"We believe this is a logical decision for the U.S. Department of Energy given Clean Line Energy Partners’ apparent abandonment of the proposed Plains & Eastern HVDC project.
We hope Clean Line’s attempt to override both state law and the will of the people will serve as a cautionary tale for future developers. We thank our federal delegation, state assembly members, and local officials for their unwavering support throughout this process. Finally, we would not be here today without the tireless grassroots support of hundreds of landowners in Arkansas and Oklahoma over the last several years."
See the smoldering ruins behind Michael Skelly over there? The twisted steel and scorched concrete trailing behind him? Those are the bridges he burned in Arkansas. Well, rhetorically, of course... because Michael Skelly never actually built anything here, except a list of enemies. There’s a difference between innovation and hubris, reality and fantasyland. Maybe you need a bit of both to pull off the project of Skelly’s dreams, but somewhere along the line… between attempting to circumvent state authority and bluffing about local tax payments, Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC, managed to make their project so toxic no one seems to want anything to do with them. To recap the events of recent weeks: Plains & Eastern, Clean Line’s regulatory crown jewel and the only of its projects to be fully (if questionably) permitted, is DEAD in Arkansas. Hallelujah. Don't take our word for it, though. Let's look at a little evidence:
Clean Line Withdraws from TVA's Interconnection Queue: Just a little background: Clean Line has three points of interconnection for it's project - at Southwest Power Pool (SPP) in Oklahoma for its proposed converter station at the beginning of the line, at Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) for its proposed converter station in Pope County, Arkansas, and at Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for its proposed converter station in Shelby County, Tennessee. All three are vital to the Project's ultimate success. As you can see in the following screenshot, Clean Line has withdrawn its position in TVA's interconnection queue.
What's missing from the second screenshot (TVA's current interconnection queue)? #219 and #220 (Clean Line). Now, Skelly will likely attempt to say that the position can simply be revived later, but that's not really how the process works according to TVA:
3.5 Withdrawal. The Interconnection Customer may withdraw its Interconnection Request at any time by written notice of such withdrawal to TVA. In addition, if the Interconnection Customer fails to adhere to all requirements of this LGIP, except as provided in Section 13.5 (Disputes), TVA shall deem the Interconnection Request to be withdrawn and shall provide written notice to the Interconnection Customer of the deemed withdrawal and an explanation of the reasons for such deemed withdrawal. Upon receipt of such written notice, the Interconnection Customer shall have fifteen (15) Business Days in which to either respond with information or actions that cure the deficiency or to notify TVA of its intent to pursue Dispute Resolution. Withdrawal shall result in the loss of the Interconnection Customer’s Queue Position. If an Interconnection Customer disputes the withdrawal and loss of its Queue Position, then during Dispute Resolution, the Interconnection Customer's Interconnection Request is eliminated from the queue until such time that the outcome of Dispute Resolution would restore its Queue Position. An Interconnection Customer that withdraws or is deemed to have withdrawn its Interconnection Request shall pay to TVA all costs that TVA prudently incurs with respect to that Interconnection Request prior to TVA’s receipt of notice described above. The Interconnection Customer must pay all monies due to TVA before it is allowed to obtain any Interconnection Study data or results. TVA shall (i) update the OASIS Queue Position posting and (ii) refund to the Interconnection Customer any portion of the Interconnection Customer's deposit or study payments that exceed the costs that TVA has incurred. In the event of such withdrawal, TVA, subject to the confidentiality provisions of Section 13.1, shall provide, at Interconnection Customer's request, all information that TVA developed for any completed study conducted up to the date of withdrawal of the Interconnection Request.
There goes Clean Line's proposed end point. Clean Line Withdraws from MISO's Interconnection Queue: This is the one we've been waiting for. A withdrawal from MISO's interconnection queue removes the Project's midpoint (the Pope County, Arkansas, converter station connection point) from the equation. Go here and search for "J319." The evidence:
There goes Clean Line's proposed mid-point. Long story short: No connection point in Tennessee and no connection point in Arkansas = NO PROJECT IN ARKANSAS. This is fantastic news, Arkansas landowners. The multi-year fight has been unnecessarily taxing and expensive, but this is looking good for you. In spite of Skelly’s many, many protestations, the simple fact is, absent the Oklahoma portion of the line, whatever Frankenmonster he intends to “someday” cobble together is NOT Plains & Eastern. The Project, as pitched, hyped, and sold to the U.S. Department of Energy, no longer exists, whether or not Skelly believes he could somehow manage to get back into line at the TVA or MISO.
Do Skelly, et al, (meaning those few scraps of leadership left in his company) really not comprehend what they’ve done by selling Oklahoma to NextEra? Who gave this man their investment money? And for goodness sake, why?
Why a company that had the hubris to assume they could jump the appellate queue all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court… a company that never misses a chance to appeal an unfavorable decision, would assume dedicated landowners would stop with a district court ruling is beyond us. This company spent years, YEARS, holding Arkansans hostage. You think we’re going to let the first judge be the end all? Not likely, princess.
No, Mr. Skelly, you will not be allowed to sit in Houston and twiddle your thumbs until a magic buyer comes along. You will not be allowed to hold onto your “permit” with one hand while selling off pieces of your company with the other. You will not be allowed to fail to file updates with regulatory agencies and simultaneously claim the project is still alive. You will not be allowed to do that to so many Arkansans. Now, the ten-ton elephant in the room falls on NextEra: What about our good friends in Oklahoma? What are your intentions there, NextEra? We think you owe Oklahomans an explanation about what your true intentions are. Are you actually proposing a different transmission line? Maybe to compete with AEP's "Wind Catcher" project? If so, where might that project stop in Oklahoma? Again, these landowners deserve an explanation from you... sooner, rather than later. And what about the reporters who continue to give this company so much deference? Don't you feel like it's time to do a little bit more digging and put this to bed for landowners in Arkansas and Oklahoma? It's time for you to stop handling these guys with kid gloves, isn't it?
So, go back to your firehouse, Michael Skelly… maybe do a little more glory hounding and dream up your next snake-oil scheme. With the exception of greeniacs like Dr. Smith (BTW, I’m sure Bill Johnson is shaking in his boots. *eyeroll*), everyone can see right through you.
Michael Skelly is now living in a world filled with hubris and fantasy. We'll update you again with more when we know more.
Well, it’s happened. Clean Line doesn’t love Arkansas anymore. “The markets have shifted," Mario says. First, we got friend-zoned (remember when they were just going to use us as an doormat for their extension cord to Tennessee?), then loved us no matter how much we didn’t want it (baby, I’m gonna give you all the taxes-not-really-taxes-voluntary-payments and jobs you can handle), and now Clean Line is moving on and trying to sell (kind of like multiple interested parties always said they would) this debacle of a project to American Electric Power (AEP) to "help" facilitate their proposed "Wind Catcher" project. We could go on for a while about what exactly "Wind Catcher" is, but this article by Jeffery Tomich of E&E News very effectively summarizes what it is and gives a brief summary of what Clean Line is now seeking:
Clean Line did disclose an unusual offer to a potential customer last week in an Oklahoma regulatory filing.
In testimony filed at the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the company suggested that the Plains and Eastern project provide the transmission for Public Service Co. of Oklahoma's piece of American Electric Power Co.'s Wind Catcher project.
The $4.5 billion AEP project would be able to provide wind energy to its utility customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas from a 2,000-MW wind farm being developed in Oklahoma and 350-mile high-voltage transmission line (Energywire, July 27).
Clean Line supports the Wind Catcher project and its ambitions to bring utility customers access to low-cost wind energy in the same way that utilities such as Xcel Energy Inc. and MidAmerican Energy Co. are doing, Hurtado said.
"It just happens that we're a number of years ahead on our project compared with the [transmission line] that they proposed back in July," he said. "We think our project can provide a lower risk and ultimately a lower-cost option to move that power that they want to serve their customers."
Clean Line, which has been an evangelist for the benefits of DC technology for long-haul transmission projects, even said it's willing to use alternating-current technology if that's what AEP wants to do.
"We didn't want the discussion about the benefits that this project brings to be focused on a technology discussion of AC versus DC," Hurtado said.
So far, Clean Line's very general proposal to play a part in Wind Catcher is just that.
Readthat again. One more time. I had to read it four times to grasp exactly what Mario was saying here. And then I did a little research because I like to know what Mario and crew are up to. ;) In my search, I was able to locate the Wind Catcher docket at the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC). By the way, OCC, you really should update your system so it can be more easily searched. Here's a small tutorial about how to view the whole docket:
3) Viola! You now have access to the Wind Catcher docket at the OCC. I'm a pretty simple person, but this took me a decent amount of time. It shouldn't have, OCC. You should be able to search for terms such as "Clean Line" or "AEP" to bring up results. If the case number is unavailable or difficult to find, the "Search" function is pretty much useless.
Now that your chin is on the floor and you've learned how to access the Wind Catcher docket: click here and read. It is, at times, vomit-and-laughter inducing, but it's also revealing. Let's examine a little bit of that testimony, shall we? It's really important.
1) The "market has changed" and there is currently no demand for the Plains and Eastern project east of Oklahoma:
Translation: Clean Line STILL has no customers. This is something we've been trying to say for a long time, but it's pretty satisfying to see it finally coming from the horse's mouth directly. Something else is also revealed:
2) Clean Line is more than willing to re-route the project away from its current route and terminate the project at Tulsa. A "second phase could be built at a later date if market demands warrant such action."
Let that sink in for a moment. This has always been about HVDC, how great that technology is, and how this project is designed to "deliver the best wind energy to the mid-south and southeast" through a converter station in Pope county, Arkansas, and Shelby county, Tennessee. It's almost like Mario would have you believe everything that's happened for the last seven years didn't actually happen. Now, Mario is essentially saying: "Arkansas and the southeast United States, PSSSSH!, this thing is GREAT for Oklahoma. Did I mention this is GREAT for Oklahoma? We will do anything if you'll just get this thing off our hands, AEP. Please - BUY THIS. No, but seriously, we'll do ANYTHING. We'll even change it to AC, move the route so it stops at Tulsa, and we don't even care if we own it. In fact, we'd probably just rather sell it":
This is a fundamental change, folks. New territory. In fact, Mario made it sound so much like the project was pre-designed and destined for Oklahoma that he mentioned the word "Oklahoma" 119 times in his testimony. Arkansas got the short end of the stick with 2 mentions. You're hurting our feelings over here, guys. I could go on and on, but there are a couple key things to take away from this:
1) Clean Line is proposing to do something altogether different than it has been for the past 7+ years with its Plains and Eastern project. It should be both frightening, as well as reassuring that Clean Line will literally do ANYTHING at this point to salvage something out of this project. Their desperation is becoming harder and harder to hide.
2) If you are a landowner that has been impacted by this debacle and are interested about where it is going, it is imperative that you follow the Wind Catcher docket at the OCC. Why? Because AEP is scheduled to respond by the 22nd of this month. We'll find out very soon if this is some off-the-wall proposal by Clean Line to AEP that will be laughed away, or if AEP is actually seriously considering Mario's sales pitch... which could almost completely re-write the route of this project and what it intends to accomplish.
If someone at AEP is reading this, I can give you a simple analogy about what Clean Line represents:
I am a car guy. Clean Line is what I would call a "fifty foot car." If you've ever purchased a used car before, you can relate. Let's say you are driving along the road, and you see a car for sale that catches your eye. It looked GREAT when you drove by. So, you decide to turn around and have a look. When you start looking it over, you notice that the paint is nice and shiny, but there's hail damage on the roof. You look at the tires and they're worn out. You climb underneath and notice that there are oil leaks everywhere, and it's obvious that things have been leaking for a long time. You open the doors and look inside, and the interior looks pretty nice, but there are cigarette burns on the seats and it smells like someone just smoked a pack of cigarettes in it. Then you look at the odometer and it reads 200k miles... just right at that point where, if you don't spend a lot of money replacing some core things, you're going to HAVE to spend more money changing those things later, likely after it's left you stranded on the side of the road in the bad part of town somewhere a couple hundred miles from home.
Now, let's say you make it past all of that because the current owner is offering you a killer deal. So, you decide to take her for a test ride! You start it up and it has a rough idle and it smokes a little bit. You put it in reverse and the differential makes a loud "click." You put it in drive and take off and the transmission doesn't shift properly. It's making a lot of noise, and the steering doesn't feel right. You make it back to where you started and you have to make a fundamental decision: Do I really want this car? Is the amount of work and money I am going to have to put into this car going to be worth what I am paying for it? Am I ready to accept all of the problems that it has, despite my better judgement telling me to RUN? You get the point.
AEP: Clean Line Energy Partners is a "Fifty Foot Car." She looks pretty good at fifty feet away but, upon closer inspection, she's really just an eight year old car that is rife with problems... past, present, and future. It would probably be a better decision to buy a newer model because this one is worn out. And, on top of all that, she's been owned by a few jerks her whole life. We'll all find out within the next few days if AEP is considering taking Clean Line for a test drive, or maybe deciding to RUN and look for a newer model. Unless, of course, the case is dismissed altogether as the Oklahoma AG has requested. Only time will tell.
Clean Line: Arkansas has been wanting to break up with you for a loooooong time now. We're beyond ready to call you an "ex."
Mario Hurtado: Here's what I (and many other landowners) think of your quote...
Furthermore, the Plains and Eastern team has received many questions from landowners and other
stakeholders in Oklahoma about the Wind Catcher project. The team has been asked if Plains and
Eastern can be involved or assist in the Wind Catcher project given that Plains and Eastern has a
construction-ready, long-haul transmission project that runs from the Oklahoma Panhandle to the
east and has acquired easements on more than 750 parcels in Oklahoma.
If you hadn't noticed, Clean Line is having a pretty rough go of it these days. I thought I would provide a little update, because I wouldn't want anyone who is interested (*coughINVESTORScough*) to miss out on anything important.
1) Clean Line denied a third time in Missouri:
As many of you probably already know, on August 16, Clean Line was denied for a third time in its bid to become classified a "public utility" (with the added benefit of eminent domain) in Missouri. We wrote about that here so I won't go into much detail, but it definitely put a wrinkle in their plan.
The cost of meeting TVA's power demand also involves more than just the marginal costs of what intermittent power producers such as wind and solar generators can quote for TVA, Johnson said.
Clean Line Energy Partners, a Houston-based company that proposes to bring wind-generated power from Oklahoma and Texas to the Southeast along a $2.5 billion transmission line, says it could deliver power to TVA at less than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour.
TVA signed a memorandum of understanding with Clean Line Energy in 2011 to study the proposal. But the utility has yet to commit to buying any of the 3,500 megawatts of wind-generated power Clean Line Energy will bring to the western edge of TVA's territory along its 720-mile transmission line from near Diamond, Okla.
TVA said it doesn't need more power generation because of the stagnant demand for electricity in its seven-state region, and Johnson said TVA still would have to maintain or build other generation capacity to make up for the Clean Line energy when the wind doesn't blow.
Johnson said "it is hard for us to fit that [Clean Line Power generation] in our portfolio," but he said "we are evaluating it closely."
"Wind comes at night between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. when demand dips, so for us to take that we have to turn down nuclear plants, which essentially have no fuel costs, and we really don't want to do that," Johnson said.
The production tax credits that would help keep Clean Line Energy rates lower are declining and will phase out completely for new wind turbines built after 2020, "so we shouldn't be delaying a decision on this great opportunity," Smith said.
But Johnson said production tax credits "are really not our issue" and TVA must evaluate the price options for wind, solar and other intermittent sources of power based upon the full costs to the agency.
"The price [from Clean Line Power], in and of itself, is a good price for wind," Johnson said. "But it actually costs us a lot more to import it and to make sure we have gas plants running or capable of running in case the wind doesn't show up."
Johnson estimates having the additional capacity to make up for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine typically adds at least 2 cents per kilowatt-hour to the quoted price of such renewable energy.
"At the moment, we have yet to conclude that [buying power from Clean Line Energy] is the right fit for what we are doing," he said.
3) Clean Line denied rehearing at the Missouri Public Service Commission:
This one is pretty simple. Clean Line requested a rehearing after their denial at the MOPSC. This was more out of procedure for Clean Line so (after denial of the rehearing) they could move on to the appeals process. Which is next on the list...
4) Clean Line appeals Missouri PSC decision and hired big, scary (but voted out), ex-governor Jay Nixon to represent them:
I would think an ex-governor would be fairly expensive, but since Clean Line seems to think money can buy their way through anything, they went ahead and hired former Missouri Governor Jay Nixon as their legal counsel for their appeal. I guess they thought having a flashy ex-governor as their legal counsel might in some way sway the opinion of the court. Good luck with that strategy, guys.
It sort of seems like Clean Line has too many fires and not enough firemen to put them out, doesn't it? It's almost like they start trying to implement one PR strategy and then, within days, another fire gets lit that upends arguments they've made previously. We'll see if they continue to attempt to mislead everyone in the various states they're operating in, or if they will begin acknowledging the situation they currently find themselves in. A good example would be:
5) Clean Line acquires "legal hangnail" (Read: Legal Death Knell) in Illinois for its' proposed "Rock Island" project:
Just a few days after Clean Line hired former Governor Nixon and attempted to convince the media and everyone else that Missouri is the only state holding up the process and that they should just get out of the way, the Illinois Supreme Court handed them a decision that could represent a death knell for both their Rock Island and Grain Belt projects in Illinois.
Quite a while back, the Illinois Landowner Alliance filed an appeal with the Third District Court of Appeals contending that the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) erred in granting Rock Island public utility status. Later, that court determined that the ICC had, in fact, erred, and the order granting them utility status was reversed. Clean Line didn't like this, of course, so they appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. The Illinois Supreme Court took the case and handed down a unanimous opinion reaffirming the lower court's opinion that Clean Line does NOT meet the definition of a public utility in that state.
How does this potentially apply to Clean Line's proposed "Grain Belt Express" line in Illinois? Well, the Concerned Citizens and Property Owners group (composed of landowners and citizens opposed to Grain Belt Express) appealed the ICC's order granting Clean Line a CCN for that project at the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Illinois. While that case is still pending, and the arguments are slightly different, it seems like a near certainty that the Fifth District will also state that the ICC erred in granting Grain Belt Express a CCN for that project.
A decision in that case is expected any time, so watch that one closely. So much for a "legal hangnail." As a good friend of mine stated to me: "Clean Line should be given props for being able to find a silver lining in literally anything."
6) On Monday, the Arkansas congressional delegation met with Secretary Perry about its' concerns with the proposed "Plains and Eastern" project:
Early this week, our full Arkansas congressional delegation went to the Department of Energy (DOE) to meet with Secretary Rick Perry about their concerns regarding the department's participation in Clean Line's proposed "Plains & Eastern" HVDC line. More here, as well.
Now, as anyone who has been paying attention to this issue for the last few years is aware, Clean Line was denied utility status at the state PSC way back in 2011. They saw an opening at the federal level with Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act and they took it.
Over the past few years, there has been plenty of analysis and speculation about why and how a Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued by the DOE with such perfect timing as it applies to Clean Line's project. However, even assuming everything was on the up and up and the sudden "need" for a merchant transmission line was kismet (Ali's word, lol) or simple serendipity, there are issues with the statute and its application to this proposed project.
There are only so many ways you can beat a dead horse, but the process (or lack thereof) as it pertains to Section 1222 has been painfully insufficient and has, quite frankly, sucked. It is nice to see that the desire exists within Secretary Perry's office to revisit that process. Thank you! We stand ready to assist you in providing our experience with it.
7) Cherokee Nation Council rejects resolution to grant Clean Line easement in Oklahoma.
Wow, this is a MUST watch. It sounds like someone sent out a memo that had some pretty threatening language toward the Cherokee Council in it, doesn't it? Classy stuff, guys. It's pretty sickening, if you ask me.
On September 25, 2017, the Arkansas Congressional delegation, composed of U.S. Senators John Boozman (R-AR) and Tom Cotton (R-AR) and U.S. Representatives Rick Crawford (AR-01), French Hill (AR-02), Steve Womack (AR-03) and Bruce Westerman (AR-04), met with Secretary Rick Perry of the U.S. Department of Energy to discuss the preservation of states’ rights as they pertain to transmission line development and to the federal review of Clean Line Energy Partners’ proposed Plains and Eastern Clean Line Project. Senator Boozman’s press release on the meeting can be found here:
Golden Bridge, LLC, would like to thank each member of Arkansas Delegation once again for their continued attention to the issues surrounding Section 1222 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act.
As an organization, we believe the process by which the Department of Energy determined to participate with Clean Line Energy Partners was flawed, and that the participation itself is built on a faulty premise that the State of Arkansas lacks authority to review Clean Line’s proposals.
Arkansas maintains robust procedures for the siting and development of transmission lines. Procedures that ensure the protection of local communities and their residents, and provide impacted individuals with a legally recognized process.
We appreciate the Arkansas delegation’s recognition that Section 1222 does not provide the same level of protection for landowners or the state. The ability to submit comments on an application does not provide due process for Arkansas landowners whose property may be taken in a scheme to use federal eminent domain for Clean Line’s gain.
Golden Bridge, along with Downwind, LLC, filed a legal challenge against Department of Energy to address these concerns. The organizations are committed to the cause and will continue their pursuit of these issues in each and every available forum.
“The balance between federalism and states’ rights is a delicate one, even though it’s often generalized and politicized,” said Alison Millsaps, a founding member of Golden Bridge, LLC. “We believe there are serious and valid issues of overreach in this instance. The Arkansas Public Service Commission denied Clean Line’s application for utility status in 2011, and invited Clean Line to return to the Commission when it revised its plans. The federal government should not exist simply as a vehicle to override established state decisions and statutory requirements. Clean Line often purports to have an interest in caring for the landowners and communities they want to put their line through. However, Clean Line’s attempt to go around Arkansas’s regulatory body speaks volumes regarding its true intentions.
Three strikes and Clean Line’s OUT in Missouri? For our friends up there, we hope so.
Investors: We hope you’re getting as weary as we think you should be.
Remember back in March when we explained that things weren’t looking good for Clean Line in Missouri? Yesterday, in a devastating (but not wholly unexpected) blow, the Missouri Public Service Commission unanimously denied Clean Line’s application for its’ proposed “Grain Belt Express” transmission project.
The landowners and others who organized to protect property rights in Missouri are amazing! Two different projects with two different sets of landowners unexpectedly came together to help deliver a voice to rural landowners (and a message to special interests) across the country. Let their dedication and hard work be an example for what can be accomplished if you work together and NEVER give up.
We’re going to keep this pretty simple today, because we are absolutely sick and tired of dealing with these “folks." That’s the nicest label Ali and I could come up with… we had others in mind. Let us sum up in the simplest terms possible:
1) Projects must benefit local communities. Not in a vague “taxes, jobs, economic development” kind of way, but in a substantial way that encourages the enthusiastic blessing of the people most directly affected by any project. The experience a company such as Clean Line has with landowners is directly proportional to the respect those landowners are given. Maybe that’s a hint about why you’ve found so much opposition to your projects?
2) You can’t force landowners to participate in venture-capitalist schemes. You just can’t. It is not our job to make you money. We don’t owe you our sweat equity. We’re already productive members of society and many of us have made sacrifices to infrastructure that you wouldn’t tolerate in the backyard of your McMansions. We don’t care about your investors, or their return on their investment. We just. Don’t. Care. It’s not our fault they made a bad investment in you. People make bad investments every single day. Maybe the Ziffs will take one less ride in their private jet this year, or buy one less yacht or “summer home.” Cry us a long and winding river.
3) Whining doesn’t help.
"We absolutely want to do the project," said Mark Lawlor, development director for Grain Belt Express. But he added: "Unfortunately, the message that we're getting from Missouri is that investments of these kind might be better spent in other places."
and:
Lawlor said the four commissioners' belief that the project was worthwhile but not approvable under state law "makes for an interesting argument" if Clean Line decides to instead seek federal permission to proceed.
And, what’s up with the hollow threat (again) to get the feds involved? Another multi-year-long, ~$100 million process? Doubtful. If you feel like you’re up to that challenge, we’re ready and willing to share our experience(s) and knowledge with our friends in Missouri.
Maybe that's why you've spent $750k on lobbyists in DC in the first half of this year, eh? (One such lobbyist being Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson's former Chief of Staff... but, more on that later.) I guess his newfound "opportunity" included being a lobbyist for Clean Line. Revolving-door politics is everywhere.
What really matters:
Despite the bluff and bluster coming from Clean Line, the positive things the Commission said about Grain Belt Express (in what seems like as much C-Y-A as it does genuine praise), and the "Blame Game" going around between Clean Line, the Commissioners, and the environmental groups... at the end of the day, only ONEfact remains:
YOU LOST, Clean Line. You can try to spin it however you like, but you still can’t build that transmission line in Missouri. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Case closed.
In what is shaping up to be an incredibly rough couple months for Clean Line Energy Partners, several major blows have been dealt to the speculative development company:
Arkansas Full Congressional Delegation Comes Out Swinging
1) Arkansas' Full Federal Delegation Re-Introduces the APPROVAL Act (03/06/17)
On Monday afternoon, Senators John Boozman and Tom Cotton, along with Representatives Steve Womack, Bruce Westerman, Rick Crawford, and French Hill, re-filed S.529, the Assuring Private Property Rights Over Vast Access to Land ("APPROVAL") Act. The Act would amend Section 1222 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act to allow a state's governor and public service commission chair the opportunity to reject a federal transmission project if they don't feel like the project is in their state's best interest.
2) Arkansas' Delegation Sends Opposition Letter to Secretary Perry (03/07/17)
Alison wrote about this earlier, so I will just leave the letter here for everyone to see. It's a beauty.
3) Senator Boozman Makes Comments on Talk Business Arkansas (3/12/17)
Senator Boozman made comments during an interview with Talk Business Arkansas' Roby Brock further explaining the delegation's position that the use of Section 1222 of the 2005 EPAct by Clean Line is inappropriate:
In his comments, Mr. Boozman also brought further doubt about need for Clean Line's "product" at Tennessee Valley Authority (We know, Mr. Skelly, this is "bigger than TVA," we know. Whatever.), which brings us to:
Things Don't Look Great for Clean Line at TVA
1) TVA Winter Board Meeting (02/16/17)
It all started at TVA's February 16 board meeting. As you may have read in our January 2017 update, Clean Line and a couple environmental groups have been lobbying the Tennessee Valley Authority to sign a contract for a sizable chunk of wind energy from the Oklahoma panhandle and use Clean Line's proposed Plains and Eastern transmission line to deliver it to them. We explained to you that, if TVA were to sign a contract, the prime time to have done so would have been by December 31, 2016. That date has come and gone, and there was no publicly available contract on January 1, and as of today there still is not.
In past TVA board meetings (specifically August 2016 and November 2016), Clean Line sent their revolving door DOE star, Jimmy Glotfelty, to lobby (*read - "beg") TVA to make a commitment to use their transmission line. At the most recent board meeting held February 16, however, there was a specific lack of anyone representing Clean Line. The only person that showed up (and, she always does) to lobby for them was Chris Lunghino of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.
Why do we say that things don't look good for Clean Line at TVA? We have a couple key pieces of evidence. The first involves a presentation Mr. Bill Johnson, President and CEO of TVA, gave during his update at the board meeting. Take a look at the following slide:
Do you see what I see? If not, look a little closer... specifically at the amount of wind and solar energy TVA receives in 2017, and is projected to receive in 2026. They remain unchanged at 3%. What does that mean? Well, it would appear that it means TVA has no plans to purchase capacity for a large chunk of wind energy between now and 2026. You can infer from that what you will. Again, we know, Mr. Skelly, this project is "bigger than TVA." But, where are the other customers? We reported earlier that Georgia Power (GP) is likely out for Clean Line, and that still stands. Georgia Power is only allowed to contract 300 mW of wind power through its REDI program, and the in-service dates for GP's don't mesh with Clean Line's fantasy in-service date.
2) Senator Alexander (R-TN) Reaffirms TVA Doubts on the Senate Floor (03/22/17)
It must be really difficult for Clean Line and its' investors to see the senior senator from Tennessee say this on the Senate floor:
Senator Alexander: If you are watching, we would like to give our thanks to you for making these comments!
Oklahoma State Legislature Moving to Eliminate Wind Tax Credits
1) Oklahoma House of Representatives Passes Legislation to Eliminate State-Level Production Tax Credit for Wind Energy (03/10/17)
As we reported in our January update, the Oklahoma legislature is apparently serious about attempting to fix their nearly $900 million budget deficit. The Oklahoma House made the first move to eliminate early the state "Zero Emissions Credit" for wind energy. Without going into many details, the credit amounts to millions of dollars per year that come out of the state's coffers (paid for by Oklahoma taxpayers) to support companies that are mostly out-of-state (or country, in some instances).
Oklahoma gets a decent-sized chunk of its electricity from wind energy produced in state. Much of the energy produced by newer generators is exported out of the state, therefore Oklahomans are subsidizing wind energy companies for producing energy that largely has little-to-no benefit to the citizens of their own state... aside from the royalties landowners receive for voluntarily hosting the turbines on their property.
Meanwhile, Clean Line would like to potentially use (for the first time) federal eminent domain to force a swath 720 miles long of Oklahoma and Arkansas landowners to give up their property rights to construct its' for-profit transmission venture that could also require Oklahoma taxpayers to subsidize an additional ~2,000 wind turbines with zero in-state benefit... again, except to the landowners who voluntarily host the turbines on their property.
Does that seem fair to you? To me, it doesn't.
2) Oklahoma Senate Panel Approves Rolling Back Wind Tax Credit (03/29/17)
OKLAHOMA CITY – Legislation that rolls back a state tax credit for the wind energy industry has been approved by an Oklahoma Senate panel.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations on Wednesday voted 34-6 for the House-passed measure and sent it to the full Senate for consideration.
The bill modifies the tax credit for electricity generated by zero-emission facilities like wind turbines. It says facilities must be in operation by July 1 in order to qualify for the credit, instead of the current deadline of Jan. 1, 2021.
Gov. Mary Fallin has proposed eliminating the credit to increase revenue amid a projected $868 million budget shortfall next year. The tax credit will cost $40 million this year and will average $60 million a year over the next 15 years.
The legislation appears to be poised to pass. We will see if the Oklahoma Senate is as serious about it as the House in the coming days. If the Senate passes the bill, it will be delivered to Governor Fallon for signature.
3) Mario Hurtado says: "No Big Deal" to Losing Oklahoma PTC (03/29/17)
In his typical blustery and arrogant (disconnected?) fashion, Clean Line's Mario Hurtado said the following in a recent article:
Hurtado said HB 2298 should have little impact on a $2 billion high-voltage transmission line that will carry wind energy across Oklahoma and Arkansas to Mid-South and Southeast markets. The Plains and Eastern Clean Line transmission line, a 700-mile project that has been in the works since 2010, will have the capacity to deliver 3,500 megawatts of wind-generated electricity from the Oklahoma and Texas panhandles.
Terminating the tax credits this year, if the bill becomes law, could have an impact on where those wind farms are sited. Hurtado said the companies that will build the more than 2,000 wind turbines needed to feed current through Clean Line’s transmission line base siting decisions on a number of factors, and tax policy is one of those factors.
“It may change the amount of wind energy that connects to us ... (from) Texas versus Oklahoma — the Oklahoma Panhandle is not that wide (and) the wind doesn’t pay attention to state lines,” Hurtado said. “Unfortunately, that would mean less investment in Oklahoma and the school districts there — that could be a change, and that is certainly something we have made people aware of.”
There you have it, Oklahoma. Whatever, Mario.
4) Mario Hurtado says: "Foundations for generators are being dug and poured in the Oklahoma panhandle right now" (3/25/17)
In another recent article that is full of bluster likely targeted at the Missouri Public Service Commission and Clean Line's investors, Hurtado said the following:
Foundations for generators are being dug and poured in the Oklahoma panhandle right now, Hurtado said. General Electric — which will build converter stations located near Guymon, in Arkansas and near Memphis, Tenn. — has done a lot of engineering work ahead of building the stations, he said.
Pictures or it didn't happen, Mario. Today (03/29/17), you said that if the Oklahoma legislature repeals the in-state PTC, wind developers will just build generators to energize your line in Texas instead of in Oklahoma.
But, just four days ago, you said "foundations for generators are being dug and poured in the Oklahoma panhandle right now." What gives, Mario?
My analysis? Foundations for wind generators are most definitely being "dug and poured" in the Oklahoma panhandle, but they're not being "dug and poured" to supply Clean Line's proposedtransmission line. For Mario to imply otherwise is disingenuous, deceptive, and pretty desperate, if you ask me.
You have to have customers for all that stuff to happen, Mario. To date, Clean Line has yet to release a single, legally bound, contractual customer on either the generation or end-use side of its proposed speculative transmission line. Unless and until a sizeable portion of their capacity is subscribed, everything Hurtado and Skelly say is bluster.
Things Don't Look Super Great for Clean Line in Missouri
1) Hearings Held on Clean Line's (latest) Grain Belt Express Application
As you may know, Clean Line had its week-long round of evidentiary hearings at the Missouri Public Service Commission last week. If you're interested about how the hearings went, I will leave that explanation to my friend, Keryn Newman. She wrote an excellent blog post summarizing the events.
In a nutshell, Staff at the MOPSC recommended that: 1) Commissioners deny Clean Line's application, or 2) Commissioners condition Clean Line's CCN with the requirement that they receive assent from all impacted counties. I'll leave you with Keryn's blog post about this decision, which explains how it could affect Clean Line's proposed "Grain Belt Express" line.
Due to State Action, Clean Line's "Rock Island" Project is Effectively Dead
House File 603, which Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton, called a “long-awaited bill protecting private property rights,” was approved by the House 93-0.
The bill addresses what he labeled the state’s “largest blight,” the Rock Island Clean Line, an electric transmission line that would affect 1,500 Iowa landowners, as well the development of a reservoir in Clarke County and property owners displaced by Department of Transportation projects.
“It should be hard to condemn private property, it should not be possible to condemn private property for personal profit, it should be illegal to condemn private property for anything other than public use,” Kaufmann said.
We're with you, Representative Kaufmann. Iowa landowners are lucky to have you.
In Closing
This is already far too long. So if you have made it this far, I really appreciate you reading it. I hope it has been informative and maybe, just maybe, it gives you a little bit of hope in what can feel like a helpless situation.
I just have to close by asking Clean Line's investors: When does enough become enough for you guys? When do you come to the realization that someone else has spent upwards of $200 million of your money and, after nearly a decade, those people haven't produced a single cent of revenue in return for you? And there's really no return in sight, is there? When do you say to yourselves: "We've harassed these people enough. It's time to throw in the towel"?
Maybe that's why you're holding on for so long. I get it. You've spent a lot of money. But, it doesn't make it right for the harassment to continue.
I think the time is (or should be) fast approaching. If you have any sense of decency about yourselves, you should realize how many thousands of people you have negatively affected for the last many years. Have you no conscience? Do you think things are just magically going to get better?
