Fake Newsiness

"A pre-inaugural list of top infrastructure projects, attributed to the transition team of President Donald Trump, doesn't reflect the administration's official views, White House officials say. 

In emails to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette late Tuesday, presidential spokesman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the list isn't a White House or a transition team policy document."

In my last solo blog post, I promised I would only write again if something really egregious

happened.

Guess what?

In the grand scheme of things, the 50 project infrastructure document "leaked" last week is not a big deal. Don't get me wrong, it's dubious as all get out. But the more that comes out about it's origins (consulting group= lobbyists), the clearer and clearer it becomes that this is more of a Governor's Association/Industry boner list than a well thought out proposal. If you're interested in reading more about the history of the list and don't have a subscription to Politico Pro, try these:

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/economy/2017/01/24/report-trumps-infrastructure-priorities-include-two-big-texas-projects

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/01/25/donald-trump-tweets-a-motive-for-voter-fraud-claim/

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2017/01/25/1624695/-First-hints-of-just-what-might-be-in-Trump-s-infrastructure-bill-released-maybe-Or-not

Yes, you would expect some of these projects to be under consideration regardless of who was looking, but no... consideration doesn't equate to an action item. And in a time where "fake news" has become the rallying cry for anything one disagrees with, the fact remains (true, not alternative) that some of the reporting on this issue was grotesquely optimistic... I'm lookin' at you Arkansas Times ;) (P.S. If you're gonna quote a girl, call a girl) That witty, snarky banter makes for a nice echo chamber noise, but it's more truthiness than truth, Ernie. Why? Oh, because the truth is boring... and hard to get at... and maybe, just maybe, a little gray.

So, just for fun, let's talk a smidgen about permitting. I'm going to run defense for the entire Arkansas delegation for a minute here. Hold my coffee, Mr. Koch. Just kidding...

Ok, so both of the aforementioned Times articles push the idea that the delegation's support of the Keystone XL is evidence of their hypocrisy in terms of their stance on Clean Line. I understand. I get it. I cried for days after the election and I went to the Women's March in Little Rock. This last weekend was both heartbreaking and inspiring. We all approach issues from our own worldview. I believe there are valid reasons to challenge the delegation's general support of pipelines. And, honestly, if you want to go after them for taking money from the Koch brothers? Have at it. Just make sure you're publishing Clean Line's lobbying expenditures, too (Like you did on the $400 lunch)... And the AWEA... And every other moneyed special interest group that actually moves politics in this country.

If you want to go after them because of eminent domain, I'll pull your collar just a little, even though that's my primary area of interest. Same thing with permitting. Why? Because different types of infrastructure projects have different permitting requirements. Some happen at the state level (like transmission lines) and some happen at the federal level (like natural gas and some aspects of oil lines). Before we let our snark monsters rage at these guys, it's helpful to understand what's going on.

Keystone XL, DAPL, and Diamond require some level of federal permitting to build. Transmission lines, with a very few exceptions, are the providence of the state. Clean Line lost their bid for a CCN at the state level. Why? Because our state laws are not set up to permit merchant transmission lines without instate assets and with no mandate from an Regional Transmission Organization (RTO). This is not necessarily a bad thing depending on which side of the bench you're sitting on. If you're on Clean Line's side, it's a hindrance to development. If you're on the side of landowners, states rights advocates, and existing utilities, it protects the state and its residents from fly by night operations with no real intention of making a positive local impact. Mr. Dumas has no problem with Clean Line running to the Department of Energy (DOE) to kiss their CCN rejection boo-boo. Whatever, that's his prerogative, but the state legislature had a problem with it. So did the impacted landowners... And the federal delegation... because it's a valid complaint. Keep in mind that the legislation Dumas referred to was passed after Clean Line applied to the DOE, not before. They didn't try to fix it instate. They should have.

Now, if the argument is that the "balkanization" (they love that word, and all that it implies) of processes makes permitting huge projects like Plains & Eastern hard, there is every reason to have that discussion as a country, but you better bet your bottom dollar that the states aren't going to just roll over and hand the power that ensures their people are treated fairly to the feds. Especially if that means the feds use that authority to permit private projects that can't demonstrate necessity. Something tells me the RTO's won't be dancing in the streets about it either.

If anyone out there ready to rage against the delegation for their support of Keystone XL and DAPL... or Diamond for that matter, wants to help effectively (instead of just screaming into the abyss) they need to refocus their attention on the laws that govern regulatory agencies and the permitting processes that allow these projects to go through the way they do. Yelling at the delegation, the Corps of Engineers, or the PSC is like trying to put spilled milk back in a cup with a toothpick. If you want to effect change, you've got to change the laws. Bottom line... Or be ready to spend a lot of money on legal. The Diamond Pipeline is a four-hundred mile, 20" crude oil pipeline that was permitted without a comprehensive EIS because it didn't trigger a NEPA process and there is NO STATE LEVEL REQUIREMENT for one. If you're going to be pissed about something, be pissed about that.

Back to Clean Line... To be clear, both Keystone and DAPL were lacking permits that they needed to finish. In other words, there was a clear path the new administration could take to give those projects a push. How is that different from Clean Line? Well, for all intents and purposes, the Plains & Eastern project has been "approved" by the Department of Energy. Whether that "approval", or the process they used to get there, holds up in court is one thing, but the fact that they haven't started construction yet has nothing to do with the feds holding up their project and everything to do with the fact that Clean Line just can't seem to get it done. The Department of Energy set up specific requirements Clean Line has to meet before they will give them the go ahead to start construction on the line... These requirements (Conditions Precedent) for financing, subscription, etc... were established to protect the people of Arkansas, the SWPA, and the taxpayers in general. So what steps exactly could a new administration take to push P&E? Well, I don't know, but they'd have to be pretty creative. (By the way, if the new administration tried to get creative like that with a pipeline, the same people getting all warm and toasty over the possibility it could happen for Clean Line would be losing their marbles). And with all Skelly's bellyaching about changing the rules mid-process regarding the APPROVAL Act, they should be ready for a pretty significant backlash should they try anything sketchy.

While all these things seem kind of academic, it's pretty clear from Mario Hurtado's interview with NewsOK that the truthiness of this list isn't going to stop Clean Line from spinning it in a way they can use to preen (beg?) for financing and to pressure landowners.

"When the Trump campaign was looking at infrastructure, we thought it was a good thing to mention. We're just happy to be part of the conversation."

Like, when did you just happen to mention it? Did you run into them in the grocery store? How much did that conversation cost?

I'm not going to get into the potential psychological damage that comes from all these "nice" conversations my friend Mario claims to be having with people. I'm sure some of them probably are. Some of them probably aren't... and as I mentioned to an acquaintance the other day, we have a word for people who repeatedly contact you in spite of a clear request to be left alone. Who call you all the time and show up at your work and home uninvited. Who pressure you repeatedly into something you don't want to do, threatening you with financial harm. Who contact your family members to try and get in touch with you. Who make you feel alone and at risk... They're called "stalkers" and there is no other situation in society in which this kind of behavior is acceptable. By the way, is a "fair deal" an easement "option"?

This is already too long and I have other things to do today, but... in closing. There are three things everyone needs to remember in this somewhat surreal situation:

1. There is still an outstanding federal lawsuit against the Department of Energy regarding this project.

2. The Department of Energy has yet to announce that Clean Line has met the Conditions Precedent they need to move forward.

3. Lobbyists are constantly working on behalf of their clients. At the federal level and at the state level. So this kind of stuff... this "newsiness" is only the beginning. As the new administration settles in and establishes its goals, the swamp ain't going anywhere without a fight. And you can bet that whatever infrastructure plan, commission, or law finally takes place, it's going to have their greasy little fingerprints all over it. The ONLY way for people to get adequate representation in that process is for them to engage and fight for it. My generation was asleep and at war when the 2005 Energy Policy Act was passed. We've woken up. Stay awake.