Voices from the Route

When Dave and I started our Facebook group, one of our main objectives was to give people a place to discuss the effects the threat of Clean Line's proposed line had on their own lives. We wanted a space where people could come and realize that they are not alone. To that end, we have a guest post tonight from a gentleman local to our corner of Arkansas.

In the coming weeks, Block Plains and Eastern Clean Line will be hosting a series of Neighbor Hours in our area in an attempt to enable meaningful discussion in the community, and to provide easy access to the Draft EIS to the many folks out here without an internet connection.  Danny, who wrote the following, has generously offered to present new material at our next Dover meeting-- "Potential issues with watershed erosion and herbicide management of right-of-ways". 

Danny makes a lot of good points, but I hope that readers will pay special attention to parts about the tradition of bartering we have in these hills. As Danny mentions, it is a way of life... I trade fresh, free-range eggs for locally caught fish. There is a family whom we allow to bow-hunt on our family's land in exchange for helping us optimize the area for wildlife and for a portion of the venison they take. We trade. We share. We give when someone needs something, or when we just happen to have extra and think they might like it. I can't tell you how much okra I got this summer... Along with a cabbage the size of a turkey and a cantaloupe almost as big. This is not the kind of socio-economic impact you'll read about in the draft (unless I somehow skipped over that part), but it is important. It is real. 


Danny's Story

I am in the primary/preferred easement for the proposed Plains and Eastern Clean Line Project.

I am James "Danny" Taverner and have moved back to this region to be close to my family. I have a Master's Degree from Louisiana State University in Plant and Soil Systems. I conducted research for the university that included levee erosion control projects and herbicide maintenance of right-of-ways.

A supposed environmental survey was scheduled to be done across my property, I made sure to be home the day of the survey. No persons ever showed up on my 40 acre property. I wanted them to understand the sensitivity of the site through which they planned the line. The steepness of the grade on the region intended is severe. The grade is impractical to log and if the timber were to be removed, a cascade of environmental issues would follow.

I have about 2 to 3 acres of arable (farmable) land. I have a small fruit tree orchard with peaches, apples, pears, and cherries. I have raspberries, blackberries and muscadines as well. In addition to the orchard is an extensive vegetable garden and a large plot rotated between sorghum cane and corn. This small farm is irrigated by a pond which is directly within the easement and is fed by the watershed consisting of the very steep area which is also within the easement.

The produce from this farm is not sold for money but bartered which is a unique cultural identity of this region. Produce had been traded for beef, pork, eggs, labor, lumber, and even dog-sitting favors. My family has a grist mill and corn produced on the property is ground into cornmeal. We also have a sorghum mill and cook down the cane into sorghum using the same family technique passed down for generations. My grandmother used to go around and cook other people's cane for "shares". This is a cultural product that has been maintained by the production from my farmland which is irrigated by the waters from the watershed within the proposed easement.

So what would be the big deal if the line went through across the property? 

The pond will receive significant amounts of silt even with standard erosion control measures. This would reduce the volume of water available for irrigation by making the pond more shallow. Having worked on levee stabilization projects around New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, I am we'll aware that there is no way to fully mitigate erosion especially when the pond and watershed slope is many times more steep and rocky than a levee. 

The herbicide maintenance of the right-of-way poses another significant impediment to the continuation of my farming lifestyle. I am intimately familiar with herbicides and their positive and negative attributes. My thesis research involved cultural and herbicide management techniques. I was involved in countless herbicide trials while working at Louisiana State University. The proposed herbicides commonly used in right-of-ways have the potential to be sprayed into or wash into the pond killing fish and rendering the water unusable for irrigation purposes. This would render all the hard work and money in getting a garden established and cut off an entire system of trade for the many families with which I barter.

My current home is at the edge of the easement and the aesthetic value of the beauty of an Ozark sunset will be lost. All of my out-buildings for tractors and equipment and shop are directly under the route. The shop and buildings are not visible on the satellite maps for they are within a forested area and must be seen from the ground. All of the time and expense of building the shops and having electricity and water run to the site would be undone since the buildings would have to be removed  for the line. There is no other rational area for these several buildings to be placed and the years spent acquiring material and constructing them could not be duplicated.

There is no compensation for the destruction of all that I have mentioned. The thought of a private company forcing eminent domain and taking all of the aforementioned blood, sweat, and tears from my family is unfathomable.

I am but one small landowner that was never contacted until this year about this project. One small landowner in an over 700 mile line across the entire state of Arkansas. A landowner with so much to lose that there can be no reasonable compensation made for the damage to be caused. I will not stand for wealthy, out-of-state private businessmen to use the threat of eminent domain to further line their pockets under the guise of "clean energy". 

I am all for renewable energy. I am a fan of wind, solar, and hydrothermal energy. This is not an attack on these resources. This is a transmission line, by a private company, willing to condemn land  across two entire states and disrupting the landowners from western Oklahoma all the way to Memphis.

James "Danny" Taverner

Freedom of Information Act Request?

Well, there wasn't a lot of information involved and it sure wasn't free...

This was posted by a member in our group last night:

"I have a confession. I was foolish enough to allow myself to be swindled. I was swindled by the U. S. Department of Energy. This swindle involves a Freedom of Information Act request I made to the DOE.

From my FOIA request # HQ-2014-01728-F:

'I am requesting the following materials related to the Management Committee: meeting dates, attendance lists, agendas, minutes, transcripts, and any related documents. I am requesting this material for every meeting of the Management Committee.'

The Management Committee I referred to is described in Section 8a of Contract No. 1 between Clean Line Energy and the DOE, the Advanced Funding and Development Agreement for the Plains and Eastern Clean Line Energy project.

The Agreement can be found on the link:

http://energy.gov/…/Advance%20Funding%20and%20Development%2…

The Management Committee as described was to be composed of two representatives from the DOE and two representatives from Clean Line Energy and was to meet quarterly to discuss:
1. The progress of the NEPA environmental analysis, Clean Line's land acquisition, and the interaction with other state and Federal agencies.
2. The progress of the technical review and proposed procurement, construction, operations, maintenance, ownership roles of each party, and the progress of Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP)'s review under applicable SPP processes.
3. The progress of DOE's review of the Project on issues other than environmental analysis.
4. A comprehensive schedule of work to be completed under this Agreement, including quarterly work plans.

On November 21, I received the results of the DOE's alleged research. It consisted of a series of emails between Clean Line and the DOE arranging the meeting time and details of a single Management Committee meeting in December of 2012.

The DOE response to my request did not contain a single item I requested in the FOIA.

The DOE response raises several questions. Was there only one meeting, in 2012, of the Management Committee? In the 2012 meeting, did the Management Committee discuss any of topics outlined in the Advanced Funding and Development Agreement? If so, where is the documentation requested in the FOIA? If the Management Committee only met once, in 2012, how is Clean Line keeping the DOE apprised of the project status? Is the Advanced Funding and Development Meeting still in effect? Has the Management Committee been circumvented?

I requested a fee waiver when I submitted the FOIA, but my request was denied. The DOE charged $798 in advance for research.

I paid the research fee because I really believed this FOIA request would yield a wealth of information about the working relations between Clean Line and DOE. I guess I should have known the DOE would not allow a lowly citizen to have access to information.

This is a cautionary tale. Do not trust the DOE!"

This is part of the discussion that followed between another member and the original poster:

Commenting Member: Because... "Disclosing this information could cause harm to the DOE and other agencies if the public is able to listen to agency discussions." and "With respect to the discretionary disclosure of deliberative information, the quality of agency decisions would be adversely affected if frank, written discussion of policy matters were inhibited by the knowledge that the content of such discussion might be made public. For this reason, DOE has determined that discretionary disclosure of the deliberative material is not in the public interest because foreseeable harm could result from such disclosure." In other words, YOUR public servants justify that they are allowed to carry on in secrecy with a private company that wants to use the DOE's federal authority to take your property for its own private profit. Any affected landowner who tries to get information is punished with unreasonable fees to discourage further prying. Isn't the DOE taking enough from Original poster's name without this added insult? Better believe the founding fathers are spinning!

Original Poster: Yes it was about a dozen pages. Some of the pages were nearly blank. Just copies of emails. Most of them containing one or two sentences. No, I did not receive an invoice or receipt.

Yikes... 

Maps

Tell me again how we need to do our part for the public good...

Our Little Piece of Earth

** Update** Just received word from Dave that the zoom restrictions on the draft EIS interactive map have been lifted. This is great news! I doubt it had anything to do with this blog... but just in case... Given a certain corporation's history of busing college students in to clog open mic time at PSC hearings, it would be really great if affected landowners (you can't get much stakeholdier than that) were guaranteed a minimum amount of time to make their case during the public comment sections of the EIS meetings. I don't mean extending the three minute time limit, I just mean that landowners shouldn't have to drive an hour to participate only to find that they won't be able to participate because someone brought in a busload of students...

This is a wonderful and crazy time of year. A lot has happened since my last blog post, but it’s difficult to find the time to time to share… That’s true today, too, but I can’t let the release of the Plains and Eastern draft EIS go without talking a little bit about it. First, though, I’d like to get just a couple other things out of the way.

“Literally thousands of landowners”

In a recent radio segment by KUAF’s JACQUELINE FROELICH, Mario Hurtado went on the record to talk about Clean Line’s compensation package for landowners. He described it as being the result of input from “literally thousands of landowners”.

First, I just want to say that I have yet to meet a landowner who would structure an ideal payment this way. No stock options? No percentage of transmission sales? A perpetual easement without renegotiation after so many years? The specter of condemnation? Nah.

Second, I’d like to take a moment to remind everyone that the law in Arkansas for condemnation is fair market value. So when Mario, or anyone from Clean Line, tells you that they are being generous with their 100% of fair market payment for an easement, you can remind them that they don’t get bonus points for offering what they are legally obligated to pay. 

A better question would be why aren't they offering the same to Iowans, to whom they are only offering 90% of fair market value?

Wait, I think Beth Conley has the answer…

“We have worked really hard to put together a package that we believe is fair and also consistent,” Conley said.

She said “25 to 30 percent of fair-market value” is common for easements.” 

So Iowans get less than Arkansans, but should just be glad they didn't get 25 to 30 percent… for the land that they own and have actually worked for? How fair.

But don’t worry, Clean Line isn't just offering a lump sum payment up front. Land owners can choose a yearly payment with a 2% increase instead… That should help offset the property value reduction, right?

Per Mr. Hurtado:

“Research shows that transmission infrastructure does not lower property values on agricultural land over the long-term. In instances where there is an effect on property values, the effect decreases with time and with distance from the transmission line.” 

Besides the fact that this statement kind of throws people in close proximity to the line or those who want to sell in the next few years under the bus, current research shows that blanket statements regarding the effect of transmission lines on property values are pretty unreliable and that actual effects involve factors including the property’s size, use, and proximity to the line, especially in rural areas… There’s a fair amount of land on this route that is not only agricultural, but residential and recreational as well. (All of which, not to beat a dead horse or anything, would be less of an issue if those closest to the line, who will shoulder the greatest adverse effects, were given the opportunity to choose for themselves whether or not the risk was worth the payment. Or better yet, what payment would be worth those effects). 

Lurk on transmission line questions on a real estate board and see what you find. Anecdotally, agents report that homes next to or near transmission lines take much longer to sell and are cheaper to buy.  

Clean Line says that landowners will also receive a “bonus” per structure payment for each tower or monopole erected on their property.

A bonus, you say? Sounds good. Yeah, but it’s non-negotiable

“Conley reiterated that, as the company works to get more landowners to sign up, there will not be a negotiation. The lump-sum payments are $6,000 for a single-linetower or $18,000 for a “corner line” tower that allows the line to shiftdirections. CLEP also offers annual payments of $500 for a single tower of$1,500 for a corner structure with 2% increases for each year.

“It’s fair and consistent,” said Conley.”

Fair and consistent for whom? The landowner? The landowner to whom you are dictating what you’ll pay for their property? Who doesn't get to negotiate? Who gets to shut up and take it or risk condemnation from (yes, I’ll say it again…) a private company consisting of three primary investors. 

“Thank you, sir. May I have another?”

Maybe Mr. Hurtado has something more to say about it…

“Clean Line seeks to negotiate all easement agreements on a voluntary basis and is committed to working with landowners to minimize impacts of the project to their properties.  In most places, the final easement for the direct current transmission line will be 150 to 200 feet wide.”

So what the blank-blankety-blank are we negotiating?! The language? The money isn’t negotiable, but the language is? Sure. Tell me once more why we’re being forced to negotiate in the first place.

Again, Mario-

“In order to assure that infrastructure projects in the public interest can be completed, the entities building them may have the right to condemn certain easements. Plains & Eastern Clean Line views the use of eminent domain as a last resort that is appropriate only after exhausting all reasonable attempts at voluntary easement acquisition.  In all cases,landowners are entitled to due process and payment of market value for any easement acquired.”

Oh, so ignoring the fact that, in eminent domain cases, "due process" simply refers to the monetary aspect of the case and not the question of whether or not the taking is just at it's core, he's saying this line is in the public interest? Great! Except...

“These are private, for profit commercial enterprises. They build these projects, they own them and they profit from them. They are not government entities. How can you justify the government giving the power to private companies to take private property away from landowners with a government sanctioned power reserved for public interest? That would be government sanctioned commercial confiscation.” David Kruse, president of Commstock Investments, Inc. 

^^This guy, right? He gets it.

So does this guy:

“We believe that there’s a potential for a massive scale-up of renewable energy, probably done under public ownership and social control. That’s really the most important dimension. To leave it to private corporations who charge high fees for electricity produced by renewable energy in the form of power purchase agreements is not the way we want to go.”

That was Sean Sweeny of Cornel University’s Global Labor Institute speaking to Democracy Now on the overinflated jobs numbers for the Keystone XL pipeline given by TransCanada and the potential to transfer traditional jobs in fossil fuels to green energy. Granted, he’s talking about generation, not transmission, but the principle holds. 

And, hey, while we’re at it… Should the Department of Energy choose to partner with Clean Line on P&E, what happens to those settlements Clean Line made with the landowners’ groups in OK not to use eminent domain? Are those agreements honored? SWPA puts eminent domain in OK fully back on the table, right? And as Mr. Skelly so kindly reminded us during his recent Missouri PSC testimony when asked what would happen if their GBE petition to was denied: “We would look at the no and figure out a way to turn it into a yes.” 

Speaking of Oklahoma

There have been some incredibly disturbing accounts from landowners in Oklahoma regarding their treatment by land agents, including threats of eminent domain use, and a certain Clean Line representative telling a landowner just last week that this is a “done deal” that he needs to “get used to it”. That might be news to the Department of Energy. 

On the other hand, this whole project has certainly been news to quite a few members of the newly formed Facebook group Block Plains and Eastern Clean Line: Oklahoma . It’s open to the public and growing by leaps and bounds, by word of mouth, since, like us, they have no corporate sponsorship (Psst- we don’t have to pay for our likes and adds… just sayin’).

The Draft EIS

Finally, I want to touch on the EIS. I actually owe Clean Line and the Department of Energy an apology. When the new interactive map came out on the EIS website yesterday, I made a comment on Facebook about how crappy the maps were. I should have differentiated. The easily accessible “interactive map” is pretty crappy. It doesn’t zoom in far enough, street names are practically non-existent…

But, oh, the maps inside the actual EIS! 

You see, my friend Dave and his partner, Delinda, came over last night so we could pour over the 3700 pages of the paper copy. The maps inside those binders? Man, were they beautiful. Crisp and clear mosaics of emerald and ochre. Tiny squares and circles marked the homes and easements. Land uses were indicated. Streets were easy to read…

And the route! The actual route, not the mile wide corridor… There it was!

Or I should say, there they were… the preferred routes and the DoE’s alternates (which might have been slightly different had the vast majority of people on them had known about the scoping period). 

Those little lines, solid and broken, marking the land people will, if all goes according to Clean Line’s plan, lose control over.  And, in all honesty, drawn on those maps, those route lines do look little. But they’re not…

Dave and I were sitting next to each other at the kitchen table. Delinda stood behind him, bending her head down close to his, examining the brilliant green checkerboard that represented their “region”. She had her hand on his back and they were both pointing out properties and structures--who would be getting hit, what they farmed, their history, their lives… “Look, that’s going right through her.  That’s their old homestead, right there.” (By the way, if you’re not familiar with the practice of describing a person’s land as part of their being, read this.)

Finally, Dave tapped his finger on a little square.

“That’s us,” he said, turning to look at me. “That’s our little piece of earth.”

And that’s the thing isn't it? None of us are under any illusions that we’ll live forever. Our little piece of the pale blue dot is only ours for an instant. Less than a cosmic blink. And if asked, we would give up a piece of it to save humanity, no doubt. But we’re not being asked, we’re being told. And it’s not for humanity, it’s for a couple investors who want to feel good about their investments as long as it eventually ends in profit. It may not be our little piece forever, but it’s our little piece right now. What happens in the next year is about more than a transmission line. It's about more than wind energy. It is about the future, but it's about more than climate change, as terrifying as it is.

So it all comes down to a few little lines across a map. How many people in that mile wide corridor have spent months wondering about whether they were on the route? Worrying? If it’s not something you've ever experienced, then you can have absolutely no idea. You become consumed. You almost envy the many people who didn't know. Almost, but not quite, because they’ll always wonder if they could have done more to stop it, if only they’d known sooner.

And to know, worst of all, that Clean Line had a preferred route all along. That they've had it for months… Years… When they stood above these perfect maps, with no connection to the land or the people on it, and decided where they wanted to put their project.

Dave was quiet for a minute. Then he shook his head…

“When you zoom in on your little property and see that you'll be affected, it is like winning the lottery… but all we get is a transmission line.”

A couple months ago, Michael Skelly was kind enough to talk to me on the phone. He said that he understood our concerns… I don’t really think that’s true.

Not sure who Clean Line's PR guy/gal is, but they should be fired...

So, I came home from work yesterday and grabbed the mail. Within it is my local Dover Times. I thumb through it, and when I reach the back cover I am blasted by the image below. Sorry I posted it so large! I did it this way for effect because I am quite sure this is the way most people who saw the ad perceived it. After feasting your eyes on this insult, please continue scrolling:

Could this be any worse if it tried? Does Clean Line think that if they buy a 3/4 page ad in all of our local papers, it is going to do anything to make us want this giant, unnecessary transmission line on our land? Let's explore the problems with this ad, shall we?

1. That's a beautiful picture, Clean Line! The only problem with it: Where is the transmission line?! True, the size of the field those folks are standing in is about the size of the swath of trees you intend to cut down in your path of destruction, but, really? Is this a joke?
2. "Do I want cleaner air for my family?" Clean Line is, apparently, assuming that Arkansans buy the false correlation that if we do not choose to participate in their project, we do not "want cleaner air for our families". We just don't think their project is the way to achieve this. Sorry!
3. "Wind energy generation allows utilities to burn less fossil fuel and reduce pollution. The Plains and Eastern transmission project will deliver low-cost renewable energy to Arkansas." What legally binding evidence are they using to justify this claim of "low-cost renewable energy to Arkansas"? The generators to supply their speculative venture haven't been constructed. There is no guarantee that Clean Line can ascribe that their project will do this, in any way.
4. "Support clean energy in Arkansas today and in the future." Again, another false correlation that we, as Arkansans, do not support clean energy in Arkansas "today and in the future" if we do not support this project.
5. Last (my favorite!) is the shell, misleading website address that was created by Clean Line Energy in the attempt to mislead Arkansans into signing their useless, arbitrary poll of support. Go there, you'll see. www.supportcleanenergyarkansas.com  

Shouldn't a company that's attempting to "sell" a product via force to Arkansans under federal eminent domain powers in an attempt to bypass our state law, at minimum, provide accurate advertising for the said product they're wishing to sell? 

If you feel like Plains and Eastern Clean Line, LLC, is being deceptive with this advertising, file a complaint with the Arkansas Attorney General's office. When filing a complaint, choose "Consumer Complaint Form" in the drop-down menu.  

Arkansas Beautiful: Inside the Corridor

The Value of Public Discourse

This Monday we will be participating in a friendly panel discussion on the pros and cons of the proposed Plains and Eastern HVDC line with Dr. Bob Allen "Bob of the Ozarks" and Glen Hooks, Chapter Director of the Sierra Club of Arkansas.

Regrettably, Clean Line, who had agreed to be part of the discussion, pulled out last week. A disappointment, considering what a great chance it would have been for "outreach" and clarification of some of the issues concerning us all. However, we are very grateful that the Hendrix College Environmental Concerns Committee recognized the importance of continuing with the panel in spite of Clean Line's absence and that they see the inherent value of public discourse.

For more information, please see the Hendrix event page on Facebook: 

https://www.facebook.com/events/734673029934862/

Don't want one 200' Clean Line easement? How about two?

So, any time objections are placed before Clean Line about all of the various different inconsistencies, inaccuracies, lack of information provided, etc., they give one answer: "Go to our website to find out more information."

That's exactly what I did. Many of us have been skeptical of Clean Line's drawdown at the Department of Energy from a dual, 7,000mW line, to a single, 3,500mW line. We just assumed that Clean Line has it in their plans to, at a later date, construct a second 3,500mW line. Or is the current line 4,000mW? At the Tennessee Regulatory Authority hearing last Tuesday, Clean Line testified that the Plains and Eastern Clean Line was NOT going to transmit 3,500mW as stated in their application to the DoE, but instead 4,000mW. That's a post for another day, however. 

Drawing information directly from Clean Line Energy Partners website (located under "Filings - Federal") from a link entitled "Plains and Eastern FERC Filing," I will allow you to be the judge:

As recently as September of 2013, the "Tennessee Advanced Energy Business Council" used similar wording in a "project" entitled "Tennessee's Advanced Energy Asset Inventory" to describe the Plains and Eastern Clean Line project. Keep in mind, Clean Line is heavily involved with the TAEBC. They are members, have a "to be disclosed" seat on their advisory committee, and also have a member in TAEBC's "delegation" (aka "lobbyist") named Max Shilstone.

Note the green snippet above that describes the Plains and Eastern as "what would be America's largest power transmission line". Sounds fun, eh?

So, what's it going to be, Clean Line? What are landowners facing, here? Your inconsistency is appalling. Is it going to be a single, 3,500mW line as described in your application to the Department of Energy? Is it going to be a single 4,000mW line as described in your testimony before the Tennessee Regulatory Authority? Or, is this a two-phase project in which you wish to impose not one, but eventually two 3,500mW transmission lines with a 750 mile, 400' wide footprint?

The true stakeholders, the landowners on the path of this monstrosity, DEMAND an answer from you in the form of a written statement that indicates your ACTUAL current and future plans. Perhaps the media would be the better avenue to seek answers to these questions? Either way, a written response can be emailed to us at:

blockcleanlinepope@gmail.com

If You Liked It...

Clean Line: “Oh, won’t somebody think of the farmers!  No, wait… not those farmers… these farmers.”

Sigh… I have so much to say. I started this post about three weeks ago in response to Diana Rivera’s Department of Energy Draft Congestion Study comment on behalf of Clean Line . But since that time we’ve had an opposition meeting, Mr. Hurtado’s response, the IRP update, the TRA hearing on Clean Line’s petition for utility status, and the interim study meeting in AR… There’s no really good way to hit everything except by topic, so that’s where we’ll start.

Is it 7000MW, 3500MW, or 4000MW? And why won’t Clean Line commit to not adding a second line… in writing?

So the best thing I can say for Rivera’s comment is that it was nice of her to ask the Department of Energy to “update the project description” for P&E and GBE “to reflect changes implemented since 2012”:

“Namely, Plains & Eastern Clean Line is no longer under development as the two-phase

7,000 MW project originally envisioned, and Grain Belt Express Clean Line was extended 200 miles to reach a stronger point of interconnection in Indiana also while maintaining an interconnection in Missouri.”

Good for us, bad for our friends to the north, whose correction officially included an extra 200 miles for a total length of 750 miles. 

Good for us except that Clean Line has never said, in writing, that they won’t come back later to revive the 2^nd phase of P&E. Something tells me that a successful petition for 1222 might mean a lot more of this kind of development in general. Handily, they’d have plans…well…handy.

Also of note was Rivera’s description of P&E:

“The line will originate in the Oklahoma Panhandle and will be capable of delivering 3,500 MW of wind power to an interconnection point in Tennessee and 500 MW to an interconnection point in Arkansas.”

                        

So now we’re at 4000MW. This was confirmed by Clean Line testimony at the TRA hearing. Interesting, as for some reason, the majority of us were under the impression the line topped out at 3500MW. Maybe we misunderstood all along?

The angry cynic in me wonders if this has anything to do with their proposed converter station (supposedly, they’re eyeing land north of Russellville for it. Have they contacted landowners yet?) which Clean Line is actually under no obligation to build. Will they actually go through with the expense of building one if money comes up short on the way to Tenn? Is Arkansas' 500MW promise nothing but a feel-good gesture? And who’s going to buy the 500MW anyway?

Which brings us to…

No, not those customers… These customers

For a while we’ve been speculating that the  “Fifteen potential customers” who “submitted requests for transmission service totaling over 17,000 megawatts” Clean Line touted in their press release after the FERC granted them conditional approval to sell capacity came from generators and not end users. We got confirmation of that both at the TRA hearing and in Rivera’s DoE comment:

“Consistent with its negotiated rate authority granted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), Plains & Eastern Clean Line conducted an open solicitation and received transmission service requests from developers of wind projects with total capacity far exceeding the capacity of the transmission line. In advance of the solicitation, developers of over 16,000 MW of wind projects in the Oklahoma Panhandle region responded to a request for information (“RFI”) regarding the need for transmission service.”

Unfortunately, we don’t know what “over” means numerically. Assuming that if they had over 17,500 MW we’d be talking about “nearly” 18,000MW… This means that of all their P&E solicitation, only 1,000 to maybe 1,500MW came from actual end users customers… or utilities (which Clean Line is not in AR nor yet in TN). The rest came from, you guessed it, the generators. If you build it, they will come?

1,000 to 1,500 MW… So the interest from utilities wanting to buy power was less than one third to less than one half of the total capacity of the line? Ouch.

Why? Maybe because the project is so uncertain.

But what’s more important here is that, yet again, Clean Line is attempting to justify the line based on generation rather than end use. Why is that important? Because we shouldn’t take people’s land forcibly based on potential generation and without a clearly defined and expressed user need. A vague “large and growing demand for renewable energy” doesn’t count. We just shouldn’t. It’s unethical and it opens up a huge can of worms. Try as Clean Line and the DoE might to call constraint a “need”, it isn’t. Especially when said "constrained" wind farms haven’t been developed.

You can think of this project as a three-legged stool: producers, end users, and regulators/permitting. If any one of those breaks, down we go. And worse, none of those legs are even screwed in yet. We’ve got wind farms that haven’t been built because they’re waiting for transmission (and, I’d guess, the future of the PTC), end users waiting for producers and permitting, and permitting that’s going to take another year at best and uses an untested section of law ripe for litigation. That’s a hell of a risk for anyone to get on board with, especially landowners being asked to sign perpetual easements. Especially considering the company doing the asking actually advocated for a less transparent process for a governmental study that essentially belongs to the taxpayers:

“Clean Line acknowledges the difficulty or impossibility of accessing uniform data across the country and supports efforts to improve data quality and availability in the future. The issue of data access requires serious examination, and DOE may wish to consider using data that is not publicly available. Making data publicly available may discourage sharing of competitively sensitive information that could prove helpful in thoroughly studying congestion on the bulk electric system.”

But what about the farmers?

So what really set me off about Rivera’s comment was this section:

“These are real projects, many of which have land leased for wind turbines from

farmers seeking new sources of income, as drought has made traditional farming livelihoods uncertain. Wind power represents new hope for drought-resistant income and economic development in regions of the country otherwise struggling with diminishing populations.”

Why? Because it’s a cheap ploy to garner an emotional response. Of course everyone is worried about the sustainability of farming in the Midwest given the changing climate and increasing prevalence of drought. But to use that as a mechanism to justify the forced condemnation of land belonging to farmers in other states, affecting their financial security and independence, doesn’t make any sense at all. Maybe these developers should have had a plan to sell energy to more local markets BEFORE signing lease agreements with farmers. Maybe they shouldn’t have made promises to people that they couldn’t keep.

And what Rivera fails to acknowledge here is the very simple fact that the farmers she’s referring to in her comment had a choice. They were able to choose whether or not to participate in development projects. Clean Line, for all their “we are committed to negotiating easements” talk is still pursuing the right to eminent domain as a means to complete this transmission project. And, yes, they will cut through farms in Arkansas. And, no, not everyone wants to participate.

Which brings me to a question we heard repeatedly from the TRA directors in reference to the opposition letters they received from landowners in Arkansas, including ours, which has about 350 signatures…

What went wrong in Arkansas?

The directors at the TRA heard from a landowner who talked about how wonderful her experience with Clean Line had been. Their question about why landowners in Arkansas seemed so unsupportive of the project was met with the assertion that it was simply because there was less certainty in the route in here and, therefore, less landowner contact.

Personally, I think it probably has more to do with the fact that Clean Line NEEDS the TRA on board. I think they were probably on their best behavior in Tennessee because they had to be, since SWPA doesn’t have jurisdiction for siting the line there. Not to mention that attempting to buy seventeen miles of easement is a lot easier than buying two-hundred and something. In fact, Clean Line bragged about being able to obtain 40 out of 50 easements in TN (the last 10 are apparently a little cautious of the three-legged stool and are waiting to see if Clean Line actually gets routing authority. We assume, anyway, since that’s what Clean Line said and none of those landowners were present to say differently)… And they did it without eminent domain, so it can be done. It would be very interesting to see the terms and conditions of those agreements.

They were right, though, about having less landowner contact in Arkansas. After our Dover meeting, which was attended by nearly 100 people (or a little less than 1/6^th of the total number of people who signed into all the DoE/CL scoping meetings combined...across three states), Mario Hurtado talked to our town newspaper about all the outreach they’ve done in Arkansas…

Um, maybe they need a new outreach coordinator. When Chris Hardy went to Arkansas Tech University in Russellville several weeks ago to pitch, excuse me, present the project to the students in the Chemistry Club, among other groups, did they take the time to hold “office hours” in the town a few miles up Highway 7 that would be directly impacted by the line? No.

It is amazing to me that Clean Line continues to talk about outreach as if they’re patting themselves on the back. Notice that “stakeholder” does not equal “landowner”. No, meetings with NGO’s, contractors, and the few landowners lucky enough to get “the unicorn” (Clean Line’s postcard) or read about “office hours” (advertised the same day as the event) in the local papers (which in very rural areas, often have to be mailed and don’t arrive until late in the day) does not count as informing the people whose land you want to use to construct a transmission line. There’s this thing called a registered letter. It’s awesome.

In an attempt to reach as many locals as possible, our group actually went door to door before our meeting. Since we were short on time and corporate sponsorship, we just hit one road on the route. We were able to speak with eleven people directly. Only a few knew anything about the line. One person knew they were in the proposed corridor. 

One. 

Nice job fellas.

If you liked it, then you should have put a ring on it. 

Letter to Governor Mike Beebe about recent support letter from the Governors Wind Coalition...

Governor Beebe:

I am writing you as a concerned landowner who could potentially be adversely impacted by the Plains and Eastern Clean Line project. I am writing you specifically because of a letter I recently discovered from the "Governor's Wind Coalition" in which the governors of South Dakota and Washington urged the Department of Energy to utilize Section 1222 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Your spokesman, Mr. DeCample, said the following when asked about the letter:

But a spokesman for the Democratic governor of Arkansas, Mike Beebe, said he hasn’t signed off on the letter. “While Arkansas is a member of the coalition, we are not a signee on this letter; in fact, this is the first we’ve seen of it,” Matt DeCample, a spokesman for the governor, said in an email. “We’ve not been involved in the national discussion of this particular issue.”

I agree. Arkansans have NOT been allowed to be a part of the national discussion about this issue, and it seems as though we are being left out of the process. I ask you: How is this fair to us? How is it fair for the governors of two states that would not be impacted at all by the 1222 statute are speaking on the behalf of hundreds of landowners along the 300 mile path of destruction this would cause to natural beauty and private property owners in our state? If we don't have a say the fate of our own property in this case, why on earth are we a member of this "Governors Wind Coalition"?

Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC, is a privately held, venture capitalist funded (many who are involved heavily in investments in the oil industry, I might add), limited liability company that was rejected by the Arkansas Public Service Commission in 2011. They are now seeking federal siting authority over unwilling landowners. I feel like this is an absolute overreach into states rights, and would set an extremely dangerous precedent of allowing a private LLC to obtain federal authority of eminent domain for private financial gain.

There is significant and wide-ranging opposition to this project that continues to form in our state. Recently, our opposition group gathered and submitted approximately 350 signatures to the Tennessee Regulatory Authority urging the directors to deny Clean Line public utility status in that state. They can be found here:http://www.state.tn.us/tra/dockets/1400036.htm Signature gathering on this front is ongoing. Our group is also coordinating an opposition campaign to Secretary Moniz of the Department of Energy urging him not to allow the DoE to partner with Clean Line Energy under the authority of the Southwestern Power Administration.

Our group recently held a local meeting in the town of Dover attended by about 100 people, many of whom could potentially be affected by this. When asked who in the audience had only recently found out about this project, approximately 75% of them raised their hand. When asked how many had been contacted by Clean Line, approximately five raised their hand. It is our sincere belief that Clean Line has been utterly incompetent in its outreach efforts to the very people who would be most impacted by this highly speculative project. This project has been in development since 2009.

So, after all of this has been said, we are asking for your help. You have been a great steward in this state throughout your governorship. Arkansans need to be allowed to have a voice on this issue, and there are literally hundreds of people who do not feel as though they have been given this opportunity. If you'd like to know more about the opposition to this project, you can find us at the following locations:

blockcleanlinepope@gmail.com
blockcleanlinepope.blogspot.com
www.facebook.com/groups/blockcleanlinepope
tinyurl.com/ACACLE

Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this matter.

Governors who should mind their own states' business...

So, what does it look like when the governors of two states, Washington and South Dakota, urge the Department of Energy to use Section 1222 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act to remove your property rights in Arkansas for an unnecessary transmission line without so much as even consulting with your governor? This is what that looks like:

And what does the Arkansas governor say when he realizes a letter was sent, basically on his behalf, by two faraway governors who really should mind their own business?

But a spokesman for the Democratic governor of Arkansas, Mike Beebe, said he hasn’t signed off on the letter. “While Arkansas is a member of the coalition, we are not a signee on this letter; in fact, this is the first we’ve seen of it,” Matt DeCample, a spokesman for the governor, said in an email. “We’ve not been involved in the national discussion of this particular issue.”

Mr. DeCample is correct. Arkansas has NOT had a chance to be involved in the national discussion of this particular issue. In fact, it seems as though we are being left out! How is that fair to us? If we're not going to have input into the fate of our land, then why on earth are we a member of this "Governor's Wind Coalition" as Arkansans? Maybe we should contact Governor Beebe and ask! 

http://governor.arkansas.gov/contact/index.php

Something really smells, here!

My take on what Clean Line is attempting to do in our community...

Let's not sugar coat what the private company, Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC, is trying to do in our community: obtain the power of federal eminent domain authority via Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to build what has been referred to as “the largest transmission line in America” north of Dover.

They are seeking federal eminent domain because our own Arkansas Public Services Commission rejected their application to become a public utility in 2011. Arkansas is the doormat Clean Line is trying to use to get to the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Their proposed converter station would only supply 3 percent of our summer energy and would not close a single coal plant. Clean Line, as I mentioned, is a private, for-profit company that would make money delivering power from Point A (Western Oklahoma) to Point B (Shelby County, Tenn., TVA).

To my knowledge, Clean Line has zero utility customers on the end-use side, and the generators to supply this power have not been constructed yet. This line would clear-cut a 200-foot wide, 120-200-foot tall swath through either Hagarville or Lutherville, through the Bullfrog Valley area where many of us enjoy the scenic floating opportunities in the spring/summer, across Walnut Valley road, straight across Pleasant Grove, across Pollard Cemetery Road, through Scottsville, over Cloud Mountain and would cross the intersection of 105/124 going toward Appleton.

This is a huge issue in our community, affecting many people who are already being hit hard by the proposed Diamond 20-inch crude oil pipeline that would follow a similar easement.

Let’s talk about jobs: Clean Line claims they will be providing “hundreds of jobs” to Arkansas. Transmission construction is a highly specialized industry. Clean Line will be using the Fluor Corporation of Irving, Texas, for their engineering and Pike Energy Solutions of Mount Airy, N.C., for its subcontracting.

There is nothing legally binding that requires Clean Line to hire in-state workers. They’d like for us to take them on their word. Their track record in our community makes that a difficult proposition.

We talk to people all the time who had absolutely no idea this could potentially impact them until early this year. How is that possible given the fact that Clean Line has been standing over a map since 2009 looking at our generations-old property, trying to figure out how they can use it to make a buck? It’s not right. We are asking you as fellow members of the community to stand with us in opposing this.

We are having a meeting at 6 p.m. Thursday at the Dover High School Fine Arts Building. We will have a presentation about the project and what they’re trying to do.

Informational and Opposition Meeting

We have a new blog post in the works, but this week we're busy preparing for our opposition meeting in Dover.

Attorney Trae Gray of the Landowner Firm will be coming in to discuss eminent domain. We'll have a new presentation on Clean Line and the Department of Energy, including a general overview of the project as it relates to Sec 1222 of the 2005 Energy Act. Jerry Harry and PJ Broadfoot will be there to discuss the towers, tourism and property values, and possible health effects. We'll have our usual Q&A session at the end as well. 

Opposition projects will be available for signing.

Date: Thursday the 30th at 6pm 
Location: Dover Schools Fine Arts Building Cafeteria.

Clean Line, Clean Line, How Does Your Influence Grow? With NGO’s and Sponsorships and Section 1222 All in a Row

Let’s forget, for a minute, how infuriating it is that Clean Line met with the Arkansas Canoe Club, the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, and the AWF in a “pre-design” meeting to discuss the routing of their proposed HVDC line before meeting with landowners… even though, technically, tax-paying landowners collectively own the very public lands these unelected groups suggested be avoided. I’d link to their actual siting comments, but since I can’t seem to find Appendix D, here’s a quote:

“The group reviewed maps of the proposed corridor network in Arkansas. Comments made during this review are recorded in Attachment D. The following is a brief summary of issues identified by attendees:

• Avoidance of National Wildlife Refuges, State Parks, Natural Areas, and other designated areas;
• Important Birding Areas;
• Migratory bird areas;
• Mushroom collection areas;
• Visual and aesthetic concerns;
• Watershed areas;
• Public sensitivities;
• Forest fragmentation; and,
• Shale gas development.”

(http://www.plainsandeasterncleanline.com/sites/plains_eastern/media/Plains_and_Eastern_Clean_Line_August_2011_1222_update.pdf, starting on Page 33)

Let’s forget the early meetings with county, state, and federal officials/agencies, and Clean Line’s promise of increased property taxes. We’ll forget the ongoing “presentations” to college students and the sponsorship of various events across the state… For the next few minutes, we’ll forget that Clean Line’s latest “outreach” hires include the ex-chief counsel for the governor’s office in Arkansas, a former State Representative of Oklahoma, and the former vice president at the State Chamber in Oklahoma (*cough* lobbyists? *cough, cough*). http://www.plainsandeasterncleanline.com/sites/plains_eastern/media/docs/Plains__Eastern-newsletter-August-2014-WEB.pdf

Let’s forget all of that and consider just two things…

First, for all Clean Line’s “outreach”, there are still Arkansans inside the proposed corridor who have no idea their land could be affected by this line.

Second, Clean Line is actively seeking to obtain the right of eminent domain through the Department of Energy (by way of the Southwestern Power Administration). Yes, they like to call it “federal siting authority”. No, that doesn’t change what it is. Are these two things simple coincidence? I’ll let you decide. But more importantly, why do they matter?

Well, for one thing, Clean Line is a transmission company, not a traditional public utility. Oh, maybe it’s half of one in Oklahoma, but let’s be clear: For all their “rejected without prejudice/the state law wasn’t designed for a project as innovative as ours” talk, Clean Line failed to meet the definition of a public utility in Arkansas. Of course now they’re throwing us a bone by way of a possible converter station somewhere, maybe, between Russellville and Conway… Perhaps to boost their chances for a second go at the Arkansas Public Service Commission? In the meantime, however, they appear to have opted to circumvent state law entirely and have petitioned the Department of Energy for eminent domain authority using section 1222 of the 2005 Energy Act.

You can link to the act here: http://energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-policy-coordination-and-implementation/transmission-planning/section-1222

Or read this: http://stoppathwv.com/1/post/2013/04/us-dept-of-energy-misuses-eminent-domain-authority-for-clean-lines-private-land-grab.html

So why go for the feds? Why not just build P&E as a merchant transmission project? It’s the eminent domain, silly:

DOE and Southwestern understand and agree that their ability to acquire through condemnation proceedings property necessary for the development, construction and operation of the Project is one of the primary reasons for Clean Line’s interest in developing the Project with DOE and Southwestern and through the use of EPAct 2005 section 1222. DOE and Southwestern agree that, if the Secretary of Energy ultimately decides upon the conclusion of such evaluation as DOE and Southwestern deem appropriate that (i) the Project complies with section 1222, and (ii) to participate in the Project’s development pursuant to section 1222, then, DOE and Southwestern will use their condemnation authority as may be necessary and appropriate for the timely, cost-effective and commercially reasonable development, construction and operation of the Project.

(http://www.plainsandeasterncleanline.com/sites/plains_eastern/media/Plains_and_Eastern_Clean_Line_August_2011_1222_update.pdf page 53)

And there it is, right there in the last sentence: “Cost-effective and commercially reasonable development” Ding! Ding! Ding!

Cost-effective? For whom? Commercially reasonable? For whom? Not the landowners who don’t want the project, but have to settle for Clean Line’s “generous” 100% of the market value for the easement. Not for the people who actually get to shoulder the burden of having this project on their property for the rest of their lives.

The “need” for eminent domain in this instance depends on your perspective. Yes, they could do the project without it… No, they probably can’t afford to do three to four major lines at once. Who'll pay for the rush to get as many lines up as quickly as possible? Probably not the profit margin.

The truth is, eminent domain isn’t just about taming the occasional holdout. It’s about cost management for the entire land acquisition process. It’s a big, fat, super discount for companies looking to cash in on “the despotic right”, maintaining as much profit as possible, and it comes on the backs of ordinary people. People most often without the resources to fight back. It’s a gold-plated loaded gun--bad enough when used by actual utilities, but employed by private entities… whew. We’ll ignore all the tempting comments on Plutocracy here because I want to share a quote from a working legal paper I found while fighting a completely different energy easement planned for our land last year:

“The simplest solution to the problems described above is to remove the power of eminent domain from utilities for LIEs. Utilities argue that they need eminent domain power to avoid hold out problems. However, the successful record of utility acquisition of LIEs without the use of eminent domain suggests this is overstated. For example, the LCRA line which crosses Kimble County, Texas en route from the Texas Panhandle to Austin is the second such line to be constructed on that route. The first was built roughly 20 miles to the east by Florida Power & Light (FPL), which does not have the power of eminent domain in Texas. FPL reportedly paid much higher prices for its easements than LCRA (although the exact amounts are protected by contracts prohibiting the landowners from revealing what they were paid). In addition, FPL easements contain significantly different provisions from the LCRA easements. For example, FPL indemnified its servient estate owners.

There is some evidence that the process by which risks are imposed affects risk perception which also suggests that eminent domain is particularly inappropriate for LIEs, as determining reasonable compensation is particularly difficult in such instances.

As Dent and Sims conclude in their study of risk perception involved in wind energy and cell phone towers:

Professionals working in the field of value impacts of facilities such as HVOTLs, cell towers and wind turbines need to appreciate that those opposing any particular technologies, or specific sites, are not necessarily acting irrationally. Nor can their actions be categorized simply as NIMBYism (not in my back yard). There are often more complex issues surrounding such opposition such as power relations, democracy, personal histories, etc.

Most importantly, terminating utilities’ eminent domain powers would not end the creation of LIEs but instead require condemning entities to negotiate with landowners for easements. If particular features of LIEs led to landowners insisting on greater compensation, utilities would be incentivized to develop means of abating the problems. If negotiations resulted in higher costs for utilities, this would lead to more accurate social cost pricing of transmission – a feature, not a bug. Indeed, forcing utilities to pay the full cost of building transmission lines would create incentives to adopt innovative technologies and pricing formulas that could reduce the need for additional transmission lines.”

(Morris, Brandys & Barron, Involuntary Cotenants: Eminent Domain and Energy & Communications Infrastructure Growth, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2380159, page 40)

(Do we get into the use of existing easements and public lands for public good here? Or the Champlain Hudson Line that will run not only underground, but also through portions of existing railroad easements. Wait! Wasn’t Clean Line likening energy transmission to railroads on its website not that long ago? Kismet!!! But for now, let’s just keep going.) 

So what does this potential partnership between Clean Line and the DoE mean for us little people? It means taking these kinds of decisions further out of the general public’s hands and placing them ever more firmly in those of D.C. and the private entities that feed off the rich buffet of government employees, trained and groomed at taxpayer expense, who leave public service to bring their expertise and connections to the private sector. It means that the average American, in spite of working hard and paying their taxes, may no longer be able to trust that the federal government will protect their right to property over the proposed projects of venture capitalists. It means the DoE not only takes a mistress, but puts her up in an apartment at the Ritz.

Now, before I’m accused of misunderstanding the antiquated state of our electric grid, the history of eminent domain in our country, of putting the needs of the few before the “needs” of the many, being a climate change denier, etc… Let me say that our grid is in dire straits, eminent domain has gotten away from us as a country (Kelo v. New London was a bad call, sorry), you can’t be NIMBY when you’re AIMBY (Already In My Backyard-my family’s land has multiple easements, as do many families in the corridor), the needs of the many need to be addressed in a way that is fair and equitable for everyone. Finally, I not only believe in climate change, I think it’s the most dangerous issue of our time and, likely my children’s time as well. 

If it’s true that we are at the beginning of a new golden age of transmission and energy production, then for the love of all we have stood for together as a country, let’s do it the right way. Let’s not promote the transmission equivalent of urban sprawl. Let’s not force people to sacrifice their land to a company that, to the best of my knowledge, hasn’t built a shed, much less the largest transmission line in the country. One that peddles electricity from wind farms that, to the best of my knowledge, haven’t been built yet. That has, to the best of my knowledge, no committed, contracted consumer base in Tennessee or elsewhere. That, in my opinion, dangles the “jobs/taxes” carrot in a desperately impoverished state to encourage people to ignore the potential abuse of the rights of fellow residents. That prides themselves on their innovative method for pricing easements and then uses the same old tired methods of land acquisition (As Michael Skelly said in his TED Talk, before discussing the plethora of experienced right-of-way agents available in Texas, infrastructure challenges are “a question of brawn.” Listen at 13min 41 sec: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icgEphbS8zE ). A company that somehow, though it’s been three years since those “pre-design” meetings, still has potentially affected landowners in the proposed corridors who are unaware their intentions.

Before I go, I want to give a friend the final word. The other day he noticed that Clean Line was a sponsor for the 2014 ARvets “Salute” Gala. Unfortunately, his comment on the website was taken down: http://arvets.org/frontpage/sponsors-offer-support-for-2014-salute-gala/#comment-19970. Luckily, he shared his thoughts with me:

"It's ironic that Clean Line would be a sponsor of an event that honors vets. Ironic because they plan to use federal eminent domain to take land from a World War II combat vet. That vet is my father, Jake Dyer. He served in the Navy in the Pacific theater of operations. One of his duties was gunner on amphibious assault landing craft.

The insidious thing about Clean Line is their use of money to worm their way into influence in Arkansas. This event is a case in point."

Happy Friday.

x