Clean Line's jobs fantasy versus jobs reality...

So, if you've been following what Clean Line has been doing closely, you'll notice that the one thing they say consistently in their attempt to garner support for their projects is "jobs, jobs, jobs". Every where you look, on every project, Clean Line has made one claim: each one of their projects is going to create "thousands" of jobs. Five thousand temporary and five hundred permanent. I will give you an example where this has been done for each project below:

Rock Island Clean Line
Grain Belt Express
Plains and Eastern (I won't mention the paltry $14,000 per mile Clean Line has allotted for OK landowners)
Centennial West

Lately, in Arkansas, we have been bombarded by one half to three quarter page "feel good" ads from Clean Line, and we're always directed to visit the website "supportcleanenergyarkansas.com". I do just that regularly, because it is interesting to follow how Clean Line has been "adjusting" their webpage to fit the current narrative as this has played out. It's nice to take a few screenshots here and there, just for reference purposes. This is what the current page looks like when you click on the above link:

Why is this important? Because Clean Line has been being disingenuous about their jobs claims to try to garner support by over-hyping the benefits for all of their projects, that's why. Remember, we are always told to "go to their website" to find out more information about their projects.

However, since the Draft Environmental Impact statement has been released, Clean Line has been changing some things on its website. I am sure they probably thought we didn't notice, but we like to keep a pretty close eye on them. They can sometimes be a little bit sneaky. This is what another, assumingly mistakenly unchanged section of Clean Line's website looks like today:

As opposition, we have long thought that Clean Line's jobs claims are over-hyped, and it turns out, they are. Let's have a look at what the Draft EIS has to say about the jobs the Plains and Eastern will create:

Peak workforce during construction of 1,700 workers, with an average employment of 965 people. That being said, let's have a look at what percentage of workers would be local to Arkansas:

"Approximately 26 percent of the construction workforce is expected to be hired locally, and an estimated 74 percent of the total construction workforce is assumed to be non-local for the duration of the project." Given the above estimates, let's do a little math about the amount of jobs that would be created because of construction in both Oklahoma and Arkansas:

• Assuming that Oklahoma would host ~400 miles of the line, and Arkansas would host ~300, this gives Oklahoma an average percentage of construction workforce of 57%, and Arkansas 43%. 
• Knowing that average construction employment is 965 x 26% local = 251 total construction related jobs for Oklahoma and Arkansas on average.
• Assuming 251 temporary construction-related jobs would be dispersed across both Oklahoma and Arkansas, the Project would provide each state with 143 and 108 local, temporary jobs, respectively.

How's that for "hundreds"?

But what about permanent jobs?

Again, assuming that Oklahoma and Arkansas would receive 57 and 43 percent of total employment for operations and maintenance of the "Project" that gives us the following permanent jobs numbers for both states:

• Oklahoma - 57% x 57 full time workers = 32 permanent jobs (includes 15 for OK converter station)
• Arkansas - 43% x 57 full time workers = 25 permanent jobs (includes 15 for AR converter station)

So, how did Clean Line come up with the wild jobs estimates of "more than 5,000 temporary, and more than 500 permanent jobs"? One would suspect that, for effect, Clean Line has lumped all of the jobs created for all aspects of construction of the transmission line, manufacturing of the towers, insulators, and cable, and construction of the wind farms that could potentially ensue. However, bringing the following image back into the equation, Clean Line leaves further questions about their calculations on its own website that we are always directed to:

So, in the above image they admit that, for maintaining and operating the wind farms and the transmission line, they will create over 500 jobs. However, in the following sentence, they use the terms "in addition to these jobs". Even if you run the numbers on the jobs created for operation and maintenance should the wind farms actually be built to supply the line, you're still looking at a best case scenario of 367, and a worst case of 248 for the operation and maintenance of both the wind farms and the transmission line. 

So, where does the "more than 5,000 temporary and more than 500 permanent" number come from, Clean Line?

My point here is pretty simple: the jobs calculations for this Project should only be applied to the transmission line, since it is the "Project" in question. Clean Line really has no right or grounds to claim that they are going to "create" any jobs within the wind farms that would be constructed, because the wind farms to be constructed are not a part of Clean Line's project. The only project and associated impacts that Clean Line should be estimating jobs totals on is the transmission line. Doing otherwise is a result of either inexperience, or Clean Line is being deliberately disingenuous to garner support for its unnecessary project. I suspect it is probably both.

Still wish to forfeit your property rights to an inexperienced and disingenuous company that was founded in 2009? I don't!