StopPATH WV Blog

Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes - #3 People Love Transmission for Renewables

4/17/2018

Starting a company based on a public opinion survey of 1,239 adults -- who does that?

At the American Wind Energy Association's big convention in the spring of 2009, a couple of guys from a "consulting" firm made a presentation of the results of a survey it conducted of a "demographically representative sample of 1,239 American adults (18+) based on U.S. Census data for age, ethnicity, gender, region and income." The survey determined, "A majority of Americans oppose new high-voltage transmission lines in their community, but that opposition drops precipitously to 17% if those lines are delivering clean, renewable energy from wind. Support for new transmission lines leaps from just 46% to 83% when respondents are asked specifically about high-voltage transmission lines delivering wind power." It must have been one hell of a presentation.

Now I can't say for certain whether Michael Skelly personally flew into WindPower 2009 (or maybe he took a train, I'm sure he doesn't remember), or whether he attended this amazing presentation. But it is certain that later that same year Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC, registered its business in several states. Clean Line's business was to "develop" transmission lines delivering wind power across private property in multiple states. Did Michael Skelly actually develop a business plan based on a public opinion survey of 1,239 people? Maybe some day a reporter will ask him that question.

More than $200M has been wagered on this public opinion survey of 1,239 people. Maybe Clean Line told its investors...

...the new results are a clear sign that Americans support cleaner, renewable power and that it has carried over to the distribution of that power through their own backyard.

High-voltage transmission lines generate some of the most adamant NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) opposition in the country. That such a large percentage of people are willing to allow green lines in their community says a lot about the awareness and importance of renewable energy and climate change issues in addition to the education efforts undertaken by the renewable energy industry.

It sure looks like Clean Line believed it. They actually thought impacted landowners would love them and jump at their "market-leading compensation package." How many bottles of expensive scotch did it take for some out-of-work wind farm executives to meld the royalties paid to wind farm hosts with the market value compensation paid for right-of-way taken through eminent domain, and call their bastard child a "market-leading compensation package." What market? There's no "market" for transmission rights-of-way. Rights-of-way are taken when not offered willingly. That's not a "market." Leave it to Clean Line to "lead" a "market" that doesn't exist.

Was that survey really supposed to be taken literally to mean that landowners would jump at a chance to have a renewable energy transmission line in their own backyard? I'm thinking not. A less myopic view of the survey/presentation says the point being made here was not that landowners would support renewable transmission lines, but highlighted the "awareness and importance of renewable energy and climate change issues in addition to the education efforts undertaken by the renewable energy industry." This was more about the wind energy industry congratulating itself on the greenwashing of America, and making renewable energy the darling of political dreams. It wasn't really about renewable energy at all, but the mere idea of it used to score political brownie points. People love the idea of renewable energy!

Well, until it shows up in their own backyard. And then they hate it. And they really hate it when eminent domain becomes a tool to advance renewable energy.

Just a week after the press party on the release of its amazing survey, even the presenters backtracked to say that their survey wasn't to be taken literally.

Polling indicates the public’s feelings about a number of various topics on any given day. But it can also be misleading if viewed out of context — especially when it comes to land use issues.

How is it, for example, that most Americans support wind energy in general, but emotive opponents can block transmission lines delivery wind energy or wind farms in some local communities?

So, the jury’s in, right? Everyone loves renewable energy projects. But wait.

But the emotional opposition appears to fly in the face of surveys and polls showing national support for clean energy generation and transmission. What’s going on? Do these polls and surveys lack credibility? No. In fact, they are spot-on in terms of reflecting how Americans feel about renewable generation and distribution projects and how they may positively impact our communities given the perceived global threats of climate change, greenhouse gases and negative impact to wildlife over time. Today, based on a solid campaign by climate change advocates, the renewable energy industry, the current Obama administration and constant media pounding, the threat to our economy and the environment posed by carbon-emitting generation sources is very real and frankly easy to grasp. The arguments have been made and, let’s face it, many Americans are buying in.

But it’s easy to support a wind energy project without a real wind turbine or transmission line literally staring you in the face. That’s where rational thinking ends and passionate “defense of the community” (or defense of the children for that matter) campaigns begin.

...shop for a home in a community of interest and share the rumor of a new 765 kV transmission line going across the property down the road, in front of the view of the mountain range. What’s the survey say then? Chances are you may not find majority support, even from residents who responded in the poll you fielded yesterday.

Perhaps at best, polling identifies the size of the silent majority you have on your side when they are under no local threat of changing their daily lives. Winning hearts and minds in a poll won’t necessarily win you a permit at town hall.

Renewable energy is great in our public opinion, just not when it gets in the way of our personal point of view.

Too bad Clean Line didn't seem to get that memo.

What a colossal mistake. With more than 2,000 miles of new electric transmission "under development" Clean Line invaded the personal spaces of thousands of affected landowners. And then they used the threat of eminent domain in an attempt to coerce landowners to agree to make a willing sacrifice in the name of "renewable energy" (and investor profit). It ticked off "a bunch of farmers." "A bunch of farmers" aka "some landowners" are the biggest reason Clean Line failed. Without their fierce opposition, determination, and hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own personal funds, Clean Line could be fully permitted. But it's not.

Lesson: Never tick off a farmer.

Secondary Lesson: Public opinion surveys are notoriously wrong. Just ask Hillary Clinton...

0 Comments

Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes - #4 Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005

4/13/2018

2 Comments

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was created by the National Energy Policy Development Group, aka "Cheney's Secret Energy Task Force." Without getting all political here, this government group met with industry bigwigs to create new energy policy that helped the industry make money.

This group's "report" recommended that Congress:

Grant authority to obtain rights-of way for electricity transmission lines with the goal of creating a reliable national transmission grid. Similar authority already exists for natural gas pipelines and highways.

That didn't fly with Congress, who were protective of state rights to site and permit new electric transmission. So the lobbyists came up with what they thought were several "work around" provisions on the Act that would allow the federal government to step in when states resisted new transmission.

One was Section 1221 of the EPAct, which allowed FERC to site and permit transmission if a state withheld approval for more than one year. It also authorized the Department of Energy to do transmission congestion studies and designate "National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors" to facilitate a federal role in permitting and siting new transmission. Several federal court battles later, Section 1221 ended up completely useless to the industry. But yet the federal government is still required to waste our tax money on triennial "congestion studies" that do absolutely nothing.

Another work around was Section 1222 of the EPAct. This section allows two federal power marketers (WAPA & SWPA) to accept and use third-party, private money, to build new transmission. It grants authority to the Secretary of Energy to decide whether the power marketers may "participate" in new transmission projects. On its face, it appears that the purpose of this section was to allow the feds to use private money to build new transmission, instead of taxpayer funds (although those funds are paid back by the PMAs). Most importantly, it allowed private investors to front up money and get their finger in the federal transmission pie in exchange for generous returns, which increases costs to consumers. It was an unnecessary way for industry to increase their profits, which pretty much sums up the entire purpose for the Energy Policy Act.

The industry focused all its greedy energy on Section 1221 for many years, and Section 1222 sat around untested. But with the ultimate legal failure of Section 1221, the DOE decided to begin testing Section 1222. And wouldn't you know it, one of the federal DOE employees who had a hand in the Energy Policy Act had subsequently left the department and invested in a transmission scheme that could serve as the test case for Section 1222 authority. That scheme was Clean Line Energy Partners, who wanted to build more than 2,000 miles of new transmission crossing some of the federal power marketing territory covered by Section 1222.

Early in its history, Clean Line was the first (and only) company to apply for Section 1222 authority under a conveniently issued DOE Request for Proposals. Perhaps Clean Line expected "fly over" states that would receive no benefits from its proposed projects to reject them. Or maybe Clean Line was just too eager to use Section 1222 authority. We may never know what actually took place behind closed doors. But we do know that Clean Line applied for Section 1222 well before its projects were rejected by any state public utility commission.

The first rejection came from Arkansas in 2011, who said it did not have authority to approve the project because it did not intend to serve any customers in that state. The obvious remedy for that was creation of an interconnection in Arkansas and re-application at the Arkansas PSC. But that's not what Clean Line did. Instead, it waved around its rejection and doubled down on acquiring Section 1222 authority from the DOE. It's almost like Clean Line wanted that rejection to use as a tool in its Section 1222 application, because the company did quickly add an Arkansas connection to its Plains & Eastern project. However, Clean Line never re-applied at the Arkansas PSC and instead concentrated its money and energy on a Section 1222 designation. How much differently would Plains & Eastern have turned out if Clean Line had re-applied instead of setting its sights on the long and expensive Section 1222 process?

Section 1222 cost Clean Line millions. Like double digit millions. It also cost them multiple years, because the wheels in Washington turn with excruciating slowness. But Clean Line was so intent on using the Section 1222 toy that they eschewed the quicker, cheaper, more obvious solution right in front of them. I believe that was a huge mistake.

Section 1222 required a hugely expensive multi-year federal Environmental Impact Statement process, paid for by Clean Line. And then the DOE needed to make up some other reviews before coming to its foregone conclusion that it would "participate" in the project for the express purpose of using the condemnation powers of the federal government to acquire new transmission rights-of-way for its project. Federal eminent domain is not mentioned in Section 1222, and furthermore, DOE never did a proper rulemaking to regulate its use of Section 1222. A rulemaking is necessary for a government agency to make use of a statute. The law merely states what can happen, not specifically how the agency can get there. An agency must review the law and then make sure that it designs a regulatory process that carries out the law while maintaining a fair process that protects other rights. A rulemaking process is public, and all may participate to make sure the agency gets its rules right. But DOE didn't waste its time with a rulemaking. Instead, it made up its rules as it went through the process. This provided no consideration for the due process rights of affected landowners, nor any fairness in the process. Rules were made up to suit the conclusion DOE and Clean Line wanted. What a horror show!

Surprise, surprise, the Secretary of Energy decided to participate in the Plains & Eastern project 6 years after the initial RFP was issued. Clean Line got what it wanted, but it cost them dearly. Not only was it a huge money suck for investor funds, but it came with conditions that must be satisfied before the DOE would take any action to condemn properties. One of the conditions required Clean Line to have hard contracts with customers before proceeding. Of course, that condition would have asserted itself even without the requirement of the DOE because as a merchant project, Clean Line must secure a revenue stream before it can finance the construction of its project. No bank is going to loan money to a company to build something that produces no revenue with which to repay the loan. But there was a timing issue here... DOE required a revenue stream before it took action to condemn land, to make sure the project was commercially viable before it paved a road to nowhere. Why condemn land for a transmission project that won't be built? Why spend the time and money before a project is viable?

That ended up being Clean Line's albatross... build it and they will come doesn't work if you can't build it in the first place. Need (and revenue) must come before a transmission project is built, and without need and revenue there's no point in dumping money into an idea that may or may not happen. Clean Line never had a viable idea in the first place, but somehow the company managed to sucker a bunch of investors into pouring money into its harebrained scheme.

With its 1222 authorization in hand, Clean Line redoubled its efforts to find customers. Proof that the project was "approved" and would be built failed to convince anyone that the project was viable. At this point, Clean Line was trying to convince a bunch of experienced and knowledgeable utility companies to put the cart before the horse, instead of a bunch of rube investors who didn't understand electric transmission. Utilities weren't buying Clean Line's rainbow farts about how wonderful service on a Clean Line would be.

And after two years of efforts that yielded no results, the DOE finally bowed out. The Section 1222 experiment had failed.

And how lucky are the DOE and Clean Line that they ended this farce before the legal process examining this partnership from hell had barely even begun? Thinking that the first court decision on the legality of Section 1222 prevented future challenge is a fool's paradise. Any faith in the decision of the U.S. District Court in Arkansas should be dashed once the decision is read. It's crap! I've read a whole bunch of court opinions over the years and this one had to be the worst. None of the conclusions were supported by evidence or law -- it's just like the judge made his decisions unconnected to any reality. Chances of that decision standing upon further judicial review? Slim to none.

Clean Line reached a fork in the road early in its saga -- to take the long and winding Section 1222 path that must surely have a pot of gold and cover multiple states; or to take the obvious and well worn path to the Arkansas PSC which dead ends there.

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

It sure has. Nice work, knuckleheads!

2 Comments

Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes - #5 Open Houses

4/9/2018

2 Comments

Where were we when we were so rudely interrupted by Clean Line's failure? Back to the countdown with Clean Line Mistake #5 - Open Houses.

Transmission line siting "Open Houses" are a mistake for any transmission line company, so Clean Line isn't alone here. Their mistake was trying to mimic real transmission line companies in their public presentation, and then dialing up the hubris and deception to maximum levels.

Is there a "good" way to present a transmission line proposal to the public? Not if you're approaching the communities with a fully-formed idea of what you're going to build and where you're going to put it. The only good way to involve a community in a transmission proposal is to approach them with a need before making decisions about what to build and where. Presenting a community with a problem to be solved and allowing meaningful input into the solution selected is the only way a transmission company can get community buy-in and support for the proposal. Everything else is nothing more than a battle to push a bad idea the community doesn't want off onto someone else. And frankly, transmission folks, pitting neighbor against neighbor in a siting battle is becoming increasingly hard to pull off. You see, people realize that fighting each other only distracts from fighting the real enemy... YOU! Communities are increasingly coming together to fight transmission proposals altogether and refusing to participate in your siting game. So, whether it's the fiction of "Open Houses" or the even more contentious "town hall" style meetings, where every member of the audience hears every comment and response of the company sitting in the hot seat, a fully formed transmission proposal will inspire entrenched and stubborn opposition.

"Open Houses" are supposed to diffuse the charged, torches-n-pitchforks atmosphere that comes with a handful of company representatives vs. a room full of Mayberrians by separating the crowd to present a more "one on one" presentation that humanizes the presenters. Its as if the transmission company believes that by separating attendees into small groups and shuttling them around to different stations that the community can never form the mass that derails transmission proposals. Transmission "Open Houses" are fertile breeding grounds for the formation of opposition. Members of the community who may have never met before are gathered together for this glorious meet and greet and are free to form their own little discussion groups, whether inside the venue or outside on the sidewalks and in the parking lots. Contact info. is exchanged, and rough plans for community action against the project are discussed. It's a certainty that these folks will meet again, sooner rather than later. Opposition is born! After that first "Open House" it's easy for opponents to attend subsequent ones and gather new opponents to their group. It's also possible for transmission opponents from a different project to show up at that first "Open House" and begin the organizing process for a new group. Knowledgeable opponents are much more appealing to community members and they provide the key ingredient needed for successful opposition -- hope!

Clean Line got away with very few "Open Houses" that didn't attract traveling opponents from other projects. As this article notes, Susan Sack from Northern Illinois traveled to Southern Illinois to gather petition signatures and sow seeds of hope for communities devastated by Clean Line's Grain Belt Express proposal. And this wasn't Sack's first traveling road show! Opposition groups from numerous communities affected by Clean Line proposals joined forces to fight the company on all fronts.

Stuffed shirt transmission employees posing as "engineers" bearing food and cheap trinkets just didn't appeal to the communities when they were making claims that just didn't add up or make sense. The only ones who seemed to benefit from that were the affected feline population.

"One landowner came with a plastic sack and took about a two-inch width of slices of ham. I looked at him and he said, 'I've got cats,'" Nelson said. "Everybody else was saying, 'We might as well eat. That might be all we get.'

That might be all they did get, because they certainly didn't get a transmission line in the ham-bribed community.

Clean Line is dead.

2 Comments

When's The Sale Going To Happen, Clean Line?

4/4/2018

5 Comments

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop, Mr. Kottler?

He obviously didn't get to the center of whatever it was that he was smacking on before the end of his radio interview. The world may never know.

Clean Line and its grandstanding "attorney" have made an absolute media circus out of what was supposed to be a respectful, serious, court proceeding. And you know what happens when the circus comes to town... there will be clowns.

Like these two clowns. I'm not sure which one is funnier... the wide-eyed, breathless twit of a reporter, or the condescending anchorwoman. Neither one of these clowns has the first clue what their story is really about, or even who the characters in their story actually are.

Or maybe this clown, who "...said the company could purchase something like a transmission line or substation in Illinois and reapply for approval."

Do they have those for sale on e-bay? Where do they sell "something like" a transmission line or a substation? Here ya go, Waldo... think this will work?

Don't waste your time on the clowns, but check out what Mr. Smacky Smackerson had to say on "Houston Matters" (and you don't). I'm really sorry that you'll have to listen to the whole thing to get to the good parts. Like where he says that if Clean Line gets a "favorable outcome" in Missouri that they will build the project from Kansas to Missouri and potentially on into Illinois and Indiana. Or potentially there's a way for Kansas to benefit from the project if they only build in Kansas.

So, wait a tick, you're trying to get an HVDC project from Kansas to Indiana approved, but then you're going to build something else entirely? And you think that would automatically be approved? Where are the customers, Clean Line? You're not going to be building anything without any customers!

Or maybe you're just trying to sell the Kansas portion of GBE to some silly rube like NextEra? Got a buyer in mind? Is this why there's a media circus? Or is it just required to stroke Nixon's ego? Or both? Whatever you're up to, what you're actually saying makes no sense and can never happen. You're never going to build Grain Belt Express, so I will assume you're hoping for a buyer who wants to use it for something else, and is fooled by your media circus.

I gotta ask, was it crowded in the studio with that elephant in there with you? When you said you were "a developer at heart" and that you would find a way to make it work I thought that elephant was going to crush you. But when you said Clean Line would find ways to make sure all communities that host the project would get benefits, I surely felt the rumble of an impending elephant stampede.

Why are you even at the Missouri Supreme Court, Clean Line? Is it because the counties wouldn't give you assent to cross their roadways under Sec. 229.100? That is the ONLY reason you're at the Missouri Supreme Court! Wouldn't it have been faster (and a hell of a lot cheaper) to actually make sure the communities hosting your project felt they were receiving some benefit before assenting? Why did you take this long, winding, expensive, risky road through the courts instead of trying to work things out with the counties? After all, with county assent the PSC would have approved your project. You would have no reason to be in court. You would not have any reason to try to slice and dice Missouri law and split hairs. So, when you said Clean Line will do whatever it takes to make their project something the communities feel benefits them, I guess you weren't talking about Missouri counties? Why don't the communities deserve benefits? You don't walk your talk.

So, what makes Clean Line think that even if it prevails at the Supreme Court, that the counties will suddenly change their minds, recognize benefits, and provide their assent? They're not, of course. The counties are standing firm and there's nothing you can do about Section 229.100. That's not even part of your court case.

There's no reason for the media circus, unless it's simply to produce choking clouds of smoke that may blind a potential buyer.

When's the sale of Grain Belt Express going to happen?

5 Comments

First in Failure!

4/2/2018

1 Comment

Oh, so your merchant generation affiliate went bankrupt, First Energy?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa!

1 Comment

Clean Line's April Fools' Prank

4/2/2018

2 Comments

Pretending Jay Nixon and the Missouri Supreme Court matter to Clean Line is a prank, right? This article is just an elaborate hoax. It has to be. Anyone who would believe it is a fool.

Any decision from the Missouri Supreme Court won't make a damned bit of difference for Clean Line. It's not about whether or not Clean Line must get approval by local county governments, but when. Even if the Supreme Court rules that the PSC can issue a conditional permit to Grain Belt Express prior to county assent, GBE must still acquire county assent before its permit is valid. Section 229.100 of Missouri code requires:

No person or persons, association, companies or corporations shall erect poles for the suspension of electric light, or power wires, or lay and maintain pipes, conductors, mains and conduits for any purpose whatever, through, on, under or across the public roads or highways of any county of this state, without first having obtained the assent of the county commission of such county therefor

This statute is not a part of the current case before the Supreme Court. As well, it's a perfectly clear statute that a court would have a very hard time trying to interpret to mean a company like GBE doesn't need county assent.

Even if the Supreme Court finds for Clean Line, the company must STILL acquire county assent.

And then there's the issue of Illinois. Grain Belt Express doesn't have a permit in Illinois. It can't be built without a permit in Illinois.

Why are they even bothering at this point? Must be an April Fools' joke.

2 Comments

Transource Economic Impact Study Flops

3/30/2018

4 Comments

What do you call an "economic impact study" for a transmission line that doesn't impress anyone?

FAILURE!

Worse yet, Transource wasted OUR money on this biased trash.

Who was this study supposed to impress? Local economic development folks, county government, maybe the state regulators?

Transource spokeswoman Abby Foster said "...the study was requested by Transource to provide the community answers for the benefit related to the company’s role in this project. If the study is requested by the PUC, Transource will provide it."

The community wasn't impressed with Transource's "answers" to a question that hasn't been asked.

Nobody's been asking about these trumped up "benefits." Instead they want to know about the electric bill savings Transource insists they're going to get. With more than 80% of the economic benefits going to the Washington, D.C. and Baltimore areas, there's not much left to go around "the community." How much exactly will each individual landowner in Franklin or York county receive in electric bill savings to balance out the huge sacrifice Transource proposes they make with their land, their heritage, their productivity, their financial security, their peace of mind?

Transource's economic impact study is not balanced. While it makes grandiose claims of jobs, tax payments, and economic riches, it recognizes absolutely no detriments that will come with the project. Land devalued by the transmission project will result in a decreased tax burden for the landowner (because, hey, landowners, Transource only wants an easement across your land, you still pay all the taxes for the land Transource uses!). Where is the lowered tax revenue produced by lower assessed values added into Transource's economic study to balance against the unsubstantiated claims of increased tax revenue? It's not! Soil compaction and construction work can impact crops for years to come. Less revenue from crops, less money the farmer has to spread around hiring help, purchasing new equipment, and spending in his own community. Where is this decreased local spending and fewer jobs added to the study to balance against Transource's claims of new jobs and local spending? It's not. Transource's economic impact study is a one-sided picture of how things could be if the detrimental economic impacts of the transmission line on the community were not considered. It's complete and utter crap.

Transource's press release said...

An independent economic impact analysis projects the Pennsylvania and Maryland counties involved in the Transource Independence Energy Connection (IEC) project will benefit from construction of the estimated $230 million project.

Independent? Hahaha ha ha. Surely you jest, Transource. There's nothing "independent" in a "study" you bought and paid for (with my money, I might add). You hired a company to produce a study that only included economic "benefits" without any of the known and substantial economic detriments. You're absurd!

If you can find the actual study, you can be informed that Brattle created it using IMPLAN software. What's IMPLAN?

NOW ANYONE CAN CALCULATE ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Oh, I get it now. Even a monkey could plug some numbers into your software and it would calculate some pre-programmed amount of "benefits." Like Brattle says, "The model estimates the direct, indirect and induced economic stimulus benefits associated with the planned transmission lines." Benefits, only benefits. This is garbage.

Since it has completely failed to convince the communities of anything, I guess Transource plans to use it on regulators. Except the regulators are looking for an actual need to construct the project. I mean a real need, not some made up "benefits" that the community doesn't "need." Do we build transmission because a community needs a certain number of jobs or a certain amount of tax revenue? No, we only build transmission when there is an electrical NEED for the project. Jobs and tax revenue don't create NEED for a transmission project.

Maybe there really wasn't a NEED for this economic impact study. But how else was Transource going to create a set-up to trot out the union guys? The union guys show up on every transmission project. They are a transmission company's "go to" to create false advocacy for a project. What occurred behind the scenes that suddenly inspired union guys to make videos shilling for this transmission project? Was there a project labor agreement? Did the union guys get some contract perk in exchange for their support? If not, they should. Other union guys have gotten these things in the past in exchange for their advocacy for a transmission project. Don't sell yourself short, union guys. You can make AEP pay dearly for your support.

Not that it does much good either. Because a short-term job for a union guy also isn't a need to build a transmission project. Are we supposed to build things we don't need just to create jobs? I admire people who work hard for a decent living, and I support union workers who band together to demand better working conditions from giant corporations. But this -- selling yourself out to support a giant corporation intent on destroying your neighbors and your community? Doesn't that go against everything you fight for on a daily basis?

And the sad part is that Transource will use one of a handful of specialized transmission construction contractors in the U.S. These construction companies have their own workers who will be imported to your community to fill the jobs that are created. Now maybe these workers are union, but does it provide local union guys with a job? Nope.

And one final word about all the "tax revenue" this project will supposedly create. Not that I believe your numbers at all, Transource, but who ultimately pays your taxes for you? I do. Every electric ratepayer who will get a bill for the cost of this project pays a share of any local "taxes" you pay. So it's not like you're actually paying the counties anything, you're merely proposing to redistribute the wealth of others.

Maybe this kind of idiocy works on other communities, but it doesn't work on the Transource Independence Energy Connection.

Quit wasting my money, Transource!

4 Comments

Clean up your mess, Clean Line!

3/29/2018

4 Comments

Three cheers for idiot savant journalism! Windpower Monthly not only found where Michael Skelly has been hiding from the media, it also managed to leak a lot of important clues, albeit all mixed up in assumption, lies, and poor writing skills. At first glance you may think Michael Skelly is just plain old insane, but I don't think so. Not completely.

"For the time being, the project is on hold," confirmed Mike Skelly, president of Clean Line.

"I think it’s a wait for the market to come our way," Skelly said. "I think that over time, the south-east utilities will want more renewables; they’re just not there yet."

-On hold? Whaddya mean "on hold?" You cannot build the project you currently own. EVER. It's not a project anymore. It doesn't connect with any generators, and it doesn't connect with any customers. Clean Line failed because it couldn't find any customers. Nearly 10 years ago, perhaps it looked like states and the feds were going to enact a bunch of laws mandating clean energy, essentially forcing the "south-east utilities" (sic) to purchase renewables. There's no "want" here. A utility "wants" to do whatever makes them the most money. Clean Line never provided added value or revenue for utilities. In fact, it attempted to secure its own profit by taking profit away from the incumbent utilities it expected would purchase Clean Line's transmission capacity. D'oh, Michael Skelly! I hope AEP has made it quite clear to you over the past year why your transmission plans failed and why you couldn't find any customers. Utilities want to own the infrastructure themselves because it creates a positive, guaranteed revenue stream. Clean Line hoped to develop a rich revenue stream of its own by selling capacity on a transmission line it owned, right? It's really no different for big utilities. Why would they pay Clean Line a big profit when they could build their own transmission line and keep all the profits for themselves?

Enter Wind Catcher. AEP contracted with Invenergy to build a ginormous wind farm in Oklahoma that AEP plans to purchase upon completion (and regulatory approval). AEP also wants to own and build the transmission line necessary to connect its wind farm with customers in 4 states. Turns out that when big utilities "want" to purchase more renewables they are perfectly capable of building their own generators and transmission lines. There's no room for greedy speculators like Clean Line. Think about this:

The Oklahoma portion of the line, bought by NextEra Energy in December, is still a long-term development opportunity, a spokesman for the utility said. It would be premature to comment on whether Clean Line’s move will affect NextEra’s segment, he added. But it is hard to see how it could not.

NextEra owns 1.7 GW of operating wind capacity in Oklahoma, with more in the pipeline. There may be an opportunity to bring solar energy, in addition to wind, from western Oklahoma to load centres in the east of the state, the spokesman said. American Electric Power’s 2GW Wind Catcher project, due online in 2020 in the Oklahoma Panhandle, "may be more cost-effective if it utilised the transmission corridor we acquired from Clean Line", he added.

Currently, Wind Catcher includes its own 765kV power line to a substation near Tulsa, eastern Oklahoma. Development of the 580km route began in summer 2017.

Oh, NextEra is still trying to peddle Clean Line to AEP? And I suppose if AEP bought it, that NextEra would also like to sell AEP a ginormous wind farm? Sounds like NextEra wants to make its own profits here. Do you suppose if AEP made a deal with NextEra that nobody would want to protect their pocketbooks any longer? Or would public interest groups still be telling regulators to protect our pocketbooks, like they did in Florida recently when NextEra subsidiary Florida Power & Light was pushing to have a new gas plant approved? At least the Sierra Club manned up and admitted it was behind that opposition.

So, now that the Plains & Eastern Clean Line is no longer a thing, landowners who may have signed easement option agreements want to know... what happens to my land now? Here's what Michael Skelly says:

He said the line would not be rerouted around Arkansas, where it has been most controversial.

Clean Line had hoped to start construction this year, with completion in 2021. The project has been fully permitted since April 2016. In Arkansas, 50% of the land rights have already been purchased, although Clean Line is now no longer pursuing land rights in the state, said Skelly.

First of all, the project is no longer approved in Arkansas. And I truly wonder whether it's approved in Oklahoma any longer. The project Clean Line applied for and had permitted by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission is vastly different than the one now owned by NextEra. We can start with the owner -- completely different. Does NextEra have the financial and technical know-how to build a transmission project? How many other merchant transmission projects does NextEra own? Is NextEra's project still a merchant project? Is it still a line that will export out of Oklahoma to serve customers in other states? Or will it now serve customers in state? Does NextEra have negotiated rate authority? These are probably all very good questions to ask the jurisdictional regulators, if you signed with Clean Line and feel like you're now in limbo.

Limbo? That probably accurately describes the situation for landowners who signed a right of way option agreement with Clean Line. The option agreement presented to the DOE by Clean Line (however, your particular agreement may be different and is binding as written) calls for a down payment of 30% of the agreed upon price, with the balance due on "the date construction crews access the property to install structures or wires." So, landowners who signed may have received 30% of the agreed upon price. The balance may be paid when construction begins. If NextEra and Clean Line have no idea when or if construction will ever start, then the balance due payment could be stretched out over a number of years, or possibly never happen. However, the option agreement states that this construction deadline may be extended by the payment of "extension payments." Extension payments are scheduled to be made in December 2017 and December 2018 and should be 10% of the purchase price each time. In addition, the balance due deadline could be extended for two additional one-year periods (2019 & 2020) by payment of additional extension payments. If the extension payments are not made, "Landowner acknowledges and agrees that Plains and Eastern is under no obligation to pay the Balance Due portion of the Total Easement Consideration and that if Plains and Eastern fails to do so on or before the Easement Compensation Deadline, subject to the cure provision in the Easement Agreement, the Easement Agreement shall terminate. Upon such a termination, Landowner shall retain the Initial Payment and any Extension Payment (if applicable), and Plains and Eastern shall have no further obligation or other liability to Landowner." So, landowners, were extension payments made timely in accordance with the particular agreement you signed? If not, the agreement is terminated. However, Clean Line has no further obligation to you. They may have already filed this agreement that gives them an interest in your land. Whether or not they make the extension payments or the lease terminates, your county land records probably don't reflect this. The company would have to file a release to completely remove this cloud on your title. It's probably time to get yourself a lawyer with all the money Clean Line paid you for signing this agreement.

Michael Skelly says the Arkansas portion is on hold, or on a slower track. He says he's no longer pursuing land rights. Will he continue to make the extension payments? Or will he let these signed agreements lapse? And if he does let them lapse by failing to make the payments, will he file a release in the land records of your county? Or will title to your property continue to show an easement owned by Clean Line that was never fully paid for?

And what about NextEra? If your easement option agreement is assignable, it means that NextEra now owns an easement on your property. Is NextEra making the scheduled extension payments? Or is NextEra allowing the agreements to lapse? If NextEra doesn't make scheduled payments, will it file a release?

It's tricky. Landowners are legally held in limbo and may never receive full value for the easement they agreed to sell, but nevertheless the easement shows in the ownership records for their particular piece of property.

This is why it's never a good idea to sign an easement option agreement without the advice of your own attorney, and never before a project is actually under construction.

Is Clean Line really expecting to build a project in Arkansas, where it is not approved or permitted, and doesn't connect with anything, or is the simple pretension of building the project just a way to avoid having to file a release on hundreds of properties. And how self-centered would that be anyhow? Although Clean Line doesn't have a real plan, it refuses to release Arkansans from these easement option agreements? Is Clean Line just going to sit in its offices and do nothing until the political situation changes and maybe utilities will be forced to purchase renewables? That's never going to happen. AEP has demonstrated how that scenario might proceed -- utilities will build and own their own renewables and transmission projects in order to increase their revenues. They're not going to purchase renewables and transmission from some third party who wants all the revenue that comes from owning infrastructure projects.

Clean Line's idea for merchant transmission for renewables is dead. Now they need to man up and clean up the mess they've made.

4 Comments

How Do You Go Slower Than Dead Stop?

3/26/2018

2 Comments

Your statements to the media about the dead Plains & Eastern project have me questioning your sanity, Clean Line. There's no way to go slower than dead stop. Your project is over (and I believe your company is over as a whole) and denying reality isn't going to bring it back.

Clean Line spokeswoman Sarah Bray isn't even a Clean Line employee any longer. It looks like she's got her own consulting company now. That's an inventive way to cut company overhead... get rid of people and then hire them back as "consultants" so you don't have to give them benefits and can just pay them for assorted projects now and then. Such as telling the media stuff like this:

“The project is not dead, but is on a much slower track,” Clean Line Energy spokeswoman Sarah Bray said in an email.

You mean the side track to the dump? That slower track? Because this project just doesn't exist anymore. Let's examine...

The Plains & Eastern Clean Line was supposed to be a 700+ mile transmission project for the purpose of connecting not-yet-built wind generators in western Oklahoma to the TVA system in Memphis, Tennessee. Last year, Clean Line sold all its Oklahoma assets to NextEra. That would include any regulatory permits, project engineering, and right of way option agreements with landowners. So everything in Oklahoma is gone. No longer under Clean Line's control and not for its use. The generators Clean Line was going to connect to were all in Oklahoma. There's nothing to transmit, unless Clean Line customers buy power from some other entity and take delivery in Arkansas.

What does Clean Line still own? The Arkansas and Tennessee assets. There is no regulatory approval in Arkansas. The only thing Clean Line owns in that state is any project engineering and a handful of right of way option agreements with landowners. In Tennessee, Clean Line owns a regulatory approval from the state based on its former project, including the Oklahoma assets. It also owns a handful of right of way agreements with landowners and any project engineering.

Clean Line also owns negotiated rate authority granted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, again based on its former project that included the Oklahoma assets.

What can Clean Line do with the assets it owns? Pretty much nothing. They're not worth anything. Clean Line no longer has queue positions to connect a transmission line in Arkansas or Tennessee. It owns a plan for a transmission line that no longer exists. Is Clean Line going to build a transmission line that doesn't connect with any generators in Arkansas and then not connect it with any customers in Tennessee? And customers are supposed to voluntarily step up and sign contracts for transmission capacity on this power line to nowhere?

Of course not! Clean Line couldn't even attract any customers when it actually owned the entire project plan. Now it doesn't even own a complete plan. And without the U.S. DOE trying to assert its authority in Arkansas, Clean Line no longer has any regulatory assets in the state. Could Clean Line apply for a permit to build a transmission across the state that doesn't connect with anything? Sure, they can apply. But they're not likely to get anywhere since Arkansas enacted Act 842 in 2015.

(b) The commission shall not issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity to any person or corporation that:
(1) Is not a public utility; (2) Primarily transmits electricity; and
(3) Has not been directed or designated to construct an electric transmission facility from a regional transmission organization.

Only someone not connected with reality would attempt to apply for a merchant transmission permit in Arkansas. Maybe someone whose sanity might be slipping.

Perhaps telling the media that the project is not dead and merely on a "slower track" fooled a few reporters who don't know what's going on. But even Utility Dive (often not the brightest bulb in the transmission reporting string) smells something disingenuous in Clean Line's claims.

Is Clean Line Energy still developing the Plains & Eastern Clean Line transmission project? The company says yes, despite the fact that selling the Oklahoma assets and ending its plan to build in Arkansas means the Tennessee portion of the line appears to be all that remains on the drawing board.

The Plains & Eastern Clean Line had been under development in Oklahoma for eight years when Clean Line sold it to NextEra. The company said the project has gone through an environmental review with "substantial stakeholder input" and received the regulatory approvals and major environmental permits necessary for construction, but it's unclear how it will move forward without the DOE support.

That environmental review and "substantial stakeholder input" as well as the "major environmental permits necessary for construction" were all part and parcel of the DOE's participation in the project. Those things went through the shredder on Friday. They no longer exist.

Clean Line's choo-choo

Where are you Michael Skelly? Why are you hiding from the media? And where's Mario Harturdo, the Plains & Eastern huckster? Looks like he's now "self-employed" as well. The circus is over. Get outta town.

2 Comments

Hey, ERCOT, There's a New Kid in Town

3/26/2018

2 Comments

Now I've officially seen everything.

A private "consulting" firm from California has concocted a "report" about its modeling of the ERCOT system.

Why? Why do ERCOT stakeholders need a separate report funded by private interests? Why isn't ERCOT's work sufficient for stakeholders?

ERCOT is an independent body whose whole business is modeling its own system.

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) manages the flow of electric power to 24 million Texas customers -- representing about 90 percent of the state’s electric load. As the independent system operator for the region, ERCOT schedules power on an electric grid that connects more than 46,500 miles of transmission lines and 570+ generation units. It also performs financial settlement for the competitive wholesale bulk-power market and administers retail switching for 7 million premises in competitive choice areas. ERCOT is a membership-based 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation, governed by a board of directors and subject to oversight by the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Texas Legislature. Its members include consumers, cooperatives, generators, power marketers, retail electric providers, investor-owned electric utilities, transmission and distribution providers and municipally owned electric utilities.

But yet someone contracted this "consultant" to model ERCOT's system and possibly come up with different results.

The company has been modeling energy systems “for more than 30 years and continuously sustains the most up-to-date information on every detail of the Texas grid including minor and major transmission upgrades as well as generation additions and retirement,” the company said upon announcing the report, which looks to new import and export capabilities that are on the way for ERCOT, including the integration of Lubbock Power & Light and the possible Southern Cross transmission project.

Oh, right, Southern Cross and Lubbock Power and Light. Shall we continue the search for the parties financially responsible for this "report"?

The time when an independent system operator needs "reports" from market participants to override its own reports and planning is the time when there's no point in even having independent system operators.

It's a bit presumptuous for a consulting firm in California to purport that it can do better modeling of the ISO's system than the ISO, don't you think? What's the intent here? Is the Public Utility Commission of Texas supposed to toss out any information from ERCOT and instead use a "report" created by a private party? That's absurd.

Chuck this "report" in the trash.

2 Comments

<<Previous

Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes - #3 People Love Transmission for Renewables

Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes - #4 Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005

Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes - #5 Open Houses

When's The Sale Going To Happen, Clean Line?

First in Failure!

Clean Line's April Fools' Prank

Transource Economic Impact Study Flops

Clean up your mess, Clean Line!

How Do You Go Slower Than Dead Stop?

Hey, ERCOT, There's a New Kid in Town

About the Author

About
StopPATH Blog

Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
Email me

Archives

Categories

About the Author

AboutStopPATH Blog

Archives

Categories

About
StopPATH Blog