StopPATH WV
  • News
  • StopPATH WV Blog
  • FAQ
  • Events
  • Fundraisers
  • Make a Donation
  • Landowner Resources
  • About PATH
  • Get Involved
  • Commercials
  • Links
  • About Us
  • Contact

US Dept. of Energy Misuses Eminent Domain Authority For  Clean Line's Private Land Grab

4/10/2013

20 Comments

 
The authority to site and permit high-voltage transmission lines has historically rested with the states.  However, the federal government has been trying to wrest this authority from the states for years.

The states consider local need and issues when evaluating a project.  Affected stakeholders are afforded due process to participate in the debate at the state level.  Occasionally, a state will deny an application for a transmission project that provides no benefit to the state.  The feds, and the investor owned utilities who relentlessly lobby them, want to remove consideration of new transmission projects to Washington, DC, where due process will be smothered by national policy goals. 

But it hasn't been smooth sailing for the feds.  Congress has repeatedly declined to federalize transmission permitting and siting, preferring to leave authority with the states.  But the feds and the utility lobbyists have found other ways to try to gain what they haven't been granted by Congress. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 hid a few little wormholes for the feds to override states and claim eminent domain to site transmission under certain conditions.  One was Section 1221, the creation of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors and backstop siting authority for FERC to site transmission in these corridors in the event a state failed to act.  That section has been neutralized by the courts.

But, a second federal eminent domain tool that has not yet attracted much attention is about to be deployed through Section 1222, Third-Party Finance, in order to execute one of the worse abuses of federal eminent domain authority in history.  Section 1222 provides:
The Secretary, acting through WAPA or SWPA, or both, may design, develop, construct, operate, maintain, or own, or participate with other entities in designing, developing, constructing, operating, maintaining, or owning, a new electric power transmission facility and related facilities (“Project”) located within any State in which WAPA or SWPA operates if the Secretary, in consultation with the applicable Administrator, determines that the proposed Project--
(1)(A) is located in an area designated under section 216(a) of the Federal Power Act [16 U.S.C. 824p(a)] and will reduce congestion of electric transmission in interstate commerce; or
(B) is necessary to accommodate an actual or projected increase in demand for electric transmission capacity;
(2) is consistent with--
(A) transmission needs identified, in a transmission expansion plan or otherwise, by the appropriate Transmission Organization (as defined in the Federal Power Act [16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.]) if any, or approved regional reliability organization; and
(B) efficient and reliable operation of the transmission grid;
(3) will be operated in conformance with prudent utility practice;
(4) will be operated by, or in conformance with the rules of, the appropriate (A) Transmission Organization, if any, or (B) if such an organization does not exist, regional reliability organization; and
(5) will not duplicate the functions of existing transmission facilities or proposed facilities which are the subject of ongoing or approved siting and related permitting proceedings.
WAPA and SWPA are federal power marketing agencies set up to sell and deliver hydropower across central, western and southern states.  WAPA and SWPA, as federal agencies, are endowed with federal eminent domain authority to take private property for use in their systems.  Doesn't sound so bad, does it?  However, Section 1222 allows the Secretary of Energy to utilize WAPA's & SWPA's eminent domain authority for benefit of third-party projects in the agencies' territories that are not connected or necessary to their systems.  And this is where the slippery slope starts, friends.  Congress tried to prevent this kind of bad behavior by including qualifying standards for third-party projects, such as being approved in a regional transmission plan or equivalent, which would prevent duplication of projects, and requiring a finding of increased demand necessitating such a project.  Congress also put a cap on the amount of money WAPA and SWPA could accept from third parties.
(g) Maximum funding amount
The Secretary shall not accept and use more than $100,000,000 under subsection (c)(1) for the period encompassing fiscal years 2006 through 2015.
And Congress also stipulated that Section 1222 could not override existing state laws.
d) Relationship to other laws
Nothing in this section affects any requirement of--
(1) any Federal environmental law, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
(2) any Federal or State law relating to the siting of energy facilities; or
(3) any existing authorizing statutes.
But, personal relationships between DOE personnel and leadership of a private, for-profit corporation made things just so cozy that an RFP for Sec. 1222 projects was issued in 2010 that coincided with the development of this company's long-haul HVDC projects. 
Jimmy Glotfelty – Executive Vice President of Clean Line Energy Partners
Mr. Glotfelty brings a wealth of public and private sector transmission experience to Clean Line. He is a well-known expert in electric transmission and distribution, generation, energy policy and energy
security. He most recently held the position of Vice President, Energy Markets, for ICF Consulting. Mr. Glotfelty served in the US Department of Energy where he was the Founder and Director of the Office
of Electric Transmission and Distribution, a $100 million per year electricity transmission and distribution research and development program
. Mr. Glotfelty also was the lead US representative to
the joint US-Canadian Power System Outage Task Force investigating the Blackout of August 2003.
While at the Department of Energy, Mr. Glotfelty worked extensively with utility chief executive officers and senior management in the electric power and energy sectors. He led teams that focused on researching transmission and distribution technologies, gaining Presidential permits for cross-border transmission lines, studying the impacts of Regional Transmission  Organizations, identifying major transmission bottlenecks, and securing the critical energy infrastructure of the United States.
And the next thing you know, Clean Line Energy Partners became the first and only transmission developer to respond to DOE's RFP for third-party financed projects under Sec. 1222.  Clean Line submitted a voluminous application for its Plains & Eastern Clean Line merchant transmission project in July 2010.  In its application, Clean Line made it clear that its only interest in participating under Sec. 1222 was the ability to have SWPA condemn land for its project:
DOE and Southwestern understand and agree that their ability to acquire through condemnation proceedings property necessary for the development,  construction and operation of the Project is one of the primary reasons for Clean Line’s interest in developing the Project with DOE and Southwestern and through the use of EPAct 2005 section 1222.
DOE and Southwestern agree that, if the Secretary of Energy ultimately decides upon the conclusion of such evaluation as DOE and Southwestern deem appropriate that (i) the Project complies with section 1222, and (ii) to participate in the Project’s development pursuant to section 1222, then, DOE and Southwestern will use their condemnation authority as may be necessary and appropriate for the timely, cost-effective and commercially reasonable development, construction and operation of the Project.
Clean Line Energy Partners is a privately held company owned by Michael Zilkha and ZAM Ventures that is proposing to build four HVDC merchant transmission projects originating in the midwest.  A merchant transmission project is a for-profit venture that is paid for entirely by its owner.  In exchange for investing billions, Clean Line's super-rich owners will earn a hefty return on their capital by selling transmission capacity on the transmission lines to both generators and load serving entities.  Merchant transmission projects are speculative ventures that are proposed and built outside the regulated regional transmission planning process.  Merchant lines proposed outside a planning process have not been determined to be needed by anyone other than their owners.  If a transmission project is needed for reliability, economic or public policy reasons, it is approved by and included in the plan of a regional transmission operator.  A merchant transmission project is the wildcatter of the transmission business.

Without Section 1222 and SWPA's ability to take land for Clean Line via eminent domain, the company would have to apply for and receive public utility status and the power to condemn private property for its private gain from each individual state that it crosses.  This could prove onerous to the super-rich and muck up or delay their profit.

In exchange for stealing private property from citizens to be used for a private company's gain, SWPA could be granted a certain amount of transmission capacity on Clean Line's project, however, SWPA isn't in the wind business.  But DOE can use authority it was granted under Sec. 1222 to pick winners and losers in the renewable energy business, and Clean Line's investors put together a team with strong DOE connections.  Coincidence?  Probably not.

So, does Clean Line's project meet the requirements of Sec. 1222?

(1)(A) is located in an area designated under section 216(a) of the Federal Power Act [16 U.S.C. 824p(a)] and will reduce congestion of electric transmission in interstate commerce; or
(B) is necessary to accommodate an actual or projected increase in demand for electric transmission capacity;


Sec. 216(a) has been nullified by the courts, so (A) isn't even an option.  Here's Clean Line's justification for qualifying for (B) from their application: 

"In addition to the general demand for more transmission oriented to renewables, there is and will be a specific demand for transmission to address the following concerns:
Additional Transmission is Needed to Develop Wind Resources in the Southwest Power Pool;
Additional Transmission is Needed to Relieve Congestion in Western SPP;
Additional Export Capability is Needed from SPP; and
Additional Transmission is Needed to Import Power in the Southeast.
The Plains & Eastern Clean Line meets each of these needs."


No actual projected demand for the project from any official authority tasked with determining same was included.  The company points to bits and pieces of out-of-date studies that it feels justifies its desire to build this project, along with studies privately commissioned by the company.  I don't think this is the kind of "actual or projected increase in demand" that Congress had in mind.  It's pure posturing of the worst kind.

Other requirements stipulate that the project:

(2) is consistent with--
(A) transmission needs identified, in a transmission expansion plan or otherwise, by the appropriate Transmission Organization (as defined in the Federal Power Act [16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.]) if any, or approved regional reliability organization; and (5) will not duplicate the functions of existing transmission facilities or proposed facilities which are the subject of ongoing or approved siting and related permitting proceedings.


Clean Line's idea of compliance with this requirement?

"SPP repeatedly has identified the need to build additional transmission to fully develop wind potential in
the region and to export it to neighboring regions."
  Right, but SPP did not identify Clean Line as the solution in its transmission expansion plan, or otherwise determine its project was needed.

Clean Line also relies on:

"The Plains & Eastern Clean Line is consistent with transmission needs identified in the Joint Coordinated
System Plan 2008 (JCSP). The JCSP was the first inter-regional transmission planning effort in the
Eastern Interconnection. The JCSP was a collaborative effort and involved most of the major
transmission operators in the Eastern Interconnection, including, MISO, SPP, PJM Interconnection, TVA,
Mid-Continent Area Power Pool and several key members of SERC."


And this 5 year old plan has been scrapped.  Also not what Congress had in mind for this requirement.

When DOE questioned Clean Line's eligibility under Sec. 1222, the company submitted an "updated application" that contained the same old lack of convincing evidence of qualification.

Nevertheless, DOE issued a letter entering into an agreement with Clean Line to move forward with the NEPA process.  DOE has not completely committed to the project yet, but if it does:

  • Clean Line will agree that eminent domain authority would be used only as a last resort after negotiations in good faith have concluded with all affected landowners;
  • Clean Line will agree that the Department will retain the option to select and oversee any land acquisition company required for the Project.
In that case, DOE needs to take a look at the complete and utter mess Clean Line has made out of the public information and land acquisition process.  Clean Line's idea of good faith negotiations with landowners, according to its updated application, put landowner notification last.  Clean Line makes much of meeting with "stakeholders" such as environmental organizations, state agencies, state legislators, members of the governors’ teams, and federal congressional delegations.  But only after all these entities, who are not personally affected and will not have to live with a Clean Line in their own backyard, have drunk the Clean Line Koolaid, does Clean Line consult with landowners:

"After the workshops, Clean Line will host public
open houses to gather feedback on the preferred and alternative routes from landowners and other
affected parties. These outreach efforts are designed to assure that relevant stakeholders have early and multiple opportunities to provide feedback..." 
except for landowners.  Landowners are not considered "relevant stakeholders" by Clean Line.

DOE should think long and hard about making the federal government liable for the legal mistakes of a private company.  Just because the feds were successful in asserting federal eminent domain in another dissimilar situation, does not mean that helping the rich get even richer at the expense of the common man is a good idea.  How much money does Congress have budgeted for another federal court beatdown over eminent domain takings?

And DOE needs to take a good, hard, objective look at Clean Line's "qualifications" under Sec. 1222.  The company doesn't qualify without torturing the language in the statute, and a finding that it does qualify is also likely to lead to a separate, but equally vicious, court showdown.

Sometimes, it's just not worth the risk to help your "friends" by overstepping your legal authority and bending federal law.  Maybe the incoming Energy Secretary needs to do a little housekeeping before Congress does it for him, or he finds himself explaining DOE's taking of ordinary citizens' private property for use by super-rich investors.  Congress has resolutely rejected federal transmission siting authority over and over again and will likely continue to do so.

20 Comments
T Josephs link
4/10/2013 04:21:58 pm

"Clean" Line already has unprecedented opposition in Illinois where more than 280 landowners have united to oppose "Clean" Line at the Illinois Commerce Commission.

The " Block" movement is now in several states and over 3 of "Clean" Line's projects. There is absolutely no doubt that this group will challenge "Clean" Line's "qualifications" under Sec. 1222 and will not back down from a court room showdown.

"DOE should think long and hard about making the federal government liable for the legal mistakes of a private company." Amen.

Reply
susan sack
4/11/2013 08:45:19 pm

Block RICL is growing and Clean Line is loosing its ability to sneak around and intimidate people by hiding behind the "Clean Energy" buzz words. We know there are no altruistic motive behind the Venture Capitalist's move to seize land at the citizens expense--- they will line their own pockets with our hard earned money, We won't lie down and let the power lines run over us. We are watching and preparing to work as a mass to stop this travesty. DOE knows we are aware as citizens and are gaining momentum in spreading the knowledge.

Reply
T Josephs link
5/16/2014 10:11:57 am

Update: More than 300 landowners in IL are opposing at the Illinois Commerce Commission as the Illinois Landowners Alliance, while 10's of thousands support the grassroots organization Block RICL. Statewide organizations also fighting legally at the utility boards are in 4 more states, while the grassroots organizations are now in, oh, 7 states..... but who's counting.

Reply
Energy-Insider
4/11/2013 11:51:11 pm

There's no way this project meets the criteria of the EP Act and DOE will be explaining itself to a judge if it makes a determination that it does.

Reply
Dr. Lisa W. Todd
5/16/2014 08:18:34 am

I have attended the public forum meetings. How can DOE claim this is a public utility?? The misleading information Clean Line has published is appalling! I am one of the landowners in Arkansas that has already "donated" land for three high powered gas pipelines. Clean Line wants to follow the same path....but not too close because of the danger of explosions??!! I have contacted all my State's politicians. Please keep helping us fight this injustice!!! Thank you

Reply
Mary link
5/16/2014 09:08:52 am

Have you been to the Block RICL Facebook page? You've started in an excellent place for research. Have you been in touch with your local network and Block CLE in Arkansas? Email [email protected] for info.

Reply
Keryn
5/16/2014 09:58:15 am

Also contact your federal representatives because Sec. 1222 is a federal law. Two congressmen in Tennessee have started asking hard questions of the Tennessee Valley Authority, who Clean Line is batting its eyelashes at as a potential customer for its power line. The Plains & Eastern line has had much secret federal involvement without notification of affected landowner "stakeholders." The federal government ought to be reined in here...

Reply
Dr. Luis Contreras
6/7/2014 07:40:44 am

I am drafting an email to Mario Hurtado objecting the recent “Office Hours” meetings at several locations in Arkansas. I need to confirm some details to file a claim with the AR Attorney General Consumer Complaints Division.

Do you have information on how landowners were “invited” and what information was sent? Claiming that Clean Line will build a line and using a route map as if this was a done deal, is a deceiving sales technique to get people to sign easement agreements, and is worse when Clean Line offers 20% upfront to entice landowners that don’t understand legal documents. I understand some of the meetings were “one-on-one” to get people to sign.

The Plains & Eastern line is not coming by my area, Eureka Springs, AR, where we have been fighting the SWEPCO line going to Kings River Station, Berryville, AR. This is not the end of the line, but the new SWEPCO hub for other lines to come. Onsite solar power generation is a better alternative for individuals and communities with no permanent negative environmental impact.

We oppose all new transmission lines. Please let me know how we can help stop P&E.

Reply
Dr. Luis Contreras
6/7/2014 08:05:12 am

I am drafting an email to Mario Hurtado objecting the recent “Office Hours” meetings at several locations in Arkansas. I need to confirm some details to file a claim with the AR Attorney General Consumer Complaints Division.

Do you have information on how landowners were “invited” and what information was sent? Claiming that Clean Line will build a line and using a route map as if this was a done deal, is a deceiving sales technique to get people to sign easement agreements, and is worse when Clean Line offers 20% upfront to entice landowners that don’t understand legal documents. I understand some of the meetings were “one-on-one” to get people to sign.

The Plains & Eastern line is not coming by my area, Eureka Springs, AR, where we have been fighting the SWEPCO line going to Kings River Station, Berryville, AR. This is not the end of the line, but the new SWEPCO hub for other lines to come. Onsite solar power generation is a better alternative for individuals and communities with no permanent negative environmental impact.

We oppose all new transmission lines. Please let me know how we can help stop P&E.

Reply
Dr. Luis Contreras link
6/7/2014 07:20:42 am

Keryn, how does the game change now that Oklahoma granted Clean Line utility status?

Thank you for all the information on Clean Line, I had not seen this post before

Reply
Civil Construction In Tirunelveli link
6/26/2014 11:14:29 pm

nice post

Reply
mmmmmmeowwwwwwwwww link
7/8/2014 01:42:33 am

WOAH!! 51 tweets already?

Reply
Luis Contreras link
7/8/2014 04:38:40 am

There is a great deal of misinformation about CL, their main strategy. Here is something with the old lies on jobs, etc. The CL video on Line construction, makes it clear this are out-of state expert crews who go from state to state, like AEP. Love Smelly's high school picture http://swtimes.com/business/clean-line-ceo-says-arkansas-businesses-benefit-wind-line

Reply
Lance Bachmann Philadelphia link
8/5/2014 09:00:37 am

Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts.

Reply
Glenda
8/10/2014 01:32:36 pm

Luis Contreras is the biggest source of misinformation about Clean Line. He doesn't know what he's talking about and exaggerates and makes stuff up. Steer clear so you don't get involved in any possible libel suits.

Reply
Don
8/25/2014 07:22:08 am

For all those who are staring at 'Clean Line', SWEPCO and American Electric Power (AEP) projects, you can bet that federal officials will not hear your objections if Section 1222 use of eminent domain is granted. The code has placed justification for such projects in the hands of power pools and STOs, abdicating federal responsibility for oversight. This no doubt came about because of former officials cozy relationship with the developers. In all, DOE is still trying to usurp the states' ability to oversee these projects because of the ability of landowners to voice their objections directly to state officials. The rights of landowners against an unjust taking should NEVER be used in the case of for-profit boondoggles like this. DOW should be ashamed of itself. Hopefully Congress will correct this problem with the big hammer of funding, but that is a thin hook on which to hang the property rights of thousands of people.

Reply
Used Racking link
9/22/2014 11:38:06 pm

I would like to thank you for your nicely written post, its informative and your writing style encouraged me to read it till end. Thanks

Reply
Scott Thorsen
1/4/2015 02:31:39 pm

I'll guess the Department of Energy's Quadrennial Review will list a "need" for transmission from the Oklahoma panhandle to Memphis. The TVA planning never lists such a need. It wouldn't surprise me if the DoE manufactures the needed plan itself.

Reply
Kenny McGee
4/14/2016 01:29:49 pm

Our farm would be cut in half by Clean Lines quasi-legal intentions for land theft. We have complied with land loss for existing public gas and Interstate ROW's, however, we do not support imminent domain for private gain! I have two questions for you: (1) While employed with the DOE, was Mr Jimmy Glotfelty (the current Executive Vice President of Clean Line) directly (or indirectly) involved with authoring or co-authoring Section 1221 or 1222- Third Party Finance of the Energy Policy Act of 2005? (2) If Mr. Glotfelty in any way contributed to the creation of Section 1222',and subsequently to join (or co-found) Clean Line, wouldn't this constitute a direct conflict of interest, and be a case for unethical professional behavior? We need to pass the APPROVAL Act ASAP to limit/prevent Federal Overreach of States Rights.

Reply
Aunt Bee link
12/1/2020 01:38:53 pm

Still sweet.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    About the Author

    Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.
    In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history.

    About
    StopPATH Blog

    StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project.  The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

    StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view.  If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty.  People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself.  If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

    Got something to say?  Submit your own opinion for publication.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories

    All
    $$$$$$
    2023 PJM Transmission
    Aep Vs Firstenergy
    Arkansas
    Best Practices
    Best Practices
    Big Winds Big Lie
    Can Of Worms
    Carolinas
    Citizen Action
    Colorado
    Corporate Propaganda
    Data Centers
    Democracy Failures
    DOE Failure
    Emf
    Eminent Domain
    Events
    Ferc Action
    FERC Incentives Part Deux
    Ferc Transmission Noi
    Firstenergy Failure
    Good Ideas
    Illinois
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Land Agents
    Legislative Action
    Marketing To Mayberry
    MARL
    Missouri
    Mtstorm Doubs Rebuild
    Mtstormdoubs Rebuild
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    Newslinks
    NIETC
    Opinion
    Path Alternatives
    Path Failures
    Path Intimidation Attempts
    Pay To Play
    Potomac Edison Investigation
    Power Company Propaganda
    Psc Failure
    Rates
    Regulatory Capture
    Skelly Fail
    The Pjm Cartel
    Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes
    Transource
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.