Clean Line Energy wins the "Eye Roll Olympics"...

A joint update from Ali and Dave:

Please excuse our absence of late. We've been working on other projects and enjoying a somewhat Clean Line drama free period over the holidays. It's funny... last year at this time we were frantically trying to make sure affected individuals knew they could comment on the Draft EIS. Looking back, while we are incredibly proud of the people who took the time to send in letters and emails, we can't help but feel they were cheated out of a real process. A legal one where they could put their questions to lawyers and have those lawyers put them to Clean Line under oath. Maybe with an impartial decision-making body that hadn't spent five years developing relationships with an applicant. You know, with neutral judges to make a decision based on evidence in the record.

But we digress, while our relative silence over the last month or so may make it look like we haven't been paying attention, rest assured, we have been. Oh boy, have we ever. And now, we'd like to present you with the winners of the Eye Roll Olympics.

Eye Roll #10: Field goes to the Rotary Club.

Why is Clean Line still doing this? Padding "outreach efforts" for the DOE? Planning another run at the Arkansas Public Service Commission? Or, just hoping that with enough schmoozing the local yokels won't realize their proposed "binding agreement" may castrate the counties' ability to respond to the needs and requests of its citizens with ordinances and actions? Perhaps we haven't been clear, or perhaps Clean Line just doesn't get it: the government, especially the local government, is "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Not "for Mr. Skelly and his investors".

"Connecting with the locals". It's a good thing, but Clean Line continues attempting to connect with the WRONG locals, and they have been from the start... except for that one time we ran into Field in the BBQ shop. :) Landowners won't magically disappear because Clean Line shows the Rotary Club a PowerPoint. What's next? Telling a bunch of Farm Bureau members the line is going to save the Monarch Butterfly?

Eye Roll #9: Hiding Facebook comments because they look bad.

There are times when decisions come down that aren't in your favor. We get it. Maybe you don't want your investors, potential customers, or other supporters to know these things happen. The truth of the matter is, there is a vast network of folks who are watching your every move. You're going to get questions about things related to your projects on your posts. You can't "encourage open discussion" when you post things that come down in your favor and then hide anything someone asks that you don't want anyone else to see. That smells like desperation, and it is pretty unfair. Here's the latest example of a member of the opposition asking a fairly straightforward question, and then being accused of harassment by whoever is behind the curtain:

Trying to drown out, isolate, and minimize the opposition to your projects is part of the reason you folks find yourselves in the position you're in. You would think you would have learned by now that attempting to hide information that's readily available on "the Google" to thousands of people who are intimately and anxiously aware of your shenanigans is a bad idea, but you continue to do it. Why? We're not sure, but every time you hide a comment it is documented and will be placed somewhere for everyone to see.


Eye Roll #8: We get it, they're ALL Republicans.

We understand there is journalistic value in identifying the party affiliation of the Congressional delegation like this:

"Members of the Arkansas Congressional delegation, all Republicans, met Thursday with U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz to discuss concerns about the proposed Plains and Eastern Clean Line Transmission Project."

The danger is when journalists, and others, use that information to prop up a biased narrative. Yes, the delegation is Republican. Arkansas is a Republican state. However, not all who are opposed to Clean Line Energy in the state of Arkansas and elsewhere are Republicans (we are not, for example). A bad idea is a bad idea, and pretty much anyone who dives down past Clean Line's headlines realizes fairly quickly that there's more to this than a partisan divide. We have had bipartisan support at the state level, and we'd have bipartisan support if our delegation wasn't comprised of two Republican senators and four Republican representatives.

It has actually been extremely refreshing and humbling for us to have been able to work with such a wide array of the political spectrum while opposing this issue. It is something our country desperately needs more of. And, by the way: this fight is not about conventional versus renewable energy. It just isn't. And, no matter how hard you try to pen it as such, we will always strive to make this about the actual issue at hand: keeping federal eminent domain out of the hands of a private company that could use it as a development discount. That's wrong, and most people understand that it is wrong, and why.

And what if the line's recipients turn out to be not utilities or municipalities, but corporations trying to "green" their image. Amazon and others have shown a laudable interest in moving toward carbon-free operations. The idea that eminent domain could be used to force projects to power primarily private and for-profit business enterprises... Progressives and Democrats should be horrified at the thought. As, in fact, should everyone else.


Eye Roll #7: Why are you still saying "500mW to Arkansas"?

We know, it sounds good to tell people this. It gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling inside to think that 160,000 Arkansans will be served by this transmission line. But, the number is 450, not 500, right? According to your updated application, East Texas Electric Cooperatives has said they might (noncommittally) like to have 50mW of capacity, so why are you still telling Arkansans that they'd be getting 500mW?  Has Entergy Arkansas or any other utility in Arkansas agreed to purchase your non-existent electricity? We know Arkansas Electrical Cooperative Corporation (AECC) has numerous issues with your proposal. How? We read their comment.

The fact of the matter is this: the Arkansas converter station would connect to the MISO South (the blue area here) region. This region includes most of Arkansas, about half of Mississippi, most of Louisiana and, yes, a portion of east Texas. Unless we're missing something, delivery to utilities in Arkansas is not guaranteed, at all. Clean Line is advertising that they'll deliver 500mW to Arkansas when, in reality, there is a possibility that NONE of the electricity would be delivered for consumption in Arkansas. With potential markets in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, what assurances do we have that even one megawatt would go to Arkansas? Especially if the Department of Energy hinges approval of the partnership on subscription. Won't they need someone, ANYONE, to say they want their product? To our knowledge NO utility in Arkansas has signed a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with them that has been made public. Not one.

So unless you're ready to lay it all out there and release any Arkansas PPAs, spare all of us and stop saying you're going to power 160,000 Arkansas homes with 500mW of electricity (that doesn't exist yet). Just stop.


Eye Roll #6: They told us that wind energy couldn't be developed in the Southeast.

It is time for you to stop using the "wind energy can't be developed in the Southeast" talking point to justify your out-dated project. We explained to everyone in January of 2015 (wow, it's been a year?!) that wind energy development would be coming to the Southeastern United States in the near future because of technological advancements in wind turbine efficiency and height. It seems that it has arrived in Tennessee:

"Tennessee has not traditionally been a state that has a lot of wind energy production in it, but Crab Orchard wind will be a 71 megawatt, $100 million project," Goodwin said. "That has been enabled by the advancements in technology over the years. The wind resource in Crab Orchard is excellent, so we will be able to deliver very cost-effective electricity without comparison."

Happily, it turns out there are "Saudi Arabias of wind" all over this enormous country. Time is our friend. Technology is a good thing, folks.

Eye Roll #5: PRIA gets skewered by a repeat editorialist, excuse us, "journalist".

First of all, we have no idea why this article was in the "News" section when it absolutely reeked of bias. It's been a while since we took high school journalism, but we seem to remember a basic tenant being the requirement that you at least attempt to reign in your personal feelings and agenda. Here, Loren G. Flaugh gives us gems like this:

"Probably the most hotly contested claim to emerge from that meeting came when Preservation of Rural Iowa Alliance (PRIA) President Carolyn Sheridan revealed an apparent lack of understanding for how eminent domain works."

Apparently, Flaugh likes to use "apparently" and "apparent". We do, too. On our blog. Because it's a BLOG and not a NEWSPAPER. We might say something like: "Flaugh's use of language revealed he apparently wasn't as interested in the truth behind the sentiment being expressed as he was about making Ms. Sheridan look foolish in his article." After all, it's only our opinion.

Shame. On. You.

First things first, semantics are important, but basing almost an entire article on either 1) an apparent lack of understanding on the consequences of a signed easement, or 2) a very narrow definition of the term "sell" in light of the situation at hand is ill-advised.

In other words, sir, an easement, whether negotiated voluntarily or obtained through the use of eminent domain, in most cases represents a fundamental and permanent change in which the party in possession of the easement becomes the dominant interest on the property in question. The landowner, though they in most cases retain the "ownership" of the land the easement involves, becomes the lesser or servient estate. In other words, the landowner retains the liability and tax burden on the easement, but has virtually no control over anything else. The landowner is largely subject to the condemning entity's determination of the appropriate process, and unless they have a bang-up lawyer or the force behind a landowners' collective, they have very little tangible control of the terms of such a contract. No, it's not the same as being forced to sell. In many ways, it's worse! And while your argument might make more sense in situations where structures on the easement are buried entirely, the landowner in high-voltage line cases loses not only more in the way of use, but in visual value as well.

Finally, journalists (and we have quite a few that we've gotten to know and appreciate as individuals truly devoted to digging into these stories) don't get to decide how other people should feel about what's happening to them. If you can't look at someone worried about this situation and accept that their concern is valid (at minimum to them) and worthy of respect and due consideration, then it's time to put your pen down on this issue and move on to something where you have a little more objectivity.

Eye Roll #4: Beth's response to Iowa lawmakers.

First of all, we absolutely LOVED the open letter to Clean Line from twenty-three Iowa lawmakers. It takes some serious cahones to say something like this:

In Iowa we have a history of working with landowners to obtain energy project rights. 

You don’t seem to understand this concept. Instead, you have fumbled through a disjointed effort to manipulate the system by filing a series of requests to the Iowa Utilities Board.

and:

You are not a utility. You have no intention of letting Iowans plug in to your project, nor do you plan to let us sell power along your route. We hope that it doesn’t have to come to us passing legislation to keep you in check, but we will if it has to come to that. Please have no doubt that the House Government Oversight Committee will be watching your every move. We are tired of your threat to blight hundreds of landowners’ properties while you “weigh your options” or propose newly extended procedural schedules.

In fact, we loved it so much, we'd really like to get those lawmakers connected with state lawmakers in Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois, Oklahoma, and any others who wish to weigh in. Contact us. We can make it happen!

So, the actual groaning happens when you read Beth Conley's (Clean Line) response to those twenty three lawmakers. (You know, the lawmakers elected by the people on Clean Line's route?)

We'll start with the conclusion:

My family and I recently drove past the big substation in Hinton, the delivery point for a lot of hydropower coming into Iowa from Missouri River dams in South Dakota. We were talking about how South Dakota farmers allowed that project to deliver electricity to their fellow Americans in Iowa generations ago, and how we have greatly benefited from it. That was neighborly of them. With the Rock Island project, we are making possible new wind projects that cannot happen without new transmission. Let’s build the future.

First of all, Beth, it's super cute that you have such a quaint, pastoral notion of the noble landowners of the past, but have you actually talked to any of those landowners? Asked them how that whole project went down? Have you talked to any of the landowners on Plains & Eastern whose grandparents already gave land to electrify their "fellow Americans"? To get oil to market? To build railroads? To build roads? Stop. Just stop. Stop trying to shame landowners with pseudo-patriotic rhetoric. Industry standard in siting pretty much guarantees that people on these lines have already done plenty for their country, and many of them would do more if they actually felt like a project was worthy instead of a moneymaker for a select few.

Stop acting like your projects are going to make or break the future of clean energy in our country. The clean energy revolution is coming regardless, and aside from a few environmental organizations, we haven't run into many folks (other than you and our friend Bob) saying your projects (all of them) are desperately needed. You're not the TVA and this isn't the 30's and 40's. It's not right to hold yourself up as a new model for development with one hand while you've got the other in a hundred year old cookie jar.

Landowners didn't ask to be in this position. It is not the landowners' fault the leadership of your company came up with a series of projects that, in light of all your recent actions and filings, appear to require eminent domain for profitability. Landowners didn't choose these projects or your investors. Nice compound, Ziff brothers! We hope your air conditioned tunnel is powered by renewable energy.


Eye Roll #3: Clean Line's THIRD attempt at bifurcation in Iowa.

More from Beth's response to those Iowa lawmakers:

While not used previously by the IUB, this type of schedule is commonplace in a similar form in other states nearby and it is the type of process used by Iowa DOT and other state agencies. While it is true, as far as we know, that no Iowa electric company has been granted a schedule from the IUB like the one we request, we also believe it to be true that no Iowa electric company has ever proposed to build power lines of this significance without any cost to the Iowa ratepayers. This public infrastructure project will bring all of the benefits of new transmission, meeting the needs of the clean energy economy, without putting the cost burden in Iowa.

Rejected! Just stop. Iowa law is Iowa law. Your three attempts to make things more convenient and less expensive for yourselves and your investors, while concurrently making it more inconvenient, confusing, and expensive for the landowners that have already committed too much time and too many limited resources fighting to protect themselves, are more than a little ridiculous. You knew the process going into Iowa, and, as in Arkansas, you've made the lawmakers in Iowa mad enough to threaten you with additional legislation to "keep you in check". We got it done here, and it'll get done in Iowa if necessary. Instead of putting your big pants on and working with the lawmakers, you chose (as you did in Arkansas) to attempt to bend the rules. How's that working out for you?


Eye Roll #2: It doesn't matter how many times you say these projects won't cost taxpayers/ratepayers anything, it's not the whole truth!

Let's go back to Beth's letter for a minute, just because it's handy...

 "...we also believe it to be true that no Iowa electric company has ever proposed to build power lines of this significance without any cost to the Iowa ratepayers. This public infrastructure project will bring all of the benefits of new transmission, meeting the needs of the clean energy economy, without putting the cost burden in Iowa."

Clean Line says this, or some variation on it, a lot. It's Oscar Mayer worthy. The drive behind the cost reallocation that would normally be passed on to the ratepayers doesn't just disappear because a company wants to operate outside the system. These projects are ventures. Investments. If Clean Line can't get reimbursed for their costs on the back end of things, we have to wonder if they're going to try and recoup them on the front end. Take another good look at their proposed compensation for landowners.

Were Clean Line a traditional utility, that offer might be more impressive, if only because eminent domain laws in most states were written in a different era for a different kind of company (can you say municipal utility?). But Clean Line isn't a traditional utility, and for the vast majority of landowners we've talked to, their offer falls flat. These people have expressed virtually no confidence that Clean Line's "fair market value" offers for the proposed "right-of-way" will make them whole. Much less the yearly "bonus payment".

And, for the people we've talked to, Clean Line has done remarkably little to assuage those concerns. Aside from their "eminent domain access or bust!" actions, Clean Line has a habit of backhanding landowners and then claiming to really care about us.  Here's a hint, instead of denying landowners will see any property value decrease as a result of the line, how about agreeing to a later appraisal after which Clean Line would be responsible for any damages in value to the remaining property. No? Too expensive? How about that. Better yet, they could just take eminent domain off the table entirely, thereby treating landowners like the human beings they are.

Yes, Beth, the projects actually are putting a tremendous cost burden on Iowans... and Arkansans, Oklahomans, Missourians, Kansans, Tennesseans, and Illinoisans. Just smaller groups of them that don't have the same resources as consumer groups. Congratulations. Way to treat fellow Americans. How neighborly.

Eye Roll #1: Clean Line Energy's way with words.

We would like to conclude the Eye Roll Olympics with Clean Line Energy's apparently almost total inability to say anything regarding the opposition that doesn't appear to willfully diminish our positions or opinions. Maybe for some reason Clean Line's quotes just translate badly into text, but time and again they've given us tidbits that reek of entitlement and a truly questionable level of self-assurance. A recent example can be found in Michael Skelly's response to our ENTIRE federal congressional delegation after they met with Secretary Moniz to voice their (OUR) concerns about the project:

Clean Line CEO Michael Skelly recently told Talk Business & Politics during a trip to Little Rock that he has sat down and met with Senators Boozman and Cotton one-on-one to hear their concerns. 

“They have their views, and they have articulated those views, and we have a different view,” Skelly said. “But listen, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was passed and signed into law by then President (George) Bush. When we made our application under that law. If the rules change – then we will look at the new rules and try to make our project work.”

But listen, Mr. Skelly: Senator Boozman was in Congress when the 2005 Energy Policy Act was passed. He voted for it. If he thinks your company's business model doesn't meet the criteria of Section 1222, there's probably a good chance that it doesn't.

And, way to help your cause with the state you're trying to build your project in! We're sure comments like that make them more inclined to help you (eye roll).

So, as we all wait to see if the Department of Energy is going to try to use a previously untested law to force a few thousand landowners to capitulate to your vision, Mr. Skelly, you're busy making the media rounds again:

Clean Line may have found a work-around: a 10-year old act of Congress that would give the U.S. Department of Energy jurisdiction over new interstate transmission line projects. Clean Line is pursuing DOE approval for a power line proposed to run from western Oklahoma across Arkansas, into Tennessee. The project ran into stiff opposition in Arkansas, but Skelly says he expects confirmation from the DOE shortly.

And yet, in spite of that "work-around", Clean Line isn't doing as they threatened to shortly after the Missouri Public Service Commission denied their request for utility status... Instead of hitting the feds up for "siting authority" for Grain Belt, it looks like they're going to "sweeten the deal" locally:

Clean Line hasn’t taken the Grain Belt Express proposal to the Department of Energy. The company plans to re-file its application with the Missouri Public Service Commission, sweetening the deal somewhat with promises of low-cost, carbon-neutral power delivered to Missouri, and lots of jobs.

Things not all sunshine and daisies with your application at the DOE? But of course, Missouri and Arkansas have never heard promises of jobs and low-cost energy before, have they? Given another paragraph, there'd be a couple nice sentences about all the tax money they'll be offering Missouri, too! ;)

Mr. Skelly, we dub you: WINNER of the Eye Roll Olympics!

NO subscription? NO partnership. PERIOD.

For mobile users, I apologize for the formatting irregularities. Orienting your phone horizontally should fix them.

Clean Line would have you believe they are going to use the lag time before the results of the NEPA and Section 1222 reviews to "inform landowners about the project". That they're being the good guys. Waiting until only after they get regulatory approval and gain the hammer of eminent domain, they hope, to subscribe customers to their unnecessary transmission line. There is only one small problem with this plan (shown above), and it is a problem they had hoped none of us would notice.

Before the Department of Energy agreed to enter into their Advanced Funding Agreement with Clean Line, acting Deputy Secretary Daniel Poneman wrote a letter to Michael Skelly laying out the criteria Clean Line would have to meet to further the partnership.

Clean Line has NO subscription. Not a single megawatt. Zilch. Nada. The Tennessee Valley Authority has indicated that it doesn't want any sort of HVDC wind until 2025 or later (but only if all proverbial stars align):

Unless something drastic changes in the next month (I don't think it will) before the TVA Board of Directors votes on the adoption of their 2015 Integrated resource plan, it appears the graphics above illustrate the near-term plan for TVA. No HVDC for TVA for at least 10 years.

Clean Line has recently tried to downplay TVA's importance to their business plan, even though the entire reason for the project from the beginning has been to deliver wind energy to the TVA:

Michael Skelly, president and founder of Clean Line Energy, said Thursday that TVA is just one of several utilities that seeks wind-generated power. One of those is The Southern Company, which provides power to 4.4 million customers in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Florida.

“The market is much larger than TVA,” Skelly said.

So, I did a little more research on Georgia Power (a subsidiary of Southern Company). Georgia power is one of the other companies Clean Line would love to sign on with. This is going to be long, but for the Clean Line nerds among us, all of it is well worth a read. Seriously, if you have any serious interest in the future of this at all, read both of the following things and the documents in the provided links line-by-line. The following are just a few small excerpts of the analysis Georgia Power did on out-of-state wind purchases. On December 4, 2014, Georgia Power issued an RFP for wind energy. This is a summary of their findings, specifically regarding HVDC (emphasis added):

5.2 HVDC Project Impact. Five responders submitted proposals into the RFI that depend upon transmitting over a proposed HVDC line (the “HVDC Project”), which would facilitate delivery from the Texas/Oklahoma panhandle into the TVA Control Area. The use of this HVDC line has the potential to eliminate delivery risk across the SPP and MISO Transmission Systems. The HVDC Project referenced in these proposals is currently in the development stage with construction planned to begin in 2016 and is estimated to be in service by the end of 2018.

The proposed projects that rely on the HVDC solution are not without concern. Several of these projects were noted as being PTC dependent. Therefore, even if the wind projects were to come online before 2018, the proposed energy could not be delivered to Georgia Power customers until the HVDC line is in service. Any delay in the construction date of the HVDC line will likely affect the ability of these projects to take advantage of the PTC. In addition, transmission rights along the HVDC line have not been awarded, nor has pricing for the transmission rights been established. This calls into question the accuracy and validity of all proposals assuming that the wind resource will be transmitted to Georgia Power through the HVDC line.

And:

6.2 Net Benefits. As a result of the Company’s thorough review of the proposals, Georgia Power calculated potential total net benefits ranging from -$13.58/MWh to $24.31/MWh on a levelized basis. The indicative nature of an RFI suggests that net benefits are overstated, and more likely substantially overstated, as discussed further in the section below on risk.

6.3 Risks. Although the evaluations of the RFI responses forecasted net benefits for some proposals, the appropriate risk and contingency factors must be imputed to these results to get a clear picture of the actual value of the proposals. The total net benefit results are a direct reflection of quality of the inputs and the current assumptions included in the Company’s transmission base cases. Changes to the following assumptions and considerations could have a material impact on the previously noted net benefit valuations:

• The responses provided by developers are non-binding. As a result, respondents shoulder no risk in offering products that are unrealistic in terms of low prices, aggressive schedules, and excessive energy amounts.

• The pricing offered by developers was provided in a context outside the specific terms and conditions of a PPA. The contractual language within a PPA is a large driver in determining the allocation of risk and consideration within a transaction and results in transaction-specific pricing.

• Georgia Power assigned delivery costs based upon current market assumptions for projects offered at the busbar or delivered outside of the SBA. However, the recent merger of the Entergy and MISO transmission systems has created tremendous volatility in neighboring markets. In fact, the cost of firm transmission service through SPP and MISO has increased, by 65 percent and 100 percent respectively, in the past four years. While Georgia Power’s evaluation relied on the latest publicly available information, the current forecast calls for more moderate and stabilizing conditions, which is a very different environment from experiences in the past few years.

• The transmission costs assigned to accommodate additional imports across the SOCO interfaces are based upon the most current base case assumptions. These assumptions reflect commitments by entities external to Southern Company and were developed in a coordinated manner through the SERC and ERAG base case building process. The results provided in this Report are based upon the current conditions, but are subject to change based upon re-evaluations that are regularly performed in accordance with NERC planning and transfer capability guidelines.

• Five responses depended on a speculative HVDC transmission solution. Any potential net benefits from these proposals are highly questionable because the transmission rights along the line have not been awarded, nor has the pricing for transmission rights been finalized.

In addition, there was this: 

With regard to the Clean Power Plan (CPP), Staff Consultants assert that “procuring wind will likely be a method of compliance for the Company to meet Georgia’s goal under the clean power plan.” La Capra Associates Wind Request for Information Review (May 19, 2015), pg 3 (hereinafter “La Capra Report”). Yet no one knows how federal law will view out-of-state wind for CPP compliance purpose, until that issue is addressed in the final rule. Even if out-of-state wind is addressed, the final rule may be stayed and will most likely be litigated, so uncertainty will remain until Georgia’s CPP state or regional compliance plan is developed and approved a few years from now.

It is unnecessarily risky to issue an RFP for out-of-state wind as a compliance option for the CPP without the certainty it will be an actual option for compliance. Without knowing the rules and requirements for how that option will be treated, it would be premature to issue an RFP now. Additionally, if out-of-state wind can serve as a CPP compliance option, it will only mean that a wind purchase would be considered as one item on the collective list of compliance options. It is unnecessarily risky and possibly costly to unilaterally select wind to meet compliance requirements without first giving due consideration to the best mix of resources and options to achieve CPP compliance.

As stated previously, the Wind RFI Report shows there are significant limitations to procuring out-of-state wind products that will require system upgrades and additional costs for customers. The Staff Consultant does not contest this finding. Instead, Staff and its Consultant believe it is better to enter into non-firm transmission deals. However, reliance on non-firm wind opportunities introduces significant risks and cost concerns that undermine potential customer benefits from added wind resources. The La Capra Report states “that it may not be necessary for wind projects to have firm transmission to create benefits for ratepayers.” La Capra Report, pg 3. The Company disagrees. It is inappropriate to issue an RFP based upon conjecture. The marketplace trusts that when Georgia Power issues an RFP, the Company intends to procure new resources. To go fish for potential non-firm energy deals that may actually reduce the benefits to customers and then not proceed with contract execution undermines Georgia Power’s position in the marketplace. Furthermore, importing wind provides significant cost risk to customers, especially if such imports are of a non-firm nature, as Staff recommends. The benefits that non-firm transmission wind products would provide Georgia Power customers may be completely eliminated if customers take on the risk of operation and transmission costs for delivery. Further, Georgia Power will need to know with certainty what wind products it is purchasing and when such products will be delivered if it intends to use such wind resources for CPP compliance purposes. If Staff and its Consultant believe that it is more beneficial to customers to procure non-firm wind products, they should present testimony on that position in the IRP proceeding.

In conclusion, the value at which Georgia Power could procure out-of-state wind over the next 12 to 18 months cannot be predicted with any real level of certainty. There are significant risk factors that could weigh against the perceived value of additional wind resources. Most importantly, no record exists that supports a conclusion that the Commission must move hastily or that additional out-of-state wind is the right option for Georgia Power’s customers. The required record to make an informed decision on additional wind resources may be developed in the 2016 IRP. As always, the Company will continue to work with Staff and Interveners to ensure customers receive the greatest benefits from a diverse portfolio of resources. The Company will also continue to look for unique opportunities to improve its resource portfolio, which may include bringing additional projects of extraordinary advantage before the Commission in compliance with the Commission’s Rules. However, the best place to consider the addition of resources, including new out-of-state wind opportunities, is through the upcoming 2016 IRP.

And:

Georgia’s climate and environment is not conducive to significant domestic generation of wind resources. Therefore, procuring additional wind resources for Georgia means importing energy into the Southern Balancing Authority and into the Georgia Power Electric System. There is a finite amount of intermittent resources that the Georgia Power Electric System can absorb without incurring significant operational costs. While Georgia Power shares in the belief that wind energy has the potential to provide significant value to its customers, Georgia Power customers only realize that value when the benefits exceed the total cost of importing wind energy across multiple states. It makes no economic sense to focus solely on the purchase of out-of-state renewable energy without considering economic and reliable in-state alternatives. The Commission will need to decide whether it is in the customers’ best interest to pay for more in-state renewable resources, like solar, or pay for more out-of-state renewable resources, like wind. More importantly, the Commission will need to decide what additional resources are required, if anything, to serve the needs of Georgia Power’s customers in a reliable and cost-effective manner. These are all appropriate considerations and questions to be asked and answered through the IRP process. There is no evidentiary record proving it is more advantageous and cost-effective to issue an RFP now for out-of-state resources that have inherent transmission risk and operational costs, rather than wait until a more complete resource generation and procurement analysis is in evidence in the 2016 IRP. 

There's more, but I will stop with Georgia Power here. Read the documents in the links above for more.

So, what about Entergy? Arkansas Sierra Club Director, Glen Hooks, effectively stuck his foot straight in his mouth in a recent article in the Arkansas Times by regurgitating the following line Skelly likes to use to try to convince people Entergy is actually interested in purchasing electricity from them:

"Entergy recently did an RFP for wind and reopened it because the price was so good they wanted to buy more," Hooks said.

Entergy took very little time to correct Hooks' error:

CORRECTION: Entergy Arkansas spokesperson Sally Graham said that Entergy did not reopen its renewable energy bidding, as Hooks stated. She said that Entergy has selected the Stuttgart 81 MW solar project.

You'd think the Arkansas Sierra Club would have learned by now that supporting Clean Line is a bad position to hold, wouldn't you? We've been trying to tell them for over a year now.

If you've made it this far, I appreciate it. This is a very complex subject, and understanding that complexity requires countless hours of research and reading between the lines. One finding leads to another, until you've got so many browser tabs open you don't even know where you started. It's really easy to dismiss opposition as NIMBY until you start realizing just how complex and uncertain this whole thing is. Makes you think more than twice about this inexperienced private company obtaining the right of eminent domain to seize over 17,000 acres of land across two full states, doesn't it?

My takeaway:

1. The Plains and Eastern is not feasible without the TVA on board. Clean Line has been relying on TVA for almost 6 years to be its anchor. Their plan all along has been to get TVA to agree to purchase enough of a chunk of their capacity to prove that the transmission line is financially feasible enough to gain a regulatory approval from the DOE. All indications point to this not happening for at least ten years, but more than likely fifteen.
2. Clean Line has no subscription, and will not have any at all unless DOE approves this boondoggle. But, as I have shown you above, according to DOE's own readily available documentation, a partnership is not allowed without "a sufficient (unknown) percentage of its line subscribed to support the Project's financial viability".
   
   Which begs the question: What utility in their right mind would sign onto a firm contract with these guys? Utilities have to provide reliable and cost-effective power. Clean Line has not demonstrated in any way that they can provide reliable and cost effective power, and there is no utility that is going to agree to a firm service agreement with them without ALL regulatory approvals.

Let's face it, if Clean Line thinks they're going to put a shovel in the ground sometime next year, they're dreaming. This thing is going to court if it is approved, and the first lawsuit against the DOE could very well be a result of the very first requirement in the pre-AFA agreement referenced at the top of this blog post. Clean Line has had six years to prove itself as viable. They have failed miserably.

Is the Department of Energy willing to stick its neck out that far for a project that has no demonstrated need? We're not sure, but we're watching.

Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC, becomes South's newest Regional Transmission Organization! (Not really.)

2.2.2 Clean Line Has Developed the Project Using Analyses and Steps That Are Consistent with RTO Planning

SPP’s and MISO’s planning processes for their internal system purposes occur through a series of connected studies and analyses to identify the need, to design a proposed addition, and to ensure these additions meet specific reliability, economic and policy concerns. In designing and implementing the Project, Clean Line has undertaken a similar and consistent series of studies that have shaped the Project into its present form. Similar to SPP’s and MISO’s transmission planning, Clean Line has developed the Project through the following studies and steps: (1) establishing the likely location of wind generation; (2) assessing known areas of congestion; (3) assessing utility demand for wind power; (4) determining the necessary physical infrastructure to meet that demand; (5) considering economic development implications; (6) conducting power flow analyses; and (7) production cost modeling to quantify cost savings to consumers. The Project meets the criteria for consistency in planning under Section 1222(b) through its use of steps and analyses to plan and develop the Project that are consistent with the SPP and MISO planning process.

1. Establishing the Likely Location of Additional Wind Generation 

MISO and SPP plan their respective transmission systems around forecasted locations of wind generation based on wind analysis, the interconnection queue and input from stakeholders. For example, in the process of designing and evaluating the Priority Projects, SPP Staff designed a portfolio of seven gigawatts (“GW”) of new wind projects in six locations around the region. Likewise, MISO’s selection of sites for coordinated wind and transmission expansion dates back to the Regional Generation Outlet Study, performed in 2008 and 2009. The selection of renewable energy zones for further transmission development included wind analysis, site suitability and distance to existing infrastructure. The highest ranking sites were selected to be included in the MISO transmission expansion plan and set the beginning points of many of the MVP Projects.

As noted in Section 2.5.1 of the Draft EIS and supporting technical materials, Clean Line conducted a similar analysis to define the zones from which the Project is likely to connect wind generation. The process incorporated wind development activity and responses to a Request for Information, wind mapping, evaluating distances from the Hitchland substation area, and environmental and land use consideration. The process used by Clean Line to identify the locations of additional wind generation was therefore consistent with the processes used by SPP and MISO. The identification of the most likely locations for wind development was a key step in planning and developing the Project. 

2. Assessing Known Areas of Congestion

In developing their portfolios of transmission lines to connect wind generation to load, both SPP and MISO examine existing congestion due to wind generation. This analysis provides information about where transmission lines could generate economic savings due to reduced congestion costs. For example, SPP’s Board of Directors has noted growing congestion on its system and tasked its staff to “reduce grid congestion” and “better integrate SPP’s west and east regions.” MISO likewise has identified transmission constrained zones which affect the ability to fully utilize wind and designed upgrades to relieve the constraints.

Similarly to SPP and MISO, Clean Line evaluated existing congestion patterns when designing the Project. Early in the Project’s development, Clean Line observed that existing wind generation in the Oklahoma Panhandle region was already experiencing very low prices due to transmission congestion. In its 2009 National Electric Transmission Congestion the DOE identified the Oklahoma Panhandle region as a Conditional Constraint Area (“CCA”). The region is a Type I CCA, meaning wind generation can be developed with existing technology. In that report, the DOE notes that Kansas and Oklahoma have strong wind generation potential that could significantly improve the economic vitality of the states’ rural counties, enhance reliability and potentially reduce consumer electricity costs.59 By creating a direct, HVDC link to the Mid-South and Southeast, the Project assures that the connected generators will not experience congestion and avoid existing transmission constraints.

(You know, in the process Jimmy Glotfelty helped advocate for in the office he created and directed that's the same office that's overseeing this process now back in 2003?)

This one:

(Yeah, that process. The one that was laid out to help identify the "constraints" that led to the "constraints" that resulted in the eventual RFP from the Department of Energy.)

Or, here, after he left DoE in 2005 and became VP of ICF International where he:

(Maybe worked on recommendations about "constraints"?)

3. Assessing Utility Demand Based on Public Policy and Other Factors 

In planning their respective transmission systems, both SPP and MISO conduct a review of regional renewable energy portfolio standards and goals to determine the amount of renewable energy needed. For example, SPP distributed a survey to state representatives in its Cost Allocation Working Group about each state’s mandated or desired level of wind generation. Based on these responses, SPP established a target in 2020 of approximately 11 GW of total wind generation. MISO likewise surveyed each member utility’s renewable portfolio standard requirements in 2021 and 2026 in order to determine how much incremental renewable generation the transmission plan needed to enable. These assessments allow MISO and SPP to build transmission to meet the needs of their member utilities for low-cost clean energy. 

In planning for the Project, Clean Line conducted a similar review based on numerous meetings with utilities and state policies, which is summarized in Section 2.1.3. As discussed there, Clean Line reviewed and identified the need and demand for renewable energy within the Mid-South and Southeast. In determining the size of the Project, Clean Line took into account the large potential demand for low-cost wind power delivered by the Project, and dimensioned the Project so that it could meet a substantial portion of the identified demand. 

4. Determining Physical Infrastructure 

In their transmission expansion plans, SPP and MISO weigh the distances involved and evaluate the economics of different voltages and numbers of circuits. Transmission lines with higher voltages and more circuits can carry more power, but are also more expensive. SPP faced this tradeoff in implementing two of the Priority Projects. SPP had studied the use of 765 kV lines to move larger amounts of power within the SPP region than would be possible with 345 kV lines.62 However, a 345 kV-only portfolio produced better regional cost-benefit metrics and therefore was approved by SPP’s Board of Directors.

MISO also studies the appropriate voltage and circuit level to use in in its transmission expansion. In its 2006 transmission expansion plan, MISO initially examined a series of 765 kV transmission lines to improve access to low-cost and high-capacity factor wind generation.64 However, in its 2011 planning process, MISO concluded that a preferable option was a build out primarily of double circuit 345 kV lines, with some single circuit 345 kV additions and one 765 kV line segment in Indiana.

In developing the Project, Clean Line also analyzed the appropriate technology and voltage for the desired power levels. An initial economic analysis indicated that HVDC was clearly more economic than AC lines of any voltage in light of the power levels and distances involved.66 A review of recently completed projects identified that DC voltages in the 500-600 kV level were most appropriate. Finally, a more detailed analysis of capital costs and electric losses concluded that 600 kV was the most appropriate voltage when considering power transfer levels, losses, and capital costs. Clean Line’s studies, like SPP’s and MISO’s, assured that the Project was consistent with the need to use the appropriate technology and voltage to economically achieve the goals of transmission expansion.

5. Considering Economic Development Implications

Both SPP and MISO seek to ensure that their transmission expansions result in economic development benefits for the region. In fact, both SPP and MISO have employed Brattle Group estimates to assess the economic impact of their proposed transmission expansions. The Brattle Group studies perform an economic impact assessment using IMPLAN and NREL’s JEDI model.68 

Clean Line performed a similar study, which was attached as Appendix 2 to its July 2010 Proposal to DOE. In addition, the Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice Technical Report that Clean Line submitted to DOE as part of the NEPA process extensively analyzes the employment impacts of the Project, which are further discussed in in Section 3.3.

6. Conducting Power Flow Analyses

In their transmission plans, SPP and MISO examine specific power flow cases to identify violations of reliability criteria that would require either additional transmission expansion or modifications of the proposed upgrades. For example, SPP’s Transmission Working Group prepared a series of power flow analyses on the Priority Projects to determine whether this expansion either required additional reliability projects to meet the required NERC and regional standards, or whether the Priority Project actually eliminated other reliability projects that, absent the Priority Projects, were needed to meet the standards. MISO also performed steady state power flow analyses of the MVP projects to see if any NERC or regional reliability standards were affected.

The Project has been the subject of comparable power flow analyses through its interconnection studies with SPP, MISO and TVA. As discussed below in Section 2.2.3, the interconnection studies monitored any violations of reliability planning standards and prescribed upgrades to remedy any violations. The reliability standards used in MISO and SPP transmission planning studies are consistent with and identical to those used in the interconnection studies performed by these entities regarding the Project.

7. Production Cost Modeling

SPP and MISO both use a production cost modeling software, PROMOD, to examine how proposed projects will affect the dispatch of their system. Specifically, the RTOs examine whether the points of injection of new wind power, together with the studied transmission expansion, result in any meaningful amount of curtailment of anticipated power flows. They also examine the extent to which the new transmission projects generate production cost savings for SPP and MISO member utilities.

Clean Line also conducted a similar analysis using PROMOD. An earlier version of this analysis was conducted with GE’s Multi-area Production Simulation (“MAPS”) and was included in the July 2010 Proposal to DOE. Clean Line’s production cost modeling shows that the Project results in minimal curtailment for the connected generators and substantial production cost savings. This is the same purpose for which SPP and MISO use production cost modeling in their transmission expansion plans. In Clean Line’s updated analysis, attached as Appendix 2-G to this Part 2 Application, curtailment for the connected wind generation was reduced to a single hour of the year, in contrast to over 15% curtailment (an economically unfeasible level) for the same amount of wind generation if the Project is not built. The analysis also shows annual production cost savings of $540 million because of the Project. These savings arise because the Project’s low-cost wind generation reduces the cost of the fuel purchases by utilities necessary to serve their load.

Well, there you have it, folks! Given the fact that Clean Line used a "similar and consistent series of studies" as MISO and SPP, they should be given the same weight as an ACTUAL Regional Transmission Organization in their qualification for Section 1222, given that Section 1222 mandates:

(B) is necessary to accommodate an actual or projected increase in demand for electric transmission capacity; (2) is consistent with— (A) transmission needs identified, in a transmission expansion plan or otherwise, by the appropriate Transmission Organization (as defined in the Federal PowerAct) if any, or approved regional reliability organization;

An RTO must:

(j) Required characteristics for a Regional Transmission Organization. A Regional Transmission Organization must satisfy the following characteristics when it commences operation:(1) Independence. The Regional Transmission Organization must be independent of any market participant. The Regional Transmission Organization must include, as part of its demonstration of independence, a demonstration that it meets the following:(i) The Regional Transmission Organization, its employees, and any non-stakeholder directors must not have financial interests in any market participant.(ii) The Regional Transmission Organization must have a decision making process that is independent of control by any market participant or class of participants.

(iii) The Regional Transmission Organization must have exclusive and independent authority under section 205 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824d), to propose rates, terms and conditions of transmission service provided over the facilities it operates. 

Take Clean Line's word for it, guys. They did the studies, too. Their transmission line is needed because they say so! They're really just doing MISO and SPP a favor, here. All of this is really too silly for words. Why are we here, again?