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

Let's talk "green" and "environmental responsibility" vs. raw materials, shall we?

Clean Line Energy Partners likes to talk about how they are stewards of "green energy" and "environmental responsibility." I would like to take a moment with this post to put into perspective the sheer amount of raw materials that would be used in the construction of this project. You can decide for yourselves if you'd consider this "green" or "environmentally responsible." This aspect is not something that I feel has been addressed effectively. This is going to be lengthy, but please bear with me because I feel like this is a very important point from an environmental perspective. 

According to information from Clean Line's own website, there are four different types of transmission towers they are proposing to use:

1. Monopole - 110-140' tall with a single 6-8' diameter concrete-filled pier that is between 25-50' in depth. Four to six structures per mile.
2. Lattice Mast - 110-140' tall with a single 6-8' diameter concrete-filled pier that is between 25-50' in depth. Four to six structures per mile.
3. Lattice - 120-150' tall with four concrete-filled piers of unknown diameter that are between 15-25' in depth with a structural footprint of between 27-46' wide. Three to five structures per mile.
4. Guyed Lattice Mast - 120-150' tall with a single 6-8' diameter concrete-filled pier and four guy-anchor cables that are between 80-105' away from the concrete pier, for a total footprint of around 160-210' including guy-anchors.

Source: http://www.plainsandeasterncleanline.com/site/page/transmission-line-structures

Number of Towers

Let's give Clean Line the benefit of the doubt and use the tower that has the least structural footprint and we will use averages for fairness. This would be the "monopole" design. 

The Plains and Eastern Clean Line would be approximately 750 miles total in length. As stated above, if monopoles were used in the construction, there would be between four and six per mile. We will use the average of five. This gives us a grand total of 3,750 monopoles. That's a lot of towers!

Amount of Raw Steel Used for Tower Construction

According to Clean Line's website:

"A typical steel monopole transmission structure requires around 35,000 – 40,000 pounds of steel per structure and a typical steel lattice transmission structure requires an average of 32,000 pounds of steel per structure."

Again, giving Clean Line the benefit of the doubt, we are going to assume that all of the structures will be the smaller version of the monopole which would "only" use 35,000 pounds of steel per structure. If my math serves me right, 3,750 structures X 35,000 lbs per structure =  131,250,000 lbs or 65,625 tons of steel. The average modern car weighs 2,500 lbs. This would equate to enough steel to build 52,500 brand new cars. Does this sound "green" to you?

Amount of Concrete Used for Tower Construction

To do this calculation, I am going to assume three things: 

1. I will assume that the piers used in the foundation for the structures will be round. Generally, a large boring machine is used to drill these pier holes and if rock is encountered controlled blasting is used. Sometimes, depending on the thickness of the rock, a large hydraulic jackhammer is used to break up and remove rock. 
2. I will use 6' diameter as the average since they are stating that the foundation structure will be "between 6-8 feet."
3. I will assume for calculation purposes that a range of depths for the pier foundations will be used, as the depth for these foundations would be largely dependent on the type of strata present at the location of the pier. They are saying "between 25-50 feet" in depth so I will use the average of 37.5' in depth.

All of that being said, let's calculate a little bit of volume, shall we? Concrete is calculated using "cubic yards." Assuming that we would have 3,750 structures with a 6' diameter pier that is an average of 37.5' in depth, that calculates out to a little over 39 cubic yards of concrete per foundation. Multiply that by the 3,750 foundations and you come up with 146,250 cubic yards of concrete. No wonder concrete plants are in favor of this project, right?

What does this all mean when put into perspective? The average concrete truck holds ten cubic yards of concrete. This project would require 14,625 truckloads of concrete to pour the foundations. Most of us aren't aware of how much CO2 is released during the manufacture of Portland cement (an integral part in the recipe for concrete), or even how energy intense the process is. A quick Google search will shock you. Does this sound "green" to you?

In summary:

• 3,750 unsightly towers spread across two states and a small portion of a third.
• 131,250,000 lbs of steel that must be mined, processed, and turned into towers.
• 14,625 truckloads of concrete

Again, these numbers only take into account Clean Line using the smallest, least intrusive structures. This is a best case scenario. None of this takes into account the vast amount of resources and land area that will be required to construct the several thousand wind turbines that would supply electricity to this project. Clean Line basically has two options to make their transmission portion of the project look anything close to "green" or "environmentally friendly":

1. Do not build this project.
2. Install direct-burial cable underground which would require far fewer natural resources, a much smaller easement, would eliminate the unsightly 750 mile trail of towers.

The next time you talk to a Clean Line representative, ask them why they haven't proposed burying this. The answer I got: "It's complicated." Translation: "It's too expensive." Since Clean Line's only interest is with their investors' bottom line, don't expect for them to take either of these routes. If they were truly interested in being "green" and "environmentally responsible," they would use the least destructive option to the environment and landowners which would be to bury this.

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

Imagine that! Just a couple days after our letter of opposition was posted on Clean Line's docket with the Tennessee Regulatory Authority, a new letter of support from the "Tennessee Advanced Energy Business Council" has been posted. The letter is here:

http://www.tn.gov/tra/orders/2014/1400036y.pdf

This is not surprising. Not only is Clean Line a TAEBC member (http://www.tnadvancedenergy.com/members/), but they also have a representative in the group's "delegation" (*cough* lobbying group? *cough, cough*) to the Department of Energy, a gentleman by the name of Max Shilstone (http://www.tnadvancedenergy.com/tag/department-of-energy/). Maybe he can visit Mr. Gotfelty's old pals while he's there.

 "Pictured above: TAEBC Delegation in Washington D.C. Back row (L-R): Mary Shafer Gill, ARiES Energy; Charles Sims, Howard Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy; Matt Kisber, Silicon Ranch; John Hopkins, University of Tennessee. Front row (L-R): Steve Drevik, Agilaire; Ben Edgar, White Harvest Energy; Dan Hurst, Strata-G; Jeff Kanel, Renewable Algal Energy; Ashley Patterson, Amereso; Sam Jackson, Genera Energy; Bob Hilton, Alstom. Members of the TAEBC D.C. delegation not pictured: Max Shilstone, Clean Line Energy; Paul Hamilton, Schneider Electric; Tom Ballard, PYA and Cortney Piper, interim director of TAEBC."

It gets even better:  Not only is Clean Line a TAEBC member with a representative on the group's "delegation", they also have a "to be determined" VIP on TAEBC's "Advisory Committee", as well (http://www.tnadvancedenergy.com/about-us/advisory-committee/).

Also, this is their YouTube channel which is complete with videos from Chris Hardy and Hank Seltzer, both representatives of Clean Line, speaking on their behalf:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCS3kY11injGw4uA0YBDO57w

Now the important stuff:

As I stated before, with Clean Line's heavy involvement in this organization, it is not at all surprising that they have come out in support of the Plains and Eastern Clean Line. The most important thing I think we can glean in all of this, however, is information provided in a project that the Tennessee Advanced Energy Business Council produced entitled "Tennessee's Advanced Energy Asset Inventory." That "project" dated September 2013, can be found here:

http://www.tnadvancedenergy.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/TAEBC-Energy-Asset-Inventory.pdf

Many of you may know that the Plains and Eastern Clean Line was originally planned to be not one, but two 3,500mW transmission lines, totaling 7,000mW. In Clean Line's original application to the Department of Energy, they applied for the twin 3,500mW lines. After the initial application, Clean Line modified their application to a single 3,500mW line. The original 7,000mW proposal to the DoE can be found here:

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/Plains%20%26%20Eastern%20Clean%20Line%20Transmission%20Project%20Application.pdf

The updated proposal to the DoE which modifies their project to a single 3,500mW line can be found here:

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/Plains_and_Eastern_Clean_Line_August_2011_1222_update.pdf

You may ask: Why is the above "project" that was completed by TAEBC important? It is important because of one simple line that can be found on page ten of the project:

"Clean Line Partners of Houston, Texas, has entered a memorandum of understanding with TVA to deliver wind power from Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas to Tennessee. Prior to completing what would be America’s largest power transmission line, the $2 billion proposal must receive an environmental impact evaluation from the U.S. Department of Energy as well as right of way approval through Arkansas. The project’s first phase is proposed to deliver 3,500 megawatts, comparable to the energy consumption of one million homes. How much of this power would eventually come to Tennessee, and at what cost, are decisions yet to be determined by TVA. Clean Line estimates the project would provide more than 5,000 construction jobs and 500 permanent jobs maintaining and operating the wind farms and the transmission line.xvi"

This is extremely important because many in the opposition movement have suspected that Clean Line is planning to "get their foot in the door," so to speak, with their initial single 3,500mW line and then simply expand the easement at a later date to include a second 3,500mW line. There now seems to be an indication that Clean Line may be, indeed, planning a second line at some point in the future. What does this mean? Landowners would not only potentially have one, but TWO transmission easements on their property that could total between 300-400' wide, and not only one, but potentially TWO 120-200' tall transmission lines on their property. This would render most people's land along the route completely useless and valueless.

But wait, there's more! 

In reading through the Department of Energy's "National Electric Transmission Congestion Study, dated August 2014 on page 86 of the PDF, page 56 of the study, there seems to be an error:

"The Plains & Eastern Line is a 7,000 MW capacity, 800‐mile line planned by transmission merchant Clean Line Energy that would originate in western Oklahoma and end in western Tennessee, with a target in‐service date of 2017."

Was this just an error on the part of the Department of Energy, or has it been the plan all along to start with a single 3,500mW line and expand it at a later date once the initial easement has been obtained to TWO 3,500mW lines? We'll let you be the judge.

Congestion study can be found here:

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/08/f18/NationalElectricTransmissionCongestionStudy-DraftForPublicComment-August-2014.pdf

The next time you speak with a representative of Clean Line, it would be a good idea to ask them what their ACTUAL plans are. My guess is they'll be just as disingenuous in providing the answer to this question as they are about any other questions that are asked of them. 

If this doesn't alarm you, I am not sure what will!

P.S. - And can someone please explain to Clean Line that a "Memorandum of Understanding" isn't a marriage contract... It's more like a promise ring.

Is Clean Line Energy Partners, a private company, using a publicly funded university to garner support for its project?

http://www.asuherald.com/news/view.php/850051/A-State-students-involved-in-clean-energ


This is not something that is unexpected, unfortunately. It has been proven that CLEP has already used these tactics in Missouri. Emails were uncovered between Clean Line representatives and students offering gifts such as a pizza party in return for support and signature gathering by students. They also offered to bring props from their Houston office to aid the students. They even went so far as to ask one of the students to sponsor a response to an article on Clean Line's behalf. Evidence, here:

https://www.facebook.com/download/1408165172802666/CleanLineEmail.pdf 

In this case, it appears like Clean Line pulled the classic "bait and switch." Here's why I say this:

"On Sept. 18, Sarah Bray, director of communications for Clean Line Energy, spoke to communications students in Carol Langston and Myleea Hill’s classes about how college education relates to what employment after graduation.

“I spent some time with (the students) and walked them through all of the different ways we communicate around our projects,” Bray said. “We talked about direct mail, video, meetings and press conferences we hold, and (I) tried to apply what they are learning in their classes to what I do in my everyday job.”

Sounds good, right? Clean Line is just coming to give a presentation to communications students about how they use communications tactics to explain their project, right? Then, it appears the "presentation" morphed into something more:

“We also wanted to talk to students about the project we are working on and how we use these different communication tactics to get the word out about how it will affect people,” Bray said. 

Hardy said the project would create five thousand jobs in the construction and manufacturing necessary for the wind farms and transmission. Another 500 jobs will be created for the operation and maintenance of the transmission line.

I am going to leave the gross over-exaggeration of the jobs this project would create for another day. 

“Our overall goal is to deliver a new source of low cost clean energy to states that have a demand for energy but don’t have the existing resources to do so. Arkansas is one of those states,” Hardy said. “In order to accomplish that we want to engage people in talking about what the role of wind energy is, the number of jobs it will create and how our project really benefits the public in terms of a clean energy and reliable, domestic source.” 

Bray said they are looking for students who advocate and support renewable energy and want to get involved in the project. “We want students who will help us mobilize other students and be a part of the hearing that will happen in March of 2015,” she said. 

A draft of the project will be released by the U.S. Department of Energy in December, and the March hearing will be held to discuss the draft further. Students and other supporters are invited to attend the hearing and show support to bring renewable energy into Arkansas. 

Bray said students can go online and write a support letter at supportcleanenergyarkansas.com. “We enjoyed spending time with the students at Arkansas State University, and we would love for students to get involved and show their support.” 

“We invited everyone to learn more about our project and hope we can be a part of the clean energy future that is developing in Arkansas,” Hardy said.

Is Clean Line planning to attempt to stack the Department of Energy hearings here in Arkansas with students from local universities in an attempt to drown out landowners as they did in Missouri Public Services hearings? They used the tactic there, so why not here?

I ask this question: Is it appropriate for a private, for-profit company to give a presentation to a publicly funded university, Arkansas State University - Jonesboro, to garner support without having representatives from the opposition giving their side of the story? We don't think so. 

Since this line was included in the article:

Clean energy is a hot topic for Arkansas and surrounding states, and A-State students and faculty had the opportunity to join the fight when Clean Line Energy directors came to share information about their project.

Does Arkansas State University - Jonesboro wish to publicly endorse this project? If they do, we would like to know! If a member of faculty or staff of ASU would like to clarify their official stance on this project, please email us:

blockcleanlinepope@gmail.com

Come visit us this weekend...

Arkansas Beautiful: Inside the Corridor

**UPDATE**

Looks like storms are in the forecast.

If it's not raining, we'll still be there.

Come visit us this Saturday at the
7th Annual Augsburg Fall Fest
Sponsored by the Zion Lutheran Church
at 93 Augsburg Road, London

We will have our booth set up from 10:00a to 3:00p.

Looking forward to another great day of chatting with our neighbors (and eating some really fantastic bratwurst). 

We'll also be collecting additional signatures for our TRA letter and going over some additional projects and events that are in the works. 

So, we have some really exciting news to report today! As many of you may know, we have been working on a couple Plains and Eastern Clean Line opposition projects. To those of you who have signed, we had a chance to explain it to you. To those of you who have not had a chance to speak with us, here is what we have been doing:

Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC, filed a petition to become a public utility in Tennessee this past April. They did so through the Tennessee Regulatory Authority, which is Tennessee's version of our Arkansas Public Services Commission. This is an ongoing process, and this matter has not been decided yet, so we have a unique opportunity to have our voice heard in this process.

This is where we come in. We have drafted a letter to the Tennessee Regulatory Authority as a group of Arkansans who are opposed to this project. The letter we have written in opposition urges the Directors to deny Clean Line public utility status in Tennessee. If this becomes the case, we feel like it will be a pretty substantial blow to the Plains and Eastern Clean Line project.

Today, we submitted the letter and the first round of signatures to the Tennessee Regulatory Authority. The Staff and the Directors of the TRA who make the decision will view our letter and 276 signatures and ultimately take it into account when making their decision. The docket can be viewed here:

http://www.state.tn.us/tra/dockets/1400036.htm

The letter can be viewed here:

http://www.tn.gov/tra/orders/2014/1400036x.pdf

We would like to thank everyone who has helped us get to this point. We feel like this is a big step in the fight against this unnecessary burden on Arkansans. The fight is not over, though. We are going to continue gathering signatures for this. When we obtain an acceptable level of additional signatures, we will, again, send them in as an amendment to our original letter. We will continue to gather signatures and submit them as long as this docket is open.

If you would like to know how to help, please let us know!