Category: Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes

Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes - #1 Dressing Up Like a Farmer

5/3/2018

At long last, we've come to recognize Clean Line's biggest mistake... ever!

At the first Illinois Commerce Commission public forum in Mendota, Illinois, Clean Line vice president Jimmy Glotfelty showed up in business casual attire and then proceeded to make an arrogant ass out of himself.

Gosh, for some reason nobody liked Jimmy that day. It couldn't be his flippant attitude, his penchant to argue with people waiting outside the venue, his dismissive reaction toward the members of the public who made comment (while Jimmy played with his phone, feigned sleep, and then went outside to find someone to argue with). It wasn't the outfit that caused him to act that way, it was just Jimmy.

Luckily for Clean Line, the ICC scheduled a second public forum for the Rock Island Clean Line since many landowners at the first one had been unable to get inside because Clean Line filled the venue with hungry college kids in ugly orange shirts. An opportunity had presented itself for Jimmy to have another chance to make a good first impression on the hardworking people of Illinois! Better not squander this chance, Clean Line!

And then someone got an idea. An awful idea. Someone had a wonderful, awful idea.

Was it because it was nearly Halloween, when costumes are on everyone's mind? Or was it because someone had recently watched the movie Promised Land, where utility representatives bought farmer costumes before calling on the locals? Maybe it was a misguided political ploy left over from the Kerry campaign? Whatever the reason, it was a truly dreadful idea.

They dressed Jimmy up like a farmer and sent him off to the Mendota forum.

Plaid shirt. How farmerish!
Brand new work boots. Not a speck of dirt on 'em.
Khaki "work" pants. How you going to get anything done when your pants are so long they pool around your ankles? Maybe he needed the boots to keep from tripping on his pants.
Carhartt work jacket. Brand new. Never seen a chore.
Expensive watch. Priceless. Every farmer wears an expensive watch to do chores. How else would he know when it's quitting time?

Before the forum even started, I got a phone call from a laughing farmer telling me that Jimmy had shown up wearing a farmer costume. No way! Way! I asked for pictures. Lots and lots of pictures.

Trick or Treat, Jimmy!

And Jimmy's humiliation got passed around the bleachers on a tablet. And people laughed. Oh how they laughed! They laughed so hard, I almost felt sorry for poor, misguided Jimmy.

Almost.

But it was real difficult to feel sympathy while laughing so hard.

Dressing up like a farmer does not make a transmission ignoramus a farmer. It does not help real farmers to relate to him. Furthermore, it is incredibly insulting to real farmers when some fancy pants from Houston pretends he's a farmer in some lame attempt to appeal to them. Clean Line might as well have posted a huge flashing neon sign in the lobby, "WE THINK YOU'RE STUPID!"

And, just in case another transmission nimrod wants to try to dress up like a farmer in the future, here's what a REAL FARMER looks like.

Look! He's engaged in actual work involving a crop. He's got dirt on his clothes! I don't see a watch. He knows it's quitting time when the job is done. People like and respect this farmer. He works hard. He's honest. He treats others fairly. He would never take something that doesn't belong to him. He would never toss other people under the bus for his own profits.

It's not the outfit that makes the man. It's the man that makes the outfit.

2 Comments

Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes - #2 Marketing to Mayberry

4/24/2018

2 Comments

Oh yes, they did!

That was the most disgusting display of condescending arrogance ever demonstrated by a transmission developer, or even a wanna be like Clean Line.

Electric Utility Consultants Inc. (EUCI) is a company that makes its money organizing and running "continuing education" seminars for utility employees. Their seminars don't come cheap, often running more than $1500, plus travel, meals and expenses in some warm, touristy spot (especially in the winter). I'm not sure they even pay their presenters, I think the presenters volunteer because it's a free trip to some place nice and it spit shines the ol' ego to get to be the utility clown at the front of the room telling your peers how great thou art. It's just one big utility party where the participants endlessly congratulate each other for being jerks.

EUCI has long been a source of personal amusement. No better place to find goofy bits of utility arrogance. What DO the utility guys say about you when they're not pretending you matter during local open house dog & pony shows? It's not very flattering, or even very truthful. But this... this conference hosted by Clean Line Energy Partners has to be the epitome of utility vainglory. So, I shared it with my friends in Mayberry. They were not impressed.

In fact, they got really, really angry.

Nobody likes being talked about behind their back. And when people are belittled and characterized as, well for lack of a better word, stupid, it's game over.

So, here was Clean Line, pretending it had devised a "market leading compensation package" that landowners loved. It was pure fiction, of course, but EUCI glorified it and made Clean Line a member of its transmission developer stable. Finally, Clean Line was allowed into the big boy's club! And then things got a little carried away. As a "host" for the conference, Clean Line was seen as responsible for its content. What caused the cutsie-poo but insulting topic names? Why was this conference so much more offensive to landowners than previous ones? I guess nobody ever considered that the subjects of ridicule would ever see the conference brochure; or did they actually believe landowners would think the topics were as cute and funny as the conference organizers did? What a colossal mistake!

Marketing to Mayberry: Communicating with Rural America

Communications and marketing outreach in small town America requires entirely different tactics than those used with larger more metropolitan communities. Join this conversation to learn some of the pitfalls to avoid and the strategies to deploy when reaching out to small communities. Attendees will learn to prepare for the challenges of engaging a rural setting, communicate in a conversational tone rather than corporate tone, identify and engage credible spokespersons in rural communities and understand which communications and marketing tactics to utilize.

Essentially, you're implying that rural America is just like a popular TV show and that the characters who populate it are silly, uneducated sheep who are easily manipulated by certain "tactics." Whoever dreamed up this ridiculous description needs to do some severe binge watching because they completely missed the underlying theme of the show. Rural America is far from stupid, and the show was a work of fiction based on an earlier era.

Regarding the tone of the show, Griffith said that despite a contemporary setting, the show evoked nostalgia, saying in a Today Show interview: "Well, though we never said it, and though it was shot in the '60s, it had a feeling of the '30s. It was, when we were doing it, of a time gone by."

It's no longer the 1930s -- or even the 1960s -- so why would a transmission developer base its "tactics" on its idea of rural America gleaned from an ancient sitcom? Yes, Clean Line and its big boy peers are really that out of touch. No wonder they failed miserably. And then there was...

Going BANANAs with NIMBYs – Best Practices in Dealing with Community Based Opposition Groups

Increasingly, organizing public participation opportunities means having to handle disruptive influences from community-based opposition groups - BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere near Anything/Anyone) and NIMBys (Not In My Back Yard). This presentation will discuss experiences at Southern California Edison and how the company has adapted to this new business environment. Southern California Edison is currently experiencing one of the largest infrastructure capital investment programs in company history. Driving this are multiple factors, including California’s ambitious renewable energy goals and the need to replace aging infrastructure that was constructed during the post-World War II boom. As a result, the opportunity for community based opposition groups to develop has increased significantly. Recent advances in technology have made it easier for community-based opposition groups to organize and, more importantly, to strategize. With the opportunity cost of starting and participating in such groups constantly decreasing, it is important for public participation practitioners to have a healthy understanding of how such groups are motivated and how to manage them effectively.

The discussion will provide the audience with best practices on dealing with community- based opposition groups as well as tips on how to prepare internal, technical subject matter experts to effectively handle emotionally charged situations. These best practices are based upon the experiences of Southern California Edison’s local public affairs department.

Here transmission opponents are grouped, given derogatory names and false motivations. It is insinuated these groups are "managed" by transmission developers. News Flash! It is the groups who "manage" transmission developers! We know all your "secrets" and because you do the same thing every time, we know how to effectively manage YOU. It's no longer us reacting to your "tactics," it's you reacting to our tactics and struggling to keep up. And then you lose.

In the wake of public anger following the exposure of Clean Line's little conference, company nimrods tried to back away from the stinking mess.

Lawlor confirmed that these sessions did happen at the Electronic Utility Consultants, Inc. (EUCI) Eighth Annual Public Participation for Transmission Siting conference, held in Houston, Texas in January, but it was not organized by CLE. Lawlor said that his group did not participate in the classes after learning of the class titles. “The folks that came up with the titles were from other states,” he said. “Marketing to Mayberry was by somebody from Washington. We asked to participate and… as soon as we found out about those names we withdrew from the conference and withdrew from participation in the organization going forward.”

Oh, please. Clean Line was the conference host. You expect "Mayberry" to believe you had absolutely no idea about the conference content? I don't believe you. And furthermore, your claim that Clean Line had withdrawn from participating in EUCI conferences going forward was hogwash. A recent crawl through upcoming EUCI conferences shows multiple presentations by Clean Line employees. Here's just one example.

As conference host, Clean Line got to be the keynote speaker. And what did Clean Line intend to say to kick off the derogatory festivities?

Keynote Presentation: Lessons Learned - Clean Line Energy discusses challenges during Public outreach Process
Clean Line energy will discuss the public engagement challenges that are inherent when developing and building new large infrastructure projects. How do we overcome these challenges and work to ensure that our stakeholders feel they are informed and part of the process, each step of the way? He will discuss the lessons learned and some of the challenges faced in his career developing transmission projects across multiple states.
- Jimmy Glotfelty, Executive Vice President, Clean Line Energy

Something they had not managed to actually accomplish. Clean Line never "overcame" the challenges it faced from public opposition groups. In fact, those challenges effectively tanked all Clean Line's projects. Perhaps this is because Jimmy's "career developing transmission projects across multiple states" never actually happened. If that was a "career," Jimmy needs to find a new one because he never successfully developed any transmission project.

And then there was:

Case Studies: Understanding ins-and-outs of utilizing social media for Public engagement

In a time where social media is one of the most common forms of communication, it is important to understand when it is appropriate to utilize it to engage the public and stakeholders during the transmission siting process. It is crucial to understand when to use it as a main form of communication or as a supplementary form of communication - and who you can expect to reach, and how. This presentation will use and demonstrate how social media is currently being used as an integral portion of a public outreach and communications plan.
- Louisa Kinoshi, Associate, Clean Line Energy

Social media -- another "tactic" Clean Line never seemed to be able to manage. I know I've been long blocked from posting on Clean Line Energy's facebook page for speaking truth to power, but what is up with your facebook page, Clean Line? It seems it no longer exists. I guess that makes it officially a "supplementary form of communication" and you no longer have a "public outreach communications plan." You're really not fooling anyone any longer, Clean Line. You're history!

Gladly stepping up to "host" the Marketing to Mayberry conference (either with or without knowledge of the content of said conference) was a huge blunder on Clean Line's part. Marketing to Mayberry created a lot of enemies for Clean Line, often people who had tried to give the company the benefit of the doubt, or sit on the fence. Marketing to Mayberry removed all doubt about the morals and character of a company proposing to condemn land for their own financial gain... and then laugh at and mock the victims of their scheme.

Now Clean Line is "marketing to" no one. No one at all.

2 Comments

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

4/17/2018

2 Comments

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...

2 Comments

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

4/13/2018

3 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!

3 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

Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes - #6 Clueless College Kids

3/22/2018

0 Comments

Pizza, puppy chow, and propaganda... it's a party!

Clean Line used clueless college kids to support its project at regulatory public hearings by offering them free things, including free talking points that they could simply read into the record. Clean Line's marketing of its project to these people continually misrepresented the project and the issue at hand. And not only did the opposition continually out them on these tactics, but the performance of these clueless kids pretty much missed the mark. That's just the problem with coerced advocates... they seldom completely understand the issue and go prattling off about things that have nothing to do with the regulatory issue at hand.

"Clean energy..." "Pass this legislation..." "Tell the white house..." "Purchase wind energy from Clean Line..." yada, yada, yada. Once I sat through a public comment hearing where coerced advocates urged the approval of a transmission project that had already been built, instead of the one at issue in the hearing. I also directed a truckload of union guys to the "union rally" they thought was taking place at the regulatory public hearing venue. The transmission company gets those people to show up under false pretenses and hilarity ensues. Nobody takes these people seriously. It's a gigantic waste of everyone's time.

Clean Line's first attempt to flood the ICC public hearing on its Rock Island Clean Line only succeeded in spurring the ICC into having a second "forum" with new rules that allowed affected landowners their opportunity to speak. Here's how Clean Line filled the ugly orange shirts it handed out, along with canned speeches.

The hearing will be Wednesday, September 18th, and buses will leave Roosevelt at 3:30pm for the 7pm hearing in Mendota, IL. Transportation, a free dinner, and a t-shirt will be provided!

We want as many supporters to make it to the hearing as possible, so let us know what it will take for you to get to the hearing. Funding for gas, or other transit and travel needs can be provided.

"Do you want to help pass legislation for renewable energy in the Midwest? Then come to the only public meeting for The Clean Line Energy Project which, if passed, will connect enough wind power from Iowa to Illinois to power over 1.4 million American homes!
If you are interested in going to the only public hearing for this project, next Wednesday leaving @ 4pm, please comment on this! I will happily drive us, and it will be a super fun trip in the name of clean energy!!"

College kids love free crap. Unfortunately, they oftentimes cannot balance their academic needs with offers of free crap that take time away from their studies. Clean Line set up a checkpoint in the parking lot next to their cluster of gas guzzling black SUVs where they handed out orange shirts, talking points, and SWAG. The only thing I got was this picture.

Ironically, the wind kept trying to make off with their gigantic sail of a sign. I didn't stick around to see how many perky Clean Line gals floated off to Oz with it.

The students arrived rather late, but isn't that how they always arrive? And they proceeded to get into heated "discussions" with the landowners. Good thing the police were around to keep things in check.

I guess Clean Line thought that was a success, because they tried to replicate it on their Grain Belt Express project in Missouri. Except, once again, they got outed by the opposition. Take a good look at their emails to college clubs promising pizza parties and other SWAG in exchange for signatures on petitions, form letters, and postcards. Clean Line even fished for "sponsors" for a company-written response to a letter to the editor of their school newspaper.

And what happened? I guess there were exams that week, or when the kids balanced their summer break against free pizza as a company shill, home won out. This is what happened. Where are the orange shirts and pizza-smeared faces?

They must have gotten educated. That's what's supposed to happen at college.

So, colleges weren't exactly the fertile breeding ground of pizza-hungry dummies Clean Line expected in Missouri.

But it wasn't just clueless kids Clean Line preyed upon. Clean Line also tried to pretend it was "the voice of consumers."

Support landowners in Arkansas and Oklahoma! Support energy infrastructure! Support the Plains & Eastern Clean Line!

We need your help!

America's energy infrastructure needs your help! Lobbying efforts at the white house level have inhibited the passage of an energy infrastructure project beneficial to citizens and landowners in Arkansas and Oklahoma!

........

Support energy infrastructure, land owners, and the Plains and Eastern Clean Line project by simply clicking the link below to sign the petition! Every click makes a difference!

It is absolutely imperative to demonstrate support as a citizen! The future of America's energy infrastructure is in your hands!!

What? Hey, wait, consumers didn't even get offered any pizza! But I guess HBW Resources could buy lots of pizza for employees like Ryan Scott, who pretended to be a "consumer" and speak for other "consumers" at a regulatory public comment hearing in Illinois. I'm surprised he didn't bring a pizza.

Unfortunately for Clean Line, this kind of shilling doesn't work when it's exposed that it was sponsored by the company attempting to get permitted. In fact, it backfires when it encourages more opposition to the project, and those people show up to drown it out, and those people have better, on-point comments. After all, the true state of public opinion about a project is the goal of a public comment hearing. Clean Line made a mistake when it tried to stack the deck in its own favor by offering free things in exchange for supportive testimony. It made them look pretty desperate... and dishonest.

0 Comments

Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes: #7 Theresagate

3/18/2018

1 Comment

Mayberry didn't think Clean Line's attempts to cheat and take advantage of them at public hearings were as cute or funny as Clean Line did.

It's well known that utilities attempt to compete with affected citizens by presenting purchased or coerced supportive testimony during regulatory public hearings. But do they have to cheat to do it? Not normally.

But Clean Line did.

At its first regulatory public comment hearing before the Illinois Commerce Commission regarding its Rock Island Clean Line, the company actively worked to shut out the testimony of affected citizens and replace it with its own coerced supporters.

The crowd was much bigger than Clean Line (or even the ICC) expected. The auditorium simply wasn't big enough to seat everyone who showed up, nor was enough time allowed to hear everyone. BlockRICL was prepared for a large crowd though. They advised their folks to arrive early, sign up to speak right away, and find a seat in the auditorium. The ICC's sign-up table was manned by a couple of BlockRICL volunteers, who took their task seriously, and the line to sign up was soon out the doors and winding around the outside of the venue. And many of Clean Line's coerced supporters had yet to arrive!

Gosh, that's just too bad, Clean Line. Maybe you should have planned better. Maybe you should have realized that citizens would come a long way to have their couple minutes before the judge. Maybe you should have delivered your supporters to the venue earlier, even if they were way too important to have to cool their heels for a couple hours before the hearing. But you didn't. Instead, Clean Line decided to cheat and take advantage of the situation in order to cut down on the number of citizens who were allowed to speak, and increase the number of Clean Line coerced supporters who were allowed to speak.

Clean Line recruited the few supporters who had arrived early to get back in the sign up line in order to sign up speakers who had not yet arrived, but Clean Line expected to arrive later. And the volunteers, who were being closely supervised by Clean Line employees lest they give some unfair advantage to project opponents, were overwhelmed. It is unknown how many people were signed up early in the speaking order who actually were not present until much, much later.

Now consider that speakers had to stand in line for a long time to get to the sign up table. When you're standing in a long line, you glance around, maybe chat a bit with your neighbors in line. You'd recognize those folks later, right? What were you thinking, Clean Line? That nobody would notice or care that the names called didn't match the faces in line? That people wouldn't take note of what their line neighbors were saying?

When the woman behind me in line was called and spoke early in the hearing, we thought perhaps the judge had mixed up the sign in sheet and was calling late arrivals before early arrivals. All of a sudden, the order we'd observed in the sign up line was out of whack and we could no longer judge when it might be our turn. It all became clear when the woman whose name was called after me, "Theresa Hoover," didn't come to the microphone when called. Of course she didn't... because "Theresa Hoover" had already spoken early in the line up, and I guess then she had a different name... her real name. Nancy Somebody, from a local economic development office. Clean Line should have just let it go when "Theresa" was called and didn't respond. Except they tried to insert one of their VIP speakers in her place, a male vice president of a wire company flown in from Atlanta for the event. Why did Clean Line think this guy was so important he needed to line jump over all the citizens who had stood in line for a long time to get a place in the speaker line up?

That's rude. And unfair. And when the judge was alerted, he was having none of it. Mr. VIP was instructed to wait to be called in the order in which he'd signed up. And he had signed up when he arrived, he just wanted to line jump over all the peons and go earlier so he could scoot out of there and get on with his life. He didn't want to sit in a crowded auditorium with the locals and wait his turn. So, Clean Line provided him with an earlier spot in the sign up line that it had obtained through signing up people who weren't there and who did not plan to speak. But poetic justice saved the day. When Mr. VIP finally got his rightful turn at the microphone, the judge announced it was 10 p.m. and the hearing was over. He never got his turn to speak at all. Now maybe if Clean Line hadn't wasted valuable time trying to unsuccessfully jockey him into position earlier in the hearing, he may have had a couple minutes to speak there at the end. I love poetic justice!

In the grand scheme of things, none of this really mattered. The ICC held an additional public hearing because so many citizens who had traveled a great distance were not allowed to speak. And at the next hearing, there was no sign up line, and there were plenty of seats. All that wasted effort and attempts to cheat the system merely demonstrated the dishonesty of Clean Line. If the opponents ever needed reason to suspect the motives of Clean Line, Theresagate served as a demonstrative reminder.

The utility has unfair advantage over citizens throughout the administrative hearing process. It's bad enough that the utility tries to horn into the public hearing process, but apparently non-utilities like Clean Line also try to cheat and line jump. And that didn't go unnoticed by the public, or even the hearing officer. Yes, Clean Line demonstrated its true colors to everyone that it intended to win by unfair means.

Silly Clean Line, cheaters never win!

1 Comment

Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes - #8 Hypocrisy and Ego

3/13/2018

3 Comments

The party doesn't start without Michael Skelly Not in his own home, anyway.
On Tuesday evening, Skelly and his wife, Anne Whitlock, hosted an intimate bash for the Houston Parks Board inside their loftlike EaDo residence, Firehouse No. 2. The founder and president of Clean Line Energy Partners arrived fresh off a flight from Washington, D.C., making quite the midreception splash.

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Michael Skelly's wind energy party also doesn't start without thousands of landowners across the Midwest, and they haven't been impressed. In fact, Michael Skelly's ego, false bravado, and ability to create personal puff pieces in the media are one of the root causes of Clean Line's failure.

Transmission opponents realize the transmission guys and gals they intersect with are just doing their jobs, for the most part, and their dislike is related to the lies these employees are paid to tell. Maybe some of these transmission folks would be likeable in the real world, but we're unlikely to ever know them in that way... because their personal lives aren't splashed across major newspapers in an egotistical fashion.

And then there was Michael Skelly.

Michael Skelly happened to be in the right place at the right time when wind was a new thing. He made a fortune flipping a small wind company to Goldman Sachs. But was it so much his genius and business acumen that caused it, or was it serendipity? There are plenty of businessmen who create a string of business successes through intelligence, strategy, and opportunity. I think one of them has Michael Skelly on a leash right now. But it appears that Skelly's success was a one-off that has been squandered in its aftermath by pure self indulgence and a gigantic ego. I can't find anything else at which Skelly succeeded (because jungle trams in third world countries really don't impress me).

He ran for Congress... and lost.

Then he had an idea to start a transmission company that wanted to build more than 2,000 miles of new transmission across the Midwest. That hasn't worked out so swell, either.

Landowners threatened with eminent domain to make way for Skelly's projects have been treated to a string of revolting newspaper articles about Skelly's charmed life in Houston, all while he was intent on systematically destroying their own simple way of life, and their farm businesses. Ya know, there is internet service in Mayberry now, and "a bunch of farmers" know how to use it.

First there was the big to do about Michael Skelly selling his rich man's home in one of Houston's best neighborhoods (on Robin Hood Street no less, the irony of that was not lost on anyone, because farmers also read the classics) and buying a run down firehouse in a not so nice neighborhood. Opponents had a bit of fun taking a virtual look at Skelly's Robin Hood home, complete with zebra pelt on the floor of the study and a farmhouse sink (lifted from a real farmhouse to imitate trendy shabby chic fakery in a home that's only claim to "farm" is most likely in the pantry on a bag of Pepperidge Farm Goldfish?). Thanks for that. It helped the landowners see how the other half lived... if that's what you want to call occupying that movie set dwelling. So, here's this guy who lives in a fancy house in the city who wants hardworking regular folks to sacrifice their business, their finances, their sense of place, to make way for a transmission line that won't benefit them in the least. And he lives like a king. No transmission line in Michael Skelly's backyard. Not In Michael's Back Yard.

So then this guy pretends he's slumming at a dilapidated fire house. Except that remodel is probably really, really expensive, and then he buys up other dilapidated homes in the area and has them moved to his "compound." A compound? This guy has created his own little fiefdom with a "compound?" Yeah, lifestyles of the rich and famous. And then he hosts a bunch of snob parties at his firehouse that are reported in the city paper. When there's a party down on the farm, nobody thinks to invite the media. Probably because no one wants to pose for glittering glamour shots, cocktail in hand. "Look at me, world, I'm so important! Even the cocktails I drink are worthy of being news!"

And Michael Skelly is quite intent on remaking Houston into the town of his dreams.

Walkability. Do you know how far a farmer walks each day to produce the food you serve at your glittering parties? The safari costume was a nice touch, Michael Skelly.

Bike trails. Bike repair stations. Because when you don't have any wide open spaces to recreate on your mechanical devices, things get a little cramped, right?

Trees.

Parks.

City growth. Urban development. Is this about not having enough parking again?

Hurricane heroics. This was probably the pinnacle, the straw that broke the camel's back, for many landowners struggling against nature and recovering, year after year. And their did it on the land, with blood, sweat and tears, not with their feet up on a table.

And the vanity pieces on energy. Where Michael Skelly tells reporters that he builds transmission lines. And gives them tours of his deserted office.

This is what the landowners Michael Skelly wanted to "partner" with to host his transmission lines saw. Day after day. Year after year. While Skelly performed his heroics for the press, the landowners lived under a threatening cloud that Clean Line would condemn their modest homes, their parks, their community development, their history, their genuine farmhouse sinks, their trees, their livelihood, their way of life, to make way for a transmission line that would only make Michael Skelly richer and feed his insatiable ego.

It wasn't a good plan. Someone attempting what Michael Skelly was attempting should have lived his rich man's life a little quieter. It's impossible to like the public persona Michael Skelly has created. It's impossible for regular, hard-working folks to develop any rapport with someone whose glittering lifestyle is so alien from their own, especially when it's constantly thrown in their face -- Michael Skelly matters, and you do not. No matter what this guy was trying to sell to Mayberry, he was destined to failure.

Perhaps he should try again for a career in politics... in Houston, where the poor and downtrodden are suitably impressed with his philanthropy and ego. Mayberry was not.

3 Comments

Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes - #9 Buying Influence

3/9/2018

1 Comment

Utility "playbooks" call for buying influence and controlling public opinion about a transmission proposal. They do this through lobbying and front groups to create an appearance of public support for their proposal.

And then there was Clean Line. No matter how much money they threw at this problem, it continued to grow out of their control.

Did Clean Line not buy the right people? Or was their buying just directed at the wrong people? When a real utility does it, they're playing on established relationships and an intimate knowledge of the movers and shakers in the regulatory world. As a new entrant into the utility business, Clean Line had no idea what it was doing and it had no relationships with state leadership. It simply found the most obvious and eager people and opened the money faucets, hoping the money by itself would cure all ills. Not by a long shot.

The most successful Clean Line ever was with the schmoozing was at the U.S. Department of Energy, who agreed to "participate" in its Plains & Eastern Clean Line project after many years and many millions of dollars invested. That Clean Line had to buy that agreement by offering 2% of its quarterly profits to the U.S. government speaks volumes. And still, participation by the DOE got them nowhere. The Plains & Eastern Clean Line still failed.

In the states, Clean Line spent its money on fast talking political operatives who couldn't quite get the job done. The few permits Clean Line was able to schmooze were subsequently ripped away by the judicial system, where Clean Line's claws couldn't quite reach.

You know what the problem is with fast talking political operatives? You can't trust them. They're so busy pumping out the manure you never can be too sure if they're telling the truth, or some other version of the truth that will keep the money flowing. Some of the people Clean Line bought to schmooze it up with states and local communities were the wrong people. They didn't have the right connections, and more importantly they didn't have the respect of the people they were trying to schmooze. The guys who are for sale to out-of-state companies, who will gladly throw their community under the bus for a few bucks, aren't very effective. Do you think the community doesn't know this guy is for sale to the highest bidder? Of course they do! They know what goes on in their own community, and guys who are always trying to enrich themselves by selling out their community are not respected or listened to. You know who is respected and listened to? Members of the community. The ones who have done good things for their community over the years without looking for some sort of reward.

Mayberry had this over Clean Line throughout the process. The minute landowners and community leaders found out about the Clean Line projects, any favorable opinion gained early on was flipped. And ultimately, it was forthright and determined opposition that killed the Clean Line projects.

Clean Line's few pathetic attempts at front groups provided only comic relief.

Remember Windward Iowa? That was entertaining for a few days. I wonder how much that flop cost?

And then there was the Consumer Energy Alliance's EDJ initiative in Arkansas. That didn't last very long either.

Every time Clean Line tried to start a front group supporting one of its projects, the opposition quickly outed it for what it was. You've got to get up pretty early in the morning to fool a farmer!

To add emphasis to the point that these groups were fronts, the groups have completely disappeared. Once they were outed, the money stopped flowing and the "passion" for the cause evaporated as quickly as it started. Boom! Now you see it, now you don't.

But, but, but, Clean Line followed the utility "playbook" and bought local influence. Why didn't it work?

Because Clean Line is not a utility. Simply pretending wasn't enough.

1 Comment

Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes: #10 - Greenwashing

3/7/2018

1 Comment

There was a top secret Mayberry meeting over the weekend! Well, maybe it wasn't so top secret, but Clean Line wasn't invited. We had a great time re-hashing all the ways in which Clean Line screwed up and made us laugh over the years. And now that Clean Line is nothing but a "would have" and no longer a "will," an idea was born to create a Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes blog series.

From the first time I read about Clean Line, it has always struck me as a bunch of clueless knuckleheads pretending to be a transmission utility company. It's not like anyone at Clean Line had any experience whatsoever building regional or national transmission lines. The most the staff could claim is that they used to work for a wind company that built some generation tie lines that relied on voluntary landowner easements. That's a whole entirely different animal.

I'm not sure they actually fooled anyone with their "monkey see, monkey do" imitation of real utilities. But what ensued was a hugely expensive comedy of errors that has ended in failure.

Mistake #10: Greenwashing

Green is good. Green is beyond question. Everyone loves green! If we just tell everyone our transmission line is for "clean" energy, everyone will support it!

Wrong.

Transmission lines are open access. There is no such thing as a "clean" line. Once a transmission line is built, any customers can use it. In Clean Line's case, it needed to find customers to use its line before it could be built. Clean Line tried for years to find customers for its transmission capacity, first proposing that its customers could be wind generators, or utilities who wanted to connect with wind generators. When that didn't work, Clean Line started trying to sell its service as an "arbitrage opportunity" to move fossil fuel power between electric regions.

"Clean" Line? What is that? All the "clean" seemed to wash off the line when push came to shove.

And where did it get them? Nowhere. Clean Line wasn't useful as an "arbitrage opportunity" either. There simply weren't any customers.

The only ones fooled by Clean Line's greenwashing were gullible environmental groups. And they simply didn't matter. It's all fine and good to say that there's a "demand" for clean energy, but when you can't produce any actual customers, the project fails.

So, attempts at greenwashing the transmission proposals were a mistake. Greenwashing only succeeds in selling cleaning products, not transmission lines. When the targets of the greenwashing are knowledgeable, greenwashing fails. While Clean Line sold its product to clueless environmentalists in cities far, far away from its proposed transmission lines as "clean" and "green," ultimately those who fell for Clean Line's greenwashing didn't matter. The only ones who mattered were the utilities to whom Clean Line attempted to sell its transmission capacity. Greenwashing didn't work on them because they knew the truth about transmission and Clean Line didn't provide any benefit for them. Likewise the landowners in the local communities. Clean Line destroying their properties in order to provide greenwashed transmission capacity to utilities hundreds of miles away didn't work either. Landowners spoke their opposition loud and clear and fought Clean Line every step of the way.

Greenwashing proved to be a poor substitute for proposing a transmission need to regional grid planners and getting them to agree and add it to their plan. It turns out there really wasn't any need for a "clean" line and being "green" really didn't work to convince any customers to buy capacity.

Tune in as we count 'em down over the next ten days, folks! And don't be shy about sharing your own personal Clean Line mistakes in the comments. It's our own little virtual Block party!

1 Comment

Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes - #1 Dressing Up Like a Farmer

Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes - #2 Marketing to Mayberry

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

Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes - #6 Clueless College Kids

Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes: #7 Theresagate

Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes - #8 Hypocrisy and Ego

Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes - #9 Buying Influence

Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes: #10 - Greenwashing

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