Clean Line's desperate times call for desperate measures, and a legislative update...

- Joint Post -

Alison Millsaps:

Oh, won’t somebody think of the children. No, wait! Not those children. These children.

Clean Line is at it again. This time with a truly epic word ad, excuse me, “press release” that says pretty much the same thing they've been saying all along: We are going to give you (you being a collective term) a ton of moola.  Except that this time they added “schools” and “community services” to make the offer extra shiny.

A political friend, who shall remain anonymous, took exception with that particular tactic:

“Children are typically off limits in politics, apparently not for land grabbing out of state speculators... Let's use the kids as human shields for billionaires.”

They claim to be committed to ad valorem taxes and other voluntary payments, but don’t discuss the devaluation of the infrastructure or what happens to those taxes in the event of federal condemnation. They certainly don’t discuss self-reporting to the Assessment Coordination Department or property value loss to surrounding landowners, which in turn affects communities.  This press release was clearly intended to garner support from people who have absolutely no idea what’s happening on the ground here. Wind? Yay! Right, Simon? (Btw, please tell us again how little land you think is going to be taken out of commission for this line, because that's so comforting for the hundreds of affected landowners...)  

After all this time, Clean Line still has their fingers jammed in their ears while they dance around the elephant in the room singing, “Nah, nah, nah-nah, nah!” Again, trust is something you earn through your actions. Too many landowners found out about this project too late and from the wrong people. Frankly, Clean Line could issue a press release saying that the sky is blue and landowners would look at it askance.

And anyway, the money is almost a moot point here because the mechanism to get it is so flawed and inappropriate. Anyone notice the two words missing from the press release? "Eminent Domain"

I’m going to go off topic here for a minute, but stay with me. Last Friday, I testified before the Arkansas House Insurance and Commerce Committee for a common sense bill that would have restricted the use of eminent domain by interstate oil pipeline companies. It would have set a standard for the level of “public good” worthy of eminent domain. Of course we lost. It was ridiculous. Everyone knew how they were going to vote long before we got there. 

The point is, Clean Line is attempting to use the same inherently coercive practices that pipelines do. In fact, they want access to it so badly, that they actually said so in their updated application to the Department of Energy, and contrary to their claims, it’s clearly not just a tool for dealing with the occasional hold out or absentee owner. We’ve posted it a couple times already, but it’s incredibly important and can be found on page 53 here:

Anyone who supports Clean Line in this endeavor is essentially saying that they support the use of eminent domain for this project. Anyone who supports eminent domain for this project, but not for, just thinking out loud here, the Keystone Pipeline or the Diamond Pipeline in Arkansas, needs to do a little soul searching, and vice versa.

The problem with this “press release”, and with any press release that totes the benefits of a project without the acknowledgement that people will be forced to sacrifice for those benefits, is that it perpetuates the idea that those sacrifices are unimportant in relation to economic development. In other words, it’s perfectly okay to smack around people’s supposedly “sacrosanct” right to own property as long as you can convince other people that there’s money to be made… Free market my tuckus. Because, let’s be clear here, this line is about energy, but it’s not about need. The Tennessee Valley Authority made that perfectly obvious last week in their Integrated Resource Plan webinar. And while Clean Line, and certain other individuals, claim to know better what the TVA should do, the fact remains that the TVA is an experienced planning organization responsible to all of its customers and not just (to borrow a phrase from Clean Line) a very “vocal minority”.

And about Clean Line’s claims for local benefits:

“ …will benefit Arkansas residents in several ways. … will generate approximately $11 million per year in property tax revenue for communities … will support approximately 1,500 contract construction jobs along the length of the route during construction and 15 permanent jobs… conducted a thorough review of the route to identify a suitable route… These efforts include paralleling existing utilities and pipelines and avoiding culturally sensitive areas." 

And intentions toward landowners: 

“With regard to individuals, we will offer market rates for all easements that we acquire. We work in good faith with individual landowners to address the concerns of issues associated with crossing their property. You know, we want to have a good relationship with landowners” 

Oh, wait! I’m sorry. Those quotes are from Diamond Pipeline… who has already initiated eminent domain proceedings in Arkansas. But they sound familiar, right? Clean Line claims to be “committed” to negotiated easements. But they’re all “committed” to negotiation. Every single corporation that uses eminent domain as a kind of coercive crutch to keep development costs down is “committed” to working with landowners. Talk is cheap. As Steve MacDonald of Block Plains and Eastern Oklahoma said in response to Michael Skelly’s assertion that they “expect to employ hundreds of Arkansans”:

“A lot of us ‘expect to’ do things. I expect to lose 50 lbs this year. I won't and I doubt CL would put any money on it.”

Which brings us to a few people who actually put their money where their mouth is: It’s been a busy few days at the Arkansas State Capitol for legislators passing legislation directly in response to the Plains and Eastern Project...

Dave Ulery:

1. Today, the Arkansas State Senate officially went on record with a resolution (SR22) opposing the Plains and Eastern transmission project. Thank you for introducing this and seeing it through to adoption, Senator Irvin. This one doesn't need much explanation:

2.  HB1908 - TO ESTABLISH A BILL OF RIGHTS FOR A PROPERTY OWNER, passed through the Arkansas House of Representatives. This bill implements a set of standards that must be adhered to when an entity condemns private property in the State of Arkansas. Thank you Representatives Beck and Charlotte Douglas for introducing it:

 

3. HB1592 - TO CLARIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FROM THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY, was passed in both the Arkansas House and the Senate, and was transmitted to the Governor's Office for signature. Thank you Representative Beck and Cosponsors for introducing the bill and assuring its passage:

 

To clarify what this bill would do, specifically:

Arkansas code does not allow a "transmission only" company to become a utility in our state. To be deemed a utility within our state, you must both generate electricity within the state, as well as transmit that electricity to customers in Arkansas. Makes sense, right? On May 13, 2010, Clean Line applied to the Arkansas Public Service Commission to become a public utility within the state and was subsequently denied on January 11, 2011. The docket can be viewed here. Taking a closer look:

This would essentially do two things:

1. Should Clean Line's Section 1222 application be denied by the Department of Energy, they could conceivably come back (if they can afford it) to the Arkansas Public Service Commission and say: "Well, we have now proposed a converter station in Arkansas (they didn't at first), you should go ahead and give us a Certificate for Public Necessity." It is our opinion that the converter station was only a ploy to garner support within the state, as well as hedge their bet in the anticipation their Section 1222 application could be denied. Their intent has never been to serve customers in Arkansas. Their "proposed" converter station was not proposed by Clean Line at all... rather, it is an "alternate" recommended by the Department of Energy. Clean Line's "preferred" plan does not include the converter station.
   
   This would disqualify them because they: 1) are not a public utility as defined by Arkansas statute, 2) primarily transmit electricity; and 3) have not been directed or designated to construct an electric transmission facility from a regional transmission organization and will not in the future because their transmission line is unnecessary. This would basically guarantee their denial of becoming a utility within the State of Arkansas.
2. This would protect Arkansans from future schemes from out-of-state speculative private companies whose intent is not primarily to serve customers within our state, but rather to use our state as a doormat to transmit electricity to other states. 

This is a good thing, no doubt.

We really hate to keep posting this image, Secretary Moniz, but the people of Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Tennessee are growing increasingly tired of putting their lives on hold for this nonsense. It is TIME!