The public relations firm WestRogers sent out an e-mail blast on March 25 with a press release touting a federal decision that appears to clear the way for a $2.5 billion transmission line that would bring wind power from Oklahoma, through Arkansas and southwestern Tipton County, and into Shelby County.

This Grass Looks Real

In grassroots organizing you drum up broad-based support for your issue.  A grasstops effort is more narrow, focusing on business, community or government leaders.  But what if you could create the appearance of citizen interest and get decision-makers to take notice?  It's called astroturf organizing, where you fake grassroots support.  Tactics include phone banks, "citizen" front groups, press release blitzes or rent-a-demonstrators.  Politicians are catching on to this latest turf war, so practitioners are looking for more subtle ways to simulate citizen concern.

In the release, there is ubiquitous use of buzz words like "jobs," "clean," "low-cost" and "renewable," classic public relations language.

Despite the flowery language in the release, there is plenty of opposition to the project.

Two transmission line projects that promoters say are needed to connect wind generation to the electric grid could get different treatment from Missouri regulators.

At least three of five Missouri Public Service Commissioners indicated this week they thought the project met its criteria for a certificate of convenience and necessity, which would give the utility the right to use eminent domain if it has to. A final vote will be in the coming weeks.

PSC Commissioner Bill Kenney, who voted against Grain Belt, noted the difference in a discussion of Ameren’s Mark Twain line during a webcast of a meeting Wednesday.

“I was one of three commissioners here who voted against the Clean Line Grain Belt Express because I felt it did not benefit Missouri customers,” he said. “I think this does benefit the ratepayers.”

Commissioner Stephen Stoll acknowledged opposition around Kirksville and Palmyra to Ameren’s 100-mile line. But Stoll, who opposed Grain Belt, said he saw the projects differently.

“I do feel for the property owners,” he said. “I know people don’t necessarily want these, but for the reasons I voted against Clean Line, I think in this case (Ameren) had gone through the requisite issues and came to us with a clear plan and that’s why I think they met the standards and I support it.”

I have asked legal experts and Congressional investigators to carefully review the Department’s decision. We are studying several related documents released by the Department, including the 22-page "Record of Decision" on the environmental review, a 73- page “Summary of Findings,” and a 210-page “Participation Agreement” between the Department of Energy and Clean Line. We will also require the Department to answer a series of questions related to its decision and provide all related documents and evidence.

Last year, in an effort to clarify the law and restore rights to Arkansans, I introduced the Assuring Private Property Rights Over Vast Access to Land (APPROVAL) Act. Congressman Steve Womack (AR-03) introduced the same bill in the House. The legislation is supported by the entire Arkansas delegation. In October, Congressman Womack and I highlighted the need for this legislation during a House Committee on Natural Resources hearing. Our bill would make it crystal clear that these kinds of projects must receive state approval.

Thankfully, the Obama Administration’s plan for this power line still faces hurdles. This is not a done deal. The Department must be able to legally defend its decision, and there are big gaps between what the law requires and the decision the Department reached. The plan also faces strong opposition by many in Congress.

In previous columns you might have read between the lines to think I am in favor of the HBPW buying wind energy from western Kansas.

 Participation Amount. Commencing on and after the Project Completion, Clean Line shall pay to the easement grantor (landowner) at the end of each fiscal quarter an amount equal to 2% of the gross revenues received by the Clean Line Parties from the Project during such fiscal quarter resulting from the sale of transmission service in connection with the Project (as such gross revenue amount is reflected in Clean Line's Financial Statements for such fiscal quarter, including, with respect to the first such fiscal quarter, sales of transmission service which occurred at any time prior to Project Completion) (the “Participation Amount”).
The Participation Amounts shall be paid to landowner to offset costs associated with having their property devalued and their quality of life disturbed in perpetuity, or for any other landowner authorized purpose.

With its disapproval last July, the Public Service Commission (PSC) invited CLE to correct some serious deficiencies in their application and re-apply. The most serious deficiency noted by the PSC was that CLE had no specific electric customers in the state.

.........................

But the PSC rejected their original application, encouraging the company to find specific wholesale customers within the state.

As some parties have recently noted, GBE has the option to file a new application for a CCN at any point if it eventually gathers information it feels would make a better case for this project or a new project. See Staff’s Response to the Recommendation of Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC, EFIS No. 544, and Response of the Missouri Landowners Alliance to Recommendation of Grain Belt Express to Hold Case in Abeyance, EFIS No. 540.

GBE has failed to meet, by a preponderance of the evidence, its burden of proof to demonstrate that the Project as described in its application for a certificate of convenience and necessity is necessary or convenient for the public service.

When making a determination of whether an applicant or project is convenient or necessary, the Commission has traditionally applied five criteria, commonly known as the Tartan factors, which are as follows:

1. a)  There must be a need for the service;
   
2. b)  The applicant must be qualified to provide the proposed service;
   
3. c)  The applicant must have the financial ability to provide the service;
   
4. d)  The applicant’s proposal must be economically feasible; and
   
5. e)  The service must promote the public interest.
   

However, the evidence showed that the Project is not needed for Missouri investor-owned utilities to meet the requirements of the RES.

The Project is not needed for grid reliability because GBE did not submit the Project to the regional planning process, has not identified any existing deficiency or inadequacy in the grid that the project addresses, and has not shown that the project is the best or least- cost way to achieve more reliability. 

Although GBE elected not to submit the Project to the MISO regional transmission process, MISO has an effective planning process to enable states in the MISO footprint, which includes portions of Missouri, to meet RES requirements using renewable wind resources. Since areas of MISO have some of the best wind energy resources in the United States, it is more likely that the large amount of available MISO wind can satisfy the needs of Missouri utilities for wind energy compared to the smaller amount of Kansas wind that GBE proposes to inject into MISO at the Missouri converter station. The Commission concludes that GBE has failed to meet its burden of proof to demonstrate that the service it proposes in its application for a certificate of convenience and necessity is needed in Missouri.

GBE has not presented adequate evidence to show that the Project is economically feasible.
Staff made credible criticisms of the GBE studies and pointed out the large amount of important information that is not known about the impact of the Project on Missouri. Interconnection studies with SPP, MISO and PJM have not been completed or are inconsistent with the Project’s current design, plans for operations, maintenance or emergency restoration have not yet been developed by GBE, and GBE production modeling studies do not support GBE’s claims that retail electric rates would decrease. In addition, there is a good chance that Project costs would increase beyond what was estimated by GBE due to transmission upgrades, congestion, wind integration and the need for additional ramping capacity.
Dr. Michael Proctor presented credible evidence that Ameren Missouri would have lower-cost alternatives than the Project for meeting its need for capacity and energy, both with and without considering the renewable energy requirements of the Missouri RES. GBE failed to perform adequate studies and present sufficient evidence on this analysis, which the Commission would need to properly evaluate economic feasibility of the Project. Dr. Proctor’s analysis showed that natural gas-fired combined cycle generation is the most cost-effective generation alternative, and that wind energy from areas of MISO or through the purchase of RECs are a lower cost alternative to wind energy generated by the Project. Therefore, the Project is not the least-cost alternative for meeting Missouri’s future needs for either energy and capacity or renewable energy, so it is highly unlikely to meet the Commission’s rule for 1% rate impact limitation from renewable energy.

Since the Commission has concluded that GBE has not met two of the Tartan factors, by that standard GBE cannot show that the Project promotes the public interest.

However, the Commission will also consider further some of the specific public benefits of the Project claimed by GBE.

As Staff witnesses point out, as a result of GBE’s inadequate production modeling studies, GBE’s claims that the Project would lead to lower renewable energy compliance costs, lower wholesale electric prices, lower retail electric rates, and reduce the need to generate electricity from fossil-fueled power plants are not sufficiently supported by the record. Moreover, the Project is not needed to satisfy the Missouri RES requirements. Although GBE argues that the Project will make wind energy more accessible to MISO and PJM customers, the evidence shows that wind energy is already accessible in those regions and, at least in MISO, has more than doubled as a percentage of total energy generated in the last three years. GBE alleges that the Project would result in economic benefits, but its studies are not reliable, as they fail to consider any negative economic impacts resulting from job displacement and energy production. Finally, GBE touts the Project as a way for Missouri to access affordable clean energy as increasing environmental regulations increase costs for coal plants. It is too soon to say what the impact of the proposal will be on Missouri.

In this case the evidence shows that any actual benefits to the general public from the Project are outweighed by the burdens on affected landowners. The Commission concludes that GBE has failed to meet its burden of proof to demonstrate that the Project as described in its application for a certificate of convenience and necessity promotes the public interest.