an interesting turn of events, Hannibal, Missouri's Board of Public Works has decided it is in no hurry to be a "good witness" at the Missouri Public Service Commission:

HANNIBAL, Mo. -- The Hannibal Board of Public Works has suspended talks with Houston-based Clean Line Energy Partners about investing in or using its proposed Grain Belt Express transmission line to bring wind-generated electricity to the city.

BPW General Manager Bob Stevenson told the utility's board of directors Tuesday that the BPW has decided to step back and observe developments between the company and other municipalities before moving forward.

"We just decided to sit back, take it easy for a while, and just study what's going [on], keep asking questions, keep researching," Stevenson said. "We've got nothing to put forward. There is no pending contract."

In a pitch to the BPW last month, Mark Lawlor, Clean Line director of development, outlined the possibilities of the utility paying an annual service fee to bring energy from the west to meet its demand or taking part ownership in a Ralls County converter station and a portion of the project's capacity. The latter would allow the BPW to sell what capacity it doesn't use.

And, really, this comes as no surprise because, as with Plains and Eastern and Rock Island, Clean Line has "got nothing":

Stevenson said the BPW has no deadline for making decisions related to the project despite Clean Line's goal of appearing before the commission again this year.

"Without us, they've got nothing," he said. "Just because they're in a hurry doesn't mean we have to be." (emphasis added)

And, Kudos to the Ralls County, Missouri, for understanding the heart of this issue:

Wiley Hibbard, Ralls County presiding commissioner, told BPW board members he was pleased the utility plans to hold off on further consideration of participating in Grain Belt Express. Farmers and landowners have blasted the project over concerns it would hurt land values; make land around the line's infrastructure unusable; and grant a private firm public utility status, which would allow eminent domain. 

"It's not that we're opposed to easements and power lines -- Lord knows we've got hundreds of them throughout the county," Hibbard said. "It's just the sheer immensity of this project."

To read the full story, go here.

It's the Eminent Domain:

It's the eminent domain. It's not the source of energy, it's the eminent domain. Clean Line, being little more than a potential profit center for a few privileged investors, has not justified a need for any of its projects, and shouldn't be granted eminent domain. Let me repeat: It is the eminent domain.

It is a hard pill for landowners to swallow when they understand that Clean Line is potentially planning to offer them what would amount to roughly $18 for each 1' long X 200' wide strip of their land here in Arkansas. It becomes even harder to swallow when landowners read stories about the Ziff family (Clean Line's majority stakeholder) setting records in real estate sales at Martha's Vineyard and also offering up a private compound for sale in Malalapan, Florida, that is topped in price ($195 million) in the United States only by Hugh Hefner's Playboy mansion. If I shell out that kind of cash, do I get to keep the elephant tusks that are on display at 0:53 in the video, or are you taking those with you when you move out?

Investors: It is time to bail. With your help, Clean Line's optics are truly terrible (and only getting worse) and the opposition's resolve is strong across the board against their speculative projects. Landowners have made it clear they're not going to accept this sort of abuse simply to enrich a few at the expense of many. Enough is enough.

So, what happens now in Missouri?

So, all of this begs the question: What is Clean Line's next move in Missouri? Do they re-file there with absolutely nothing more to offer? Now that everyone there is watching closely, I suppose they can hope to get a few more closed-door meetings? They'd better be really sneaky, because quite surely other municipal utilities are watching this outcome at BPW. Just in case they aren't, we'll continue to make sure what is going on in Missouri receives due attention.

Also, what happened to that "parked" Section 1222 application Clean Line has with the Department of Energy and the threats Mark Lawlor lobbed to utilize it after the Missouri Public Service Commission denied their application? If the decision that is going to be handed down from DOE is going to be such a slam dunk for you, Clean Line, why not just totally bypass Missouri like you're trying to do in Arkansas? Should you decide to go ahead with your Section 1222 application, Arkansans stand ready to help our friends in Missouri fight that process.

And, by the way, where is the decision on Arkansas' Section 1222 application? It was supposed to be delivered by the end of last year, wasn't it, Mr. Skelly? We're a month beyond the DOE's timeline showing it would be delivered by mid-January. What's going on there?

Not an oligarchy, yet:

Listen, everyone: This great country in which we all reside is not yet an oligarchy. However, if this speculative group of individuals is allowed access to eminent domain at the hands of our federal government, I am afraid this will be just one more example of and step toward our country turning into one.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not railing against rich folks. I think it is perfectly fine for people to have $200 million compounds if they so choose, because that is part of the freedom of being a citizen of the United States. I think you're totally ridiculous if you do, but it is your right to live as you please, just as it is my right to tell you that I think you're silly for doing so. Where the problem arrives for me, and I think others, is when you use your never-ending wealth to lobby OUR federal government to use eminent domain on your behalf as an investment discount to increase the profits of your purely speculative business model on the backs of thousands of wonderful, hard-working people. We all live under the same Constitution, including the privileged few... at least, we're supposed to.

I will leave everyone with a clear message: The opposition in the beautiful "Natural State" in which I proudly reside is strong, active, and unified. You shouldn't expect us to give up.

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!