Wednesday, January 14, 2015

The cart is still before the horse...

Yesterday a couple of events occurred that represent a kind of perfect microcosm for the entire debacle that has been Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC's outreach efforts for Plains and Eastern.

First, the Cherokee Nation's Tribal Council unanimously approved a resolution in opposition to Plains and Eastern. Please check out the video from that meeting. The Plains and Eastern discussion begins at minute 46. Possibly the most interesting comment comes from a Ms. Watts, who rightfully calls for an investigation as to why no one in the tribe had heard of the line until recently, when Clean Line claims to have been in contact with the CN for the last three years.

Several hours later, Clean Line Energy Partners issued a press release celebrating their approval as a transmission only utility in Tennessee. As we have not yet been able to review the order from the TRA, we can't comment on the specifics. Experience in Illinois tells us that Clean Line is adept at spinning regulatory approval, but regardless of the details, this is a big deal for them... And probably for those last few holdout landowners in Tennessee waiting for them to get that approval before signing easements.

We knew our efforts in Tennessee were a long shot, but we are so proud of the hundreds of people who signed our letter and sent in letters of their own. And, really, part of what we're fighting for is the ability of state and regional planning organizations to maintain their sovereignty. The TRA's decision to allow Clean Line utility status in spite of the objections in Arkansas and Oklahoma are a consequence of that sovereignty. That's not such a bad thing. Click here to view the docket and the letters in opposition.

How does this relate to the project as a whole? Well, once again, Clean Line has put the cart about 700 miles in front of the horse. They have their endpoint all sewn up, while the people in the middle are throwing their hands up and asking, "Clean who?" And, clearly, they're not all that happy with the answer.

How do we know that? Well, Clean Line makes a big deal about it's involvement with local government. Their goal is to get those guys on board. They've been pretty open about that... But there's a big, huge, honkin' problem with that strategy... You can't expect to get away with it if the people, the landowners, aren't on board, too. The local government is elected by the people. Not the people who live two hundred miles away, but neighbors, friends, and family members. So when the grocer's kid calls his local judge crying because the house he just built two years ago is on the route and NOBODY seemed to know about the scoping period, there aren't enough promises of tax income in the world to ease the queasy feeling that judge is going to get in the pit of his stomach. It also doesn't help when Clean Line's reps roll their eyes at landowners during county meetings (Way to go, Mario!! Listen, you can say we're full of it all day, but the bottom line is that if you guys had gone about this whole thing a little differently, we would not find ourselves the situation that we do.)

Where's the proof? Here, here, and here. Three quorum courts. Three unanimous resolutions in opposition to Plains and Eastern. Are they binding? No, but they're important. You want to take the temperature of the mood of the people? There you go. By the way, Pope is one of the two counties that have been suggested as home to the converter station. I guess taxes aren't everything...

Meanwhile, we continue to hold meetings in an attempt to reach people who still don't know about the line... Though we still get the occasional immediately affected landowner who doesn't know, we've seen a huge increase in pissed off neighbors, if I can be so blunt. People who live next to the proposed route, but not on it. I'll let this gentleman explain...


Before I go, I mentioned blossoming Clean Line opposition in multiple states in my last post. I should have just linked to all the different groups. Come visit us:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/blockcleanlinepope/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Arkansas-Citizens-Against-Clean-Line-Energy/1397073527241617
http://arblockcleanline.com/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/BlockPECLOK/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/642766385769035/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Block-RICL-Rock-Island-Clean-Line/133050610203359
http://www.blockricl.com/
https://www.facebook.com/blockgrainbeltexpressmo
http://blockgbemo.com/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Block-Clean-Line-Energy/474445082622090
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Block-Grain-Belt-Express-Illinois/344837389031181
http://ridiculousricl.blogspot.com/

Thursday, January 8, 2015

My Son, the Doctor...


Taking back NIMBY...

I know I promised new writers (and they are coming), but I have to take one more whack at eminent domain. This is why…

So, a banker, an energy industry worker, and a land agent stumble onto a post…

I confess. A few days after ribbing Clean Line for “sponsoring” ads on Facebook, we boosted a post for our petition with the help of the Arkansas Citizens Against Clean Line Energy page. I know, I know… but we thought it would really help us reach more people. We were right. And out of the many, many people who viewed our post, we only got negative comments from three.  The land agent was by far the most entertaining. I’m blocking out his name and picture here on the off chance that he actually works for Contract Land Staff and used some bad judgment in breaking Clean Line’s Code of Conduct.  It’s his job… He’s defensive… We get it. We’re all human.

Of course, as a rule we don’t remove comments. People sometimes, but comments never. Why? Because that’s playing pretty dirty (cough, cough) and because if we can’t defend our position, publicly, we don’t really have one.

Aside from pointing out the obvious irony in his statement, I want you to pick up on the essence of what he’s saying… No, not that we don’t know what we’re talking about. See if you can guess…



Got it? It’s essentially the same thing we got from the other two people… And what I’ve heard from a couple more as well, members of the Sierra Club specifically... 

“We all have to make sacrifices and it’s not like they take the land for free. It’s just NIMBY.”

Now, aside from the fact that the people who say that most often aren’t the ones being asked to make the sacrifice, I have a real problem with anyone who dismisses another person’s situation out of hand because of what they judge it to be. That denotes a rather disturbing lack of empathy and almost seems like a kind of defense mechanism to keep the dismissor from having to think too long and hard about what they’re suggesting. It’s like people who tell other people that they’re going to Hell without the slightest real consideration of what they are so flippantly condemning someone to. Whether you’re a believer of not, especially if you are, that’s not cool.

But how do you really wrap your head around what eminent domain does? How do you explain a taking to someone who’s never experienced it? Because really, there is no other area in our lives where something like eminent domain is acceptable. Yes, we pay taxes… but we all pay them. Some more than others, but still. This gets into why it is so important that eminent domain be so carefully guarded... Used so sparingly and with such thought and consideration. It’s hard to answer the question, “When is eminent domain okay?” It’s almost easier to identify when it isn’t. But rather than get into all that… again, let’s do this…

I propose a thought experiment. An exercise in empathy. C’mon… It’ll be fun and I’ll get to show off my babies.

Babies! What kind of warped mother compares her babies to property?

Ugh, I know! But stay with me through this part and then you can bail if you want… because this is gonna be long.

First of all, there is nothing more precious to me than my kids. For a lot of people on this line, and the others, the same is true… but their land is a close second. Why? Because it’s what they live off of. It’s their retirement plan. It’s what they’ll leave for their children. It’s their past, present, and future. And, like our children, we only get to nurture it for a little while. We are the stewards. The protectors. We are responsible for what it becomes.

Second, children are what is most precious to most of us. At this point, I can’t think of any other group of beings so universally adored and for whom most of us have some kind of connection. So, no, children are not the same as land, but windmills are not the same as transmission lines and goodness knows Clean Line has enough pictures of turbines on their literature, so here we go…


This is my son. He’s in disguise to protect his privacy. He’s nine and he’s brilliant. Not in a “River Tam before the Alliance summer camp” kind of way, but brilliant. He reads at an eleventh grade level. Math comes easy. So does science. Getting dressed, not so much. He comes out of his room with his undershirt over his flannel on a regular basis. His shoes are always untied… or knotted beyond belief with the loose ends trailing behind him. He’s incredibly sensitive to the needs and emotional temperature of other people. He has a deep sense of justice… a regard for the dignity of others.



This is my daughter… burping. You can’t tell from this picture how incredibly beautiful she is. We call her “The General” because, from infancy, she has had a remarkable ability to shape her environment (and the people in it) to suit her needs. She is also brilliant, but where my son is less concerned with the temporal, she has a common sense that is frighteningly efficient.



This is my baby. I’m not sure who he’ll be quite yet. He’s musical. He rocks the harmonica and sings all the time. He’s also a snuggler, apt to run up and hug a stranger’s legs. He likes to grab my face, a tiny hand on each cheek, look deep into my eyes, and nod. I don’t know what he’s nodding at, but he says, “YES!!” with his whole little being.

So, during this experiment you are going to be me. My family is your family… And I am going to come for your son...

I work for a company partnering with the government to find children we think will make excellent doctors. There’s a shortage of doctors, especially primary care physicians, and while we think you are doing a perfectly adequate job of raising your son, if we take him now and turn him into a doctor, the public will benefit in the long run.

How will they benefit? Well, the school we plan to use to train him will benefit from the influx of resources. Eventually, his patients will benefit. And, of course the company will make a profit. And we can’t forget about the nurses. Don’t you care about the nurses? They need jobs. How selfish of you not to give up your son for the nurses. Don’t you care about other people?

Besides, it’s not like you won’t see him. There will be a video feed. Everyday you’ll be able to see him. You can’t kiss him, you can’t hug him, and you certainly can’t make any decisions about his future. You will be required to pay for his room and board, but we’re going to give you a puppy to make this easier for you. Don’t you want a puppy? Fine, we’ll give you two puppies and some cash. There, aren’t you happy now?

No? I don’t understand why not. No offense, but it really doesn’t matter that he wants to be a paleontologist. All nine year olds want to be paleontologists. This is better. This is about a better future. If we want a better future, we all have to make sacrifices. People have been sacrificing their children since Mayan times, why should you be treated differently. This is the way it’s always been done. We can’t change it.

I understand your concerns, but if we wait a few more years, it’ll take him longer to graduate and we’ll lose the income he could have been producing (besides, advances in tele-medicine could make this program obsolete by then). Physician’s assistants? Nurse practitioners? No, those things don’t work. It has to be this way. This is the only way that makes sense for us. And, frankly, you can’t afford to take us to court. We have more money, connections, and expertise than you do, and when it’s all over we’ll just take him anyway. The most the court will give you is more cash and puppies. You don’t get to argue whether it’s fair for us to take him in the first place. Don't bother, you’ll just be giving money to the lawyers. Hey, everybody’s got to have a doctor.

Oh, goodness, no. He won’t come back here to practice. There aren’t enough patients here. He’ll be in Charlotte, or maybe Richmond… We’re not really sure. We don’t have any places set up for him to work yet, but it won’t be here. Maybe he can come back for Christmas, but we can’t guarantee anything. We’re not going to commit to that yet, that’s just one of the alternatives we’re looking at.
Can you have him back if it doesn’t work out? No, you don’t get him back. We’ll just sell him to another firm… Which we might do anyway, in which case, they’ll have different rules for you, but no more cash or puppies.

Why, no... We’ve never done a project quite like this before, though we’ve been in the medical industry for years. We’re brand new. Isn’t that innovative? Don’t you trust us? Here, look at this art deco sculpture of a doctor. Doesn’t that make you feel better? See, I’m smiling. I’m nice, right? You can’t be upset about this if I smile and act nice.

I don’t understand why you say you’ve never heard of us before. We sent you a postcard. No, it didn’t say that we wanted to take your son, but it said we were thinking about starting a school. I don’t know why you wouldn’t have seen it. We’ve been very active in the community-- We’ve been talking to literacy campaigns and state/federal officials about this for years. We took out ads in the paper. You don’t read the newspaper every day? Oh, well. I guess you don’t deserve to have a say in what happens to your kid if you’re not going to read the paper every day.

Now, before I leave, I have to tell you… I’m looking at your daughter. I’m not really sure if I’ll be back for her yet. I have to see how things pan out, but she’s a very smart young lady. Why are you crying? You’ll get another puppy! And you still have your baby. But you should know that I can come back for him at any time also. If fact, I, or someone from another company, can come back for any child you have or may ever have. There’s no requirement that we stop taking them after we’ve taken so many. We may have to eventually pay for you to have another if we’re using the federal government to do it, but not if we’re using the state. Anyway, we can take that child away, too.  It just makes more sense, don’t you see? It's for the public good. You’ve already given up a child. In some vague way here, I’m acknowledging the damage I’ve done to you, but only in the sense that since the damage has already been done, it’s easier to hurt you more than to start fresh with someone else. You don’t want anyone else to be hurt do you? Though I still don’t understand why you’re upset. Puppies! Cash! Yay!

Ugh, I’m so tired of people like you, you know that? All you NOOMK’s. That’s what it is you know, you’re just a NOOMK—Not One of My Kids. You don’t have any real objections to this project. No real justification for not wanting to give him to us. Nothing you’ve said tonight meets our criteria for a real concern. You’re just rationalizing your NOOMK-ism. It’s sad really, that you are so very selfish.

Whew! Okay. Well, I hope that gives someone a little perspective. Now obviously there are going to be some people who are really okay with, or even want, the transmission line (or at least I hope there are since Clean Line seems to think they’ll be able to “negotiate” the majority of the line—with eminent domain at their back of course), and that’s their prerogative (though it may suck for neighbors not hosting the line who'll lose property value). This exercise is about those people who don’t want it. Of course, I've used a touch of hyperbole, but I’m not quite sure how else to get through. I feel a bit like the guy in Whoville trying to find that one last “yip” or “yop” to break through the atmosphere.

We are not unaware of the world around us. We’re not oblivious to climate change. We’re not blissfully revving our engines (at least not most of us). We live the land. The drought that Diana Rivera referred to in her Congestion Study comment… we lived it. All we are saying… Well, all I’m saying... is that there has got to be a better way than this. And if we don’t stand up and say it now, the future of our energy industry is going to work a lot like the past… except meaner and more streamlined, with even less local control.


Let me be clear, the responsibility for the opposition that is blossoming in every state in which Clean Line is proposing a project falls directly on their own shoulders. It has a lot less to do with NIMBY than it does with Clean Line’s failure to effectively and proactively engage the people who will be most directly impacted by their projects. And the people out there, few as they have been, who feel so smug in throwing out the NIMBY label, need to pull their heads out of Clean Line’s pretty, glossy brochures and think hard about what that acronym really means.

Saturday, January 3, 2015

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

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

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

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







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

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















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




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






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


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

But what about permanent jobs?




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


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

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




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




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

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

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



Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Voices from the Route

When Dave and I started our Facebook group, one of our main objectives was to give people a place to discuss the effects the threat of Clean Line's proposed line had on their own lives. We wanted a space where people could come and realize that they are not alone. To that end, we have a guest post tonight from a gentleman local to our corner of Arkansas.

In the coming weeks, Block Plains and Eastern Clean Line will be hosting a series of Neighbor Hours in our area in an attempt to enable meaningful discussion in the community, and to provide easy access to the Draft EIS to the many folks out here without an internet connection.  Danny, who wrote the following, has generously offered to present new material at our next Dover meeting-- "Potential issues with watershed erosion and herbicide management of right-of-ways". 


Danny makes a lot of good points, but I hope that readers will pay special attention to parts about the tradition of bartering we have in these hills. As Danny mentions, it is a way of life... I trade fresh, free-range eggs for locally caught fish. There is a family whom we allow to bow-hunt on our family's land in exchange for helping us optimize the area for wildlife and for a portion of the venison they take. We trade. We share. We give when someone needs something, or when we just happen to have extra and think they might like it. I can't tell you how much okra I got this summer... Along with a cabbage the size of a turkey and a cantaloupe almost as big. This is not the kind of socio-economic impact you'll read about in the draft (unless I somehow skipped over that part), but it is important. It is real. 


Danny's Story

I am in the primary/preferred easement for the proposed Plains and Eastern Clean Line Project.

I am James "Danny" Taverner and have moved back to this region to be close to my family. I have a Master's Degree from Louisiana State University in Plant and Soil Systems. I conducted research for the university that included levee erosion control projects and herbicide maintenance of right-of-ways.

A supposed environmental survey was scheduled to be done across my property, I made sure to be home the day of the survey. No persons ever showed up on my 40 acre property. I wanted them to understand the sensitivity of the site through which they planned the line. The steepness of the grade on the region intended is severe. The grade is impractical to log and if the timber were to be removed, a cascade of environmental issues would follow.

I have about 2 to 3 acres of arable (farmable) land. I have a small fruit tree orchard with peaches, apples, pears, and cherries. I have raspberries, blackberries and muscadines as well. In addition to the orchard is an extensive vegetable garden and a large plot rotated between sorghum cane and corn. This small farm is irrigated by a pond which is directly within the easement and is fed by the watershed consisting of the very steep area which is also within the easement.

The produce from this farm is not sold for money but bartered which is a unique cultural identity of this region. Produce had been traded for beef, pork, eggs, labor, lumber, and even dog-sitting favors. My family has a grist mill and corn produced on the property is ground into cornmeal. We also have a sorghum mill and cook down the cane into sorghum using the same family technique passed down for generations. My grandmother used to go around and cook other people's cane for "shares". This is a cultural product that has been maintained by the production from my farmland which is irrigated by the waters from the watershed within the proposed easement.

So what would be the big deal if the line went through across the property? 

The pond will receive significant amounts of silt even with standard erosion control measures. This would reduce the volume of water available for irrigation by making the pond more shallow. Having worked on levee stabilization projects around New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, I am we'll aware that there is no way to fully mitigate erosion especially when the pond and watershed slope is many times more steep and rocky than a levee. 

The herbicide maintenance of the right-of-way poses another significant impediment to the continuation of my farming lifestyle. I am intimately familiar with herbicides and their positive and negative attributes. My thesis research involved cultural and herbicide management techniques. I was involved in countless herbicide trials while working at Louisiana State University. The proposed herbicides commonly used in right-of-ways have the potential to be sprayed into or wash into the pond killing fish and rendering the water unusable for irrigation purposes. This would render all the hard work and money in getting a garden established and cut off an entire system of trade for the many families with which I barter.

My current home is at the edge of the easement and the aesthetic value of the beauty of an Ozark sunset will be lost. All of my out-buildings for tractors and equipment and shop are directly under the route. The shop and buildings are not visible on the satellite maps for they are within a forested area and must be seen from the ground. All of the time and expense of building the shops and having electricity and water run to the site would be undone since the buildings would have to be removed  for the line. There is no other rational area for these several buildings to be placed and the years spent acquiring material and constructing them could not be duplicated.

There is no compensation for the destruction of all that I have mentioned. The thought of a private company forcing eminent domain and taking all of the aforementioned blood, sweat, and tears from my family is unfathomable.

I am but one small landowner that was never contacted until this year about this project. One small landowner in an over 700 mile line across the entire state of Arkansas. A landowner with so much to lose that there can be no reasonable compensation made for the damage to be caused. I will not stand for wealthy, out-of-state private businessmen to use the threat of eminent domain to further line their pockets under the guise of "clean energy". 

I am all for renewable energy. I am a fan of wind, solar, and hydrothermal energy. This is not an attack on these resources. This is a transmission line, by a private company, willing to condemn land  across two entire states and disrupting the landowners from western Oklahoma all the way to Memphis.

James "Danny" Taverner

Saturday, December 20, 2014

Freedom of Information Act Request?

Well, there wasn't a lot of information involved and it sure wasn't free...

This was posted by a member in our group last night:

"I have a confession. I was foolish enough to allow myself to be swindled. I was swindled by the U. S. Department of Energy. This swindle involves a Freedom of Information Act request I made to the DOE.
From my FOIA request # HQ-2014-01728-F:
'I am requesting the following materials related to the Management Committee: meeting dates, attendance lists, agendas, minutes, transcripts, and any related documents. I am requesting this material for every meeting of the Management Committee.'
The Management Committee I referred to is described in Section 8a of Contract No. 1 between Clean Line Energy and the DOE, the Advanced Funding and Development Agreement for the Plains and Eastern Clean Line Energy project.
The Agreement can be found on the link:
The Management Committee as described was to be composed of two representatives from the DOE and two representatives from Clean Line Energy and was to meet quarterly to discuss:
1. The progress of the NEPA environmental analysis, Clean Line's land acquisition, and the interaction with other state and Federal agencies.
2. The progress of the technical review and proposed procurement, construction, operations, maintenance, ownership roles of each party, and the progress of Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP)'s review under applicable SPP processes.
3. The progress of DOE's review of the Project on issues other than environmental analysis.
4. A comprehensive schedule of work to be completed under this Agreement, including quarterly work plans.
On November 21, I received the results of the DOE's alleged research. It consisted of a series of emails between Clean Line and the DOE arranging the meeting time and details of a single Management Committee meeting in December of 2012.
The DOE response to my request did not contain a single item I requested in the FOIA.
The DOE response raises several questions. Was there only one meeting, in 2012, of the Management Committee? In the 2012 meeting, did the Management Committee discuss any of topics outlined in the Advanced Funding and Development Agreement? If so, where is the documentation requested in the FOIA? If the Management Committee only met once, in 2012, how is Clean Line keeping the DOE apprised of the project status? Is the Advanced Funding and Development Meeting still in effect? Has the Management Committee been circumvented?
I requested a fee waiver when I submitted the FOIA, but my request was denied. The DOE charged $798 in advance for research.
I paid the research fee because I really believed this FOIA request would yield a wealth of information about the working relations between Clean Line and DOE. I guess I should have known the DOE would not allow a lowly citizen to have access to information.
This is a cautionary tale. Do not trust the DOE!"

This is part of the discussion that followed between another member and the original poster:


Commenting Member: Because... "Disclosing this information could cause harm to the DOE and other agencies if the public is able to listen to agency discussions." and "With respect to the discretionary disclosure of deliberative information, the quality of agency decisions would be adversely affected if frank, written discussion of policy matters were inhibited by the knowledge that the content of such discussion might be made public. For this reason, DOE has determined that discretionary disclosure of the deliberative material is not in the public interest because foreseeable harm could result from such disclosure." In other words, YOUR public servants justify that they are allowed to carry on in secrecy with a private company that wants to use the DOE's federal authority to take your property for its own private profit. Any affected landowner who tries to get information is punished with unreasonable fees to discourage further prying. Isn't the DOE taking enough from Original poster's name without this added insult? Better believe the founding fathers are spinning!

Original Poster: Yes it was about a dozen pages. Some of the pages were nearly blank. Just copies of emails. Most of them containing one or two sentences. No, I did not receive an invoice or receipt.

Yikes... 


Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Maps

Tell me again how we need to do our part for the public good...

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.