Saturday, December 13, 2014

Our Little Piece of Earth

** Update** Just received word from Dave that the zoom restrictions on the draft EIS interactive map have been lifted. This is great news! I doubt it had anything to do with this blog... but just in case... Given a certain corporation's history of busing college students in to clog open mic time at PSC hearings, it would be really great if affected landowners (you can't get much stakeholdier than that) were guaranteed a minimum amount of time to make their case during the public comment sections of the EIS meetings. I don't mean extending the three minute time limit, I just mean that landowners shouldn't have to drive an hour to participate only to find that they won't be able to participate because someone brought in a busload of students...

This is a wonderful and crazy time of year. A lot has happened since my last blog post, but it’s difficult to find the time to time to share… That’s true today, too, but I can’t let the release of the Plains and Eastern draft EIS go without talking a little bit about it. First, though, I’d like to get just a couple other things out of the way.

“Literally thousands of landowners”

In a recent radio segment by KUAF’s JACQUELINE FROELICH, Mario Hurtado went on the record to talk about Clean Line’s compensation package for landowners. He described it as being the result of input from “literally thousands of landowners”.

First, I just want to say that I have yet to meet a landowner who would structure an ideal payment this way. No stock options? No percentage of transmission sales? A perpetual easement without renegotiation after so many years? The specter of condemnation? Nah.

Second, I’d like to take a moment to remind everyone that the law in Arkansas for condemnation is fair market value. So when Mario, or anyone from Clean Line, tells you that they are being generous with their 100% of fair market payment for an easement, you can remind them that they don’t get bonus points for offering what they are legally obligated to pay. 

A better question would be why aren't they offering the same to Iowans, to whom they are only offering 90% of fair market value?

Wait, I think Beth Conley has the answer…


So Iowans get less than Arkansans, but should just be glad they didn't get 25 to 30 percent… for the land that they own and have actually worked for? How fair.

But don’t worry, Clean Line isn't just offering a lump sum payment up front. Land owners can choose a yearly payment with a 2% increase instead… That should help offset the property value reduction, right?

Per Mr. Hurtado:


Besides the fact that this statement kind of throws people in close proximity to the line or those who want to sell in the next few years under the bus, current research shows that blanket statements regarding the effect of transmission lines on property values are pretty unreliable and that actual effects involve factors including the property’s size, use, and proximity to the line, especially in rural areas… There’s a fair amount of land on this route that is not only agricultural, but residential and recreational as well. (All of which, not to beat a dead horse or anything, would be less of an issue if those closest to the line, who will shoulder the greatest adverse effects, were given the opportunity to choose for themselves whether or not the risk was worth the payment. Or better yet, what payment would be worth those effects). 

Lurk on transmission line questions on a real estate board and see what you find. Anecdotally, agents report that homes next to or near transmission lines take much longer to sell and are cheaper to buy.  

Clean Line says that landowners will also receive a “bonus” per structure payment for each tower or monopole erected on their property.

A bonus, you say? Sounds good. Yeah, but it’s non-negotiable



Fair and consistent for whom? The landowner? The landowner to whom you are dictating what you’ll pay for their property? Who doesn't get to negotiate? Who gets to shut up and take it or risk condemnation from (yes, I’ll say it again…) a private company consisting of three primary investors. 

“Thank you, sir. May I have another?”

Maybe Mr. Hurtado has something more to say about it…


So what the blank-blankety-blank are we negotiating?! The language? The money isn’t negotiable, but the language is? Sure. Tell me once more why we’re being forced to negotiate in the first place.

Again, Mario-


Oh, so ignoring the fact that, in eminent domain cases, "due process" simply refers to the monetary aspect of the case and not the question of whether or not the taking is just at it's core, he's saying this line is in the public interest? Great! Except...


^^This guy, right? He gets it.

So does this guy:


That was Sean Sweeny of Cornel University’s Global Labor Institute speaking to Democracy Now on the overinflated jobs numbers for the Keystone XL pipeline given by TransCanada and the potential to transfer traditional jobs in fossil fuels to green energy. Granted, he’s talking about generation, not transmission, but the principle holds. 

And, hey, while we’re at it… Should the Department of Energy choose to partner with Clean Line on P&E, what happens to those settlements Clean Line made with the landowners’ groups in OK not to use eminent domain? Are those agreements honored? SWPA puts eminent domain in OK fully back on the table, right? And as Mr. Skelly so kindly reminded us during his recent Missouri PSC testimony when asked what would happen if their GBE petition to was denied: “We would look at the no and figure out a way to turn it into a yes.” 

Speaking of Oklahoma

There have been some incredibly disturbing accounts from landowners in Oklahoma regarding their treatment by land agents, including threats of eminent domain use, and a certain Clean Line representative telling a landowner just last week that this is a “done deal” that he needs to “get used to it”. That might be news to the Department of Energy. 

On the other hand, this whole project has certainly been news to quite a few members of the newly formed Facebook group Block Plains and Eastern Clean Line: Oklahoma . It’s open to the public and growing by leaps and bounds, by word of mouth, since, like us, they have no corporate sponsorship (Psst- we don’t have to pay for our likes and adds… just sayin’).

The Draft EIS

Finally, I want to touch on the EIS. I actually owe Clean Line and the Department of Energy an apology. When the new interactive map came out on the EIS website yesterday, I made a comment on Facebook about how crappy the maps were. I should have differentiated. The easily accessible “interactive map” is pretty crappy. It doesn’t zoom in far enough, street names are practically non-existent…

But, oh, the maps inside the actual EIS! 

You see, my friend Dave and his partner, Delinda, came over last night so we could pour over the 3700 pages of the paper copy. The maps inside those binders? Man, were they beautiful. Crisp and clear mosaics of emerald and ochre. Tiny squares and circles marked the homes and easements. Land uses were indicated. Streets were easy to read…

And the route! The actual route, not the mile wide corridor… There it was!

Or I should say, there they were… the preferred routes and the DoE’s alternates (which might have been slightly different had the vast majority of people on them had known about the scoping period). 

Those little lines, solid and broken, marking the land people will, if all goes according to Clean Line’s plan, lose control over.  And, in all honesty, drawn on those maps, those route lines do look little. But they’re not…

Dave and I were sitting next to each other at the kitchen table. Delinda stood behind him, bending her head down close to his, examining the brilliant green checkerboard that represented their “region”. She had her hand on his back and they were both pointing out properties and structures--who would be getting hit, what they farmed, their history, their lives… “Look, that’s going right through her.  That’s their old homestead, right there.” (By the way, if you’re not familiar with the practice of describing a person’s land as part of their being, read this.)

Finally, Dave tapped his finger on a little square.

“That’s us,” he said, turning to look at me. “That’s our little piece of earth.”

And that’s the thing isn't it? None of us are under any illusions that we’ll live forever. Our little piece of the pale blue dot is only ours for an instant. Less than a cosmic blink. And if asked, we would give up a piece of it to save humanity, no doubt. But we’re not being asked, we’re being told. And it’s not for humanity, it’s for a couple investors who want to feel good about their investments as long as it eventually ends in profit. It may not be our little piece forever, but it’s our little piece right now. What happens in the next year is about more than a transmission line. It's about more than wind energy. It is about the future, but it's about more than climate change, as terrifying as it is.

So it all comes down to a few little lines across a map. How many people in that mile wide corridor have spent months wondering about whether they were on the route? Worrying? If it’s not something you've ever experienced, then you can have absolutely no idea. You become consumed. You almost envy the many people who didn't know. Almost, but not quite, because they’ll always wonder if they could have done more to stop it, if only they’d known sooner.

And to know, worst of all, that Clean Line had a preferred route all along. That they've had it for months… Years… When they stood above these perfect maps, with no connection to the land or the people on it, and decided where they wanted to put their project.

Dave was quiet for a minute. Then he shook his head…

“When you zoom in on your little property and see that you'll be affected, it is like winning the lottery… but all we get is a transmission line.”

A couple months ago, Michael Skelly was kind enough to talk to me on the phone. He said that he understood our concerns… I don’t really think that’s true.



Friday, November 21, 2014

Not sure who Clean Line's PR guy/gal is, but they should be fired...

So, I came home from work yesterday and grabbed the mail. Within it is my local Dover Times. I thumb through it, and when I reach the back cover I am blasted by the image below. Sorry I posted it so large! I did it this way for effect because I am quite sure this is the way most people who saw the ad perceived it. After feasting your eyes on this insult, please continue scrolling:




Could this be any worse if it tried? Does Clean Line think that if they buy a 3/4 page ad in all of our local papers, it is going to do anything to make us want this giant, unnecessary transmission line on our land? Let's explore the problems with this ad, shall we?


  1. That's a beautiful picture, Clean Line! The only problem with it: Where is the transmission line?! True, the size of the field those folks are standing in is about the size of the swath of trees you intend to cut down in your path of destruction, but, really? Is this a joke?
  2. "Do I want cleaner air for my family?" Clean Line is, apparently, assuming that Arkansans buy the false correlation that if we do not choose to participate in their project, we do not "want cleaner air for our families". We just don't think their project is the way to achieve this. Sorry!
  3. "Wind energy generation allows utilities to burn less fossil fuel and reduce pollution. The Plains and Eastern transmission project will deliver low-cost renewable energy to Arkansas." What legally binding evidence are they using to justify this claim of "low-cost renewable energy to Arkansas"? The generators to supply their speculative venture haven't been constructed. There is no guarantee that Clean Line can ascribe that their project will do this, in any way.
  4. "Support clean energy in Arkansas today and in the future." Again, another false correlation that we, as Arkansans, do not support clean energy in Arkansas "today and in the future" if we do not support this project.
  5. Last (my favorite!) is the shell, misleading website address that was created by Clean Line Energy in the attempt to mislead Arkansans into signing their useless, arbitrary poll of support. Go there, you'll see. www.supportcleanenergyarkansas.com  

Shouldn't a company that's attempting to "sell" a product via force to Arkansans under federal eminent domain powers in an attempt to bypass our state law, at minimum, provide accurate advertising for the said product they're wishing to sell? 

If you feel like Plains and Eastern Clean Line, LLC, is being deceptive with this advertising, file a complaint with the Arkansas Attorney General's office. When filing a complaint, choose "Consumer Complaint Form" in the drop-down menu.  

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Arkansas Beautiful: Inside the Corridor

The Value of Public Discourse

This Monday we will be participating in a friendly panel discussion on the pros and cons of the proposed Plains and Eastern HVDC line with Dr. Bob Allen "Bob of the Ozarks" and Glen Hooks, Chapter Director of the Sierra Club of Arkansas.

Regrettably, Clean Line, who had agreed to be part of the discussion, pulled out last week. A disappointment, considering what a great chance it would have been for "outreach" and clarification of some of the issues concerning us all. However, we are very grateful that the Hendrix College Environmental Concerns Committee recognized the importance of continuing with the panel in spite of Clean Line's absence and that they see the inherent value of public discourse.

For more information, please see the Hendrix event page on Facebook: 
https://www.facebook.com/events/734673029934862/

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Don't want one 200' Clean Line easement? How about two?

So, any time objections are placed before Clean Line about all of the various different inconsistencies, inaccuracies, lack of information provided, etc., they give one answer: "Go to our website to find out more information."

That's exactly what I did. Many of us have been skeptical of Clean Line's drawdown at the Department of Energy from a dual, 7,000mW line, to a single, 3,500mW line. We just assumed that Clean Line has it in their plans to, at a later date, construct a second 3,500mW line. Or is the current line 4,000mW? At the Tennessee Regulatory Authority hearing last Tuesday, Clean Line testified that the Plains and Eastern Clean Line was NOT going to transmit 3,500mW as stated in their application to the DoE, but instead 4,000mW. That's a post for another day, however. 


Drawing information directly from Clean Line Energy Partners website (located under "Filings - Federal") from a link entitled "Plains and Eastern FERC Filing," I will allow you to be the judge:





As recently as September of 2013, the "Tennessee Advanced Energy Business Council" used similar wording in a "project" entitled "Tennessee's Advanced Energy Asset Inventory" to describe the Plains and Eastern Clean Line project. Keep in mind, Clean Line is heavily involved with the TAEBC. They are members, have a "to be disclosed" seat on their advisory committee, and also have a member in TAEBC's "delegation" (aka "lobbyist") named Max Shilstone.


Note the green snippet above that describes the Plains and Eastern as "what would be America's largest power transmission line". Sounds fun, eh?

So, what's it going to be, Clean Line? What are landowners facing, here? Your inconsistency is appalling. Is it going to be a single, 3,500mW line as described in your application to the Department of Energy? Is it going to be a single 4,000mW line as described in your testimony before the Tennessee Regulatory Authority? Or, is this a two-phase project in which you wish to impose not one, but eventually two 3,500mW transmission lines with a 750 mile, 400' wide footprint?

The true stakeholders, the landowners on the path of this monstrosity, DEMAND an answer from you in the form of a written statement that indicates your ACTUAL current and future plans. Perhaps the media would be the better avenue to seek answers to these questions? Either way, a written response can be emailed to us at:


Tuesday, November 11, 2014

If You Liked It...

Clean Line: “Oh, won’t somebody think of the farmers!  No, wait… not those farmers… these farmers.”


Sigh… I have so much to say. I started this post about three weeks ago in response to Diana Rivera’s Department of Energy Draft Congestion Study comment on behalf of Clean Line . But since that time we’ve had an opposition meeting, Mr. Hurtado’s response, the IRP update, the TRA hearing on Clean Line’s petition for utility status, and the interim study meeting in AR… There’s no really good way to hit everything except by topic, so that’s where we’ll start.

Is it 7000MW, 3500MW, or 4000MW? And why won’t Clean Line commit to not adding a second line… in writing?

So the best thing I can say for Rivera’s comment is that it was nice of her to ask the Department of Energy to “update the project description” for P&E and GBE “to reflect changes implemented since 2012”:

“Namely, Plains & Eastern Clean Line is no longer under development as the two-phase
7,000 MW project originally envisioned, and Grain Belt Express Clean Line was extended 200 miles to reach a stronger point of interconnection in Indiana also while maintaining an interconnection in Missouri.”

Good for us, bad for our friends to the north, whose correction officially included an extra 200 miles for a total length of 750 miles. 

Good for us except that Clean Line has never said, in writing, that they won’t come back later to revive the 2nd phase of P&E. Something tells me that a successful petition for 1222 might mean a lot more of this kind of development in general. Handily, they’d have plans…well…handy.

Also of note was Rivera’s description of P&E:

“The line will originate in the Oklahoma Panhandle and will be capable of delivering 3,500 MW of wind power to an interconnection point in Tennessee and 500 MW to an interconnection point in Arkansas.”
                        
So now we’re at 4000MW. This was confirmed by Clean Line testimony at the TRA hearing. Interesting, as for some reason, the majority of us were under the impression the line topped out at 3500MW. Maybe we misunderstood all along?

The angry cynic in me wonders if this has anything to do with their proposed converter station (supposedly, they’re eyeing land north of Russellville for it. Have they contacted landowners yet?) which Clean Line is actually under no obligation to build. Will they actually go through with the expense of building one if money comes up short on the way to Tenn? Is Arkansas' 500MW promise nothing but a feel-good gesture? And who’s going to buy the 500MW anyway?

Which brings us to…

No, not those customers… These customers

For a while we’ve been speculating that the  “Fifteen potential customers” who “submitted requests for transmission service totaling over 17,000 megawatts” Clean Line touted in their press release after the FERC granted them conditional approval to sell capacity came from generators and not end users. We got confirmation of that both at the TRA hearing and in Rivera’s DoE comment:

“Consistent with its negotiated rate authority granted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), Plains & Eastern Clean Line conducted an open solicitation and received transmission service requests from developers of wind projects with total capacity far exceeding the capacity of the transmission line. In advance of the solicitation, developers of over 16,000 MW of wind projects in the Oklahoma Panhandle region responded to a request for information (“RFI”) regarding the need for transmission service.”

Unfortunately, we don’t know what “over” means numerically. Assuming that if they had over 17,500 MW we’d be talking about “nearly” 18,000MW… This means that of all their P&E solicitation, only 1,000 to maybe 1,500MW came from actual end users customers… or utilities (which Clean Line is not in AR nor yet in TN). The rest came from, you guessed it, the generators. If you build it, they will come?

1,000 to 1,500 MW… So the interest from utilities wanting to buy power was less than one third to less than one half of the total capacity of the line? Ouch.

Why? Maybe because the project is so uncertain.

But what’s more important here is that, yet again, Clean Line is attempting to justify the line based on generation rather than end use. Why is that important? Because we shouldn’t take people’s land forcibly based on potential generation and without a clearly defined and expressed user need. A vague “large and growing demand for renewable energy” doesn’t count. We just shouldn’t. It’s unethical and it opens up a huge can of worms. Try as Clean Line and the DoE might to call constraint a “need”, it isn’t. Especially when said "constrained" wind farms haven’t been developed.

You can think of this project as a three-legged stool: producers, end users, and regulators/permitting. If any one of those breaks, down we go. And worse, none of those legs are even screwed in yet. We’ve got wind farms that haven’t been built because they’re waiting for transmission (and, I’d guess, the future of the PTC), end users waiting for producers and permitting, and permitting that’s going to take another year at best and uses an untested section of law ripe for litigation. That’s a hell of a risk for anyone to get on board with, especially landowners being asked to sign perpetual easements. Especially considering the company doing the asking actually advocated for a less transparent process for a governmental study that essentially belongs to the taxpayers:

“Clean Line acknowledges the difficulty or impossibility of accessing uniform data across the country and supports efforts to improve data quality and availability in the future. The issue of data access requires serious examination, and DOE may wish to consider using data that is not publicly available. Making data publicly available may discourage sharing of competitively sensitive information that could prove helpful in thoroughly studying congestion on the bulk electric system.”

But what about the farmers?

So what really set me off about Rivera’s comment was this section:

“These are real projects, many of which have land leased for wind turbines from
farmers seeking new sources of income, as drought has made traditional farming livelihoods uncertain. Wind power represents new hope for drought-resistant income and economic development in regions of the country otherwise struggling with diminishing populations.”

Why? Because it’s a cheap ploy to garner an emotional response. Of course everyone is worried about the sustainability of farming in the Midwest given the changing climate and increasing prevalence of drought. But to use that as a mechanism to justify the forced condemnation of land belonging to farmers in other states, affecting their financial security and independence, doesn’t make any sense at all. Maybe these developers should have had a plan to sell energy to more local markets BEFORE signing lease agreements with farmers. Maybe they shouldn’t have made promises to people that they couldn’t keep.

And what Rivera fails to acknowledge here is the very simple fact that the farmers she’s referring to in her comment had a choice. They were able to choose whether or not to participate in development projects. Clean Line, for all their “we are committed to negotiating easements” talk is still pursuing the right to eminent domain as a means to complete this transmission project. And, yes, they will cut through farms in Arkansas. And, no, not everyone wants to participate.

Which brings me to a question we heard repeatedly from the TRA directors in reference to the opposition letters they received from landowners in Arkansas, including ours, which has about 350 signatures…

What went wrong in Arkansas?

The directors at the TRA heard from a landowner who talked about how wonderful her experience with Clean Line had been. Their question about why landowners in Arkansas seemed so unsupportive of the project was met with the assertion that it was simply because there was less certainty in the route in here and, therefore, less landowner contact.

Personally, I think it probably has more to do with the fact that Clean Line NEEDS the TRA on board. I think they were probably on their best behavior in Tennessee because they had to be, since SWPA doesn’t have jurisdiction for siting the line there. Not to mention that attempting to buy seventeen miles of easement is a lot easier than buying two-hundred and something. In fact, Clean Line bragged about being able to obtain 40 out of 50 easements in TN (the last 10 are apparently a little cautious of the three-legged stool and are waiting to see if Clean Line actually gets routing authority. We assume, anyway, since that’s what Clean Line said and none of those landowners were present to say differently)… And they did it without eminent domain, so it can be done. It would be very interesting to see the terms and conditions of those agreements.

They were right, though, about having less landowner contact in Arkansas. After our Dover meeting, which was attended by nearly 100 people (or a little less than 1/6th of the total number of people who signed into all the DoE/CL scoping meetings combined...across three states), Mario Hurtado talked to our town newspaper about all the outreach they’ve done in Arkansas…

Um, maybe they need a new outreach coordinator. When Chris Hardy went to Arkansas Tech University in Russellville several weeks ago to pitch, excuse me, present the project to the students in the Chemistry Club, among other groups, did they take the time to hold “office hours” in the town a few miles up Highway 7 that would be directly impacted by the line? No.

It is amazing to me that Clean Line continues to talk about outreach as if they’re patting themselves on the back. Notice that “stakeholder” does not equal “landowner”. No, meetings with NGO’s, contractors, and the few landowners lucky enough to get “the unicorn” (Clean Line’s postcard) or read about “office hours” (advertised the same day as the event) in the local papers (which in very rural areas, often have to be mailed and don’t arrive until late in the day) does not count as informing the people whose land you want to use to construct a transmission line. There’s this thing called a registered letter. It’s awesome.

In an attempt to reach as many locals as possible, our group actually went door to door before our meeting. Since we were short on time and corporate sponsorship, we just hit one road on the route. We were able to speak with eleven people directly. Only a few knew anything about the line. One person knew they were in the proposed corridor. 

One. 

Nice job fellas.


If you liked it, then you should have put a ring on it. 

Saturday, November 8, 2014

Letter to Governor Mike Beebe about recent support letter from the Governors Wind Coalition...

Governor Beebe:

I am writing you as a concerned landowner who could potentially be adversely impacted by the Plains and Eastern Clean Line project. I am writing you specifically because of a letter I recently discovered from the "Governor's Wind Coalition" in which the governors of South Dakota and Washington urged the Department of Energy to utilize Section 1222 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Your spokesman, Mr. DeCample, said the following when asked about the letter:

But a spokesman for the Democratic governor of Arkansas, Mike Beebe, said he hasn’t signed off on the letter. “While Arkansas is a member of the coalition, we are not a signee on this letter; in fact, this is the first we’ve seen of it,” Matt DeCample, a spokesman for the governor, said in an email. “We’ve not been involved in the national discussion of this particular issue.”

I agree. Arkansans have NOT been allowed to be a part of the national discussion about this issue, and it seems as though we are being left out of the process. I ask you: How is this fair to us? How is it fair for the governors of two states that would not be impacted at all by the 1222 statute are speaking on the behalf of hundreds of landowners along the 300 mile path of destruction this would cause to natural beauty and private property owners in our state? If we don't have a say the fate of our own property in this case, why on earth are we a member of this "Governors Wind Coalition"?
Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC, is a privately held, venture capitalist funded (many who are involved heavily in investments in the oil industry, I might add), limited liability company that was rejected by the Arkansas Public Service Commission in 2011. They are now seeking federal siting authority over unwilling landowners. I feel like this is an absolute overreach into states rights, and would set an extremely dangerous precedent of allowing a private LLC to obtain federal authority of eminent domain for private financial gain.
There is significant and wide-ranging opposition to this project that continues to form in our state. Recently, our opposition group gathered and submitted approximately 350 signatures to the Tennessee Regulatory Authority urging the directors to deny Clean Line public utility status in that state. They can be found here:http://www.state.tn.us/tra/dockets/1400036.htm Signature gathering on this front is ongoing. Our group is also coordinating an opposition campaign to Secretary Moniz of the Department of Energy urging him not to allow the DoE to partner with Clean Line Energy under the authority of the Southwestern Power Administration.
Our group recently held a local meeting in the town of Dover attended by about 100 people, many of whom could potentially be affected by this. When asked who in the audience had only recently found out about this project, approximately 75% of them raised their hand. When asked how many had been contacted by Clean Line, approximately five raised their hand. It is our sincere belief that Clean Line has been utterly incompetent in its outreach efforts to the very people who would be most impacted by this highly speculative project. This project has been in development since 2009.
So, after all of this has been said, we are asking for your help. You have been a great steward in this state throughout your governorship. Arkansans need to be allowed to have a voice on this issue, and there are literally hundreds of people who do not feel as though they have been given this opportunity. If you'd like to know more about the opposition to this project, you can find us at the following locations:


Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this matter.

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Governors who should mind their own states' business...

So, what does it look like when the governors of two states, Washington and South Dakota, urge the Department of Energy to use Section 1222 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act to remove your property rights in Arkansas for an unnecessary transmission line without so much as even consulting with your governor? This is what that looks like:





And what does the Arkansas governor say when he realizes a letter was sent, basically on his behalf, by two faraway governors who really should mind their own business?
But a spokesman for the Democratic governor of Arkansas, Mike Beebe, said he hasn’t signed off on the letter. “While Arkansas is a member of the coalition, we are not a signee on this letter; in fact, this is the first we’ve seen of it,” Matt DeCample, a spokesman for the governor, said in an email. “We’ve not been involved in the national discussion of this particular issue.”
Mr. DeCample is correct. Arkansas has NOT had a chance to be involved in the national discussion of this particular issue. In fact, it seems as though we are being left out! How is that fair to us? If we're not going to have input into the fate of our land, then why on earth are we a member of this "Governor's Wind Coalition" as Arkansans? Maybe we should contact Governor Beebe and ask! 


Something really smells, here!