There's an inferno of opposition to Clean Line Energy Partners burning across the Midwest.  And Clean Line is running out of resources to fight them all.  Several fires are currently burning out of control.  For instance, the bonfire currently alight in Missouri as Clean Line struggles to find some way forward for its Grain Belt Express project in the wake of its third rejection by the Missouri Public Service Commission.

Maybe Clean Line thought it would be easy to appeal through the court system, or through legislative change.  But this is only being met with increased resistance from Missourians and the making of new enemies.  Missourians are not looking favorably on Clean Line's new plans to usurp local authority and manipulate Missouri's legal system for its own benefit.  While the fires of opposition burn out of control, getting larger and more widespread, Clean Line tries to control the fire with ridiculous propaganda from out-of-state interests.

Like this opinion piece from some yahoo named Brydon Ross of the Consumer Energy Alliance.  The Consumer Energy Alliance is a well-known front for the energy industry.  The CEA pretends to represent consumer interests, but the reality is that they're just a hired mouthpiece for company talking points.  Just last year, CEA was described like this:

Why would Missourians be convinced by anything the CEA manufactures?  If you even take the time to read this propaganda, you'll notice how the CEA guy completely skates over the real issue and creates an issue that doesn't exist.  Then he demands that Missourians "show the world" that they are easily manipulated to "fix this problem" that doesn't exist in order to benefit the CEA's client.

And then there's this opinion piece from Tom Kiernan, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association.  Kiernan also glosses over the real issue to  "return the power to approve transmission lines" to the PSC.  Nobody removed power from the PSC.  The county governments in Missouri have had the authority to grant assent to transmission projects for 100 years.  That's the way it works!  It's the law!  Nothing changed.  The only change here is proposed by Clean Line, who wants to take that authority away from counties, instead of aligning its plans with local government priorities to create a project that the counties can approve.  Kiernan also wants Missourians to "fix" something that's not broken for the benefit of its member company, Clean Line Energy Partners.

Neither of these polished PR pieces put Missouri first.

But in between Clean Line setting this propaganda in motion and finally getting it published, another inferno flared up in Illinois, when the Supreme Court determined that Clean Line's Rock Island project is not a public utility.  If RICL isn't a public utility in the state, neither is GBE.  So here's Clean Line dumping buckets of money into a PR campaign in Missouri, when another state negates any progress that can be made on GBE.  Looks like GBE's efforts in Missouri are wasted.

And the snazzy propaganda campaign isn't all.  GBE also hired former governor Jay Nixon to lead their appeal of the MO PSC's denial.  I'm pretty sure that cost a bunch, considering Nixon appears to have gotten Grain Belt confused with Green Backs on his appeal.

I'm sure it's just a minor Freudian slip.  Nothing to see here, folks, let's move on.

And remember, when in office, Governor Nixon "negotiated" with Clean Line to secure "important landowner protections" for Missourians.  Since Nixon is now raking in the bucks representing GBE's interests on appeal, I do wonder how hard he really "negotiated" for the best interests of Missourians.  I'm thinking that maybe that whole "landowner protections" package was pure propaganda for benefit of his future employer, Clean Line Energy Partners.

And what would Clean Line "win" on appeal in Missouri if its project is denied in Illinois?  Clean Line is regressing, not progressing.

I guess Clean Line has money to burn.  After all, it's not their money.  It belongs to their deep pocketed investors.  Don't you wish these investors would do something constructive and beneficial with the hundreds of millions of dollars they've dropped down the Clean Line sewer?  Like humanitarian aid.  Or energy efficiency.  Or local clean energy.  Or anything other than arrogant greed.

I've often compared Clean Line Energy Partner's transmission permitting odyssey to a game of Whack-a-Mole.

​Clean Line, you lose.

Yesterday the Illinois Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision upholding an appellate court opinion that the Rock Island Clean Line shell company is not a public utility.

Clean Line is done in Illinois.  That means Grain Belt Express, too.  

And it's not just a matter of exercising an option to purchase a site for a converter station.  Only somebody who didn't read the entire opinion would say something that stupid.  The Court simply declined to dig any further beyond the issue of the statutory requirement for a public utility to own utility property that is currently in use as a utility.  Simply buying a piece of property that it may, in the future, use to construct utility infrastructure, isn't going to cut it.  The Court said that Clean Line is free to construct its project without a permit and without eminent domain authority, and then apply again for public utility status from the ICC.

This is one mole that cannot stay whacked.  Clean Line's only option in Illinois is to construct its projects without the use of eminent domain.  Clean Line likes to pretend it will "negotiate" with landowners to reach an agreement to obtain an easement voluntarily.  But eminent domain is a public utility sledgehammer, and Clean Line is not a public utility.

Give up, Clean Line.  You are done for.  Run out of Mayberry on a rail.  There is no way forward.  Hello, bankruptcy.  Goodbye, Clean Line.

The St. Joseph News-Press published an editorial today stating:

The editorial went on to say:

And concluded with this:

Clean Line's insistence that Missouri law must be changed to accommodate its desire to be above the law and build its project without county assent doesn't seem very popular with Missourians.  And it's not just project opponents anymore.  It's now the editorial board of a large newspaper, too.

The sheer arrogance of these out-of-state interlopers will be their undoing.

The News-Press must realize that the only thing standing between Clean Line and its success is... well... Clean Line!  During recent oral argument before the Missouri PSC, Clean Line begged the PSC to issue an advisory opinion on the merits of the project, even if the PSC denied the project.  Clean Line's attorney told the PSC that it needed that advisory opinion to take to the counties in order to convince them to assent to the project.

But Clean Line has used the PSC's "concurrence" on the project's merits for everything BUT going to the county commissions. The county commissions haven't heard a peep out of Clean Line in months.  Now Clean Line and its environmental friends from the big cities want to use it to change Missouri law for their own benefit.

And the people of Missouri perhaps think that's a step too far for a bunch of interlopers who want to use Missouri land and resources for their own gain.  Clean Line is financed by deep pocketed investors from New York, Texas and the United Kingdom.  None of these investors live or work anywhere near Missouri and won't have to suffer the consequences of their own actions.  These investors have knowingly funneled around $200M into a very risky investment in Clean Line Energy Partners.  When Clean Line goes belly up, these investors lose their entire investment in the company.  I'll assume these sophisticated investors went into this transaction with their eyes wide open, so they must not have invested more than they could stand to lose.  They'll probably hardly feel it.  On the other hand, the damage to Missouri would now not only be a scar on its landscape and an obstacle to its productivity, but a long-lasting surrender of its authority through legislative change.  I don't think Missouri is going to lay down willingly, and instead of winning the state's cooperation, Clean Line has obliviously lit a fire in Missouri's belly.

Perhaps Clean Line's executives don't really care if they ever build a project or not.  Perhaps their only interest at this point is to continue their own personal gravy trains as long as possible, even though they realize this train is headed for a gorge where the bridge is out.  As long as the investors keep handing them cash to engage in hopeless battles, like trying to get Missouri to legislate away its own authority, the executives continue to live high on the hog.  That could be the only explanation for why Clean Line even wants to engage in Missouri when the fate of this project is currently in the hands of the Illinois Court system.

Did you listen to the oral arguments at the Fifth District Court of Appeals on the Illinois Commerce Commission's grant of a permit to Grain Belt Express under the wrong statute of Illinois law?  If you haven't, you should.  Based on questions from the justices, it isn't looking too swell for Clean Line, although the Court has yet to issue its opinion in this case.  The opinion can come at any time.

As well, did you watch to the oral arguments before the Illinois Supreme Court on whether the Rock Island Clean Line can ever be considered a public utility?  That didn't go so well for Clean Line either.  An opinion could be issued at any time.  And, if RICL isn't a utility under Illinois law, then neither is GBE.  The Court's opinion can yank the rug right out from under both Clean Line's Illinois projects at any time.

And speaking of the Rock Island Clean Line, did you know that the Iowa Legislature legislated it's ability to use eminent domain out of existence during its last session?

And then let's take a peek at Clean Line's Plains & Eastern Clean Line that wasted more than $15M getting the U.S. DOE to "participate" in its project in order to usurp the laws of Arkansas.  Despite DOE's decision to "participate" in this project 18 months ago, it's no closer to actually being built.  In addition to being the subject of a lawsuit in federal court, Plains & Eastern has no customers to finance the project.  No revenue, no project.  Plains & Eastern is stalled out, making no progress whatsoever.

Honestly, I don't think Clean Line Energy Partners is ever going to accomplish anything, except to spend its investors' money tilting at windmills and engaging in hopeless and increasingly expensive battles at the state and federal level.  How much longer must the party in Houston go on?

FirstEnergy's dog showed up to listen to the local ponies whinny and chomp at the bit last night in Martinsburg.  It was all so predictable.  How many times have we done this in recent memory?

Utility proposes some scheme that will increase its profits.  Regulators schedule the required public hearings and maybe one will show up in your locale.  The regulator sits at the front of the room and "listens" to the public comments while trying not to look bored.  Earnest public ponies put forth time and effort to attend and speak from the heart, hoping they can say something that gets through to the regulator.  A court reporter transcribes the comments into a written record that can be read by the other commissioners, or perhaps used as evidence when a decision is issued.  I seriously doubt that anyone at the WV PSC even reads the public hearing record, and I've never once seen anything from a West Virginia public hearing used as the basis for any decision.  Why?  Because the WV PSC is the utility's dog, captive and controlled like any good pet on a leash.

The WV PSC is a captured, reactive regulator who prefers to follow a utility's lead to set policy.  The WV PSC isn't a leader, it's a follower.  Without a clear vision of its own regarding how utility policy should work in the best interests of the state, the WV PSC allows utilities to chart our course by merely reacting to utility proposals.  While other regulators have clear policy goals and demonstrate leadership to utilities by setting the standards that shape utility proposals, West Virginia prefers to let utilities shape the regulatory landscape.

It shouldn't come as any surprise, considering WV's regulatory leadership.  C'mon, the WV PSC is lead by a former utility lawyer who took direction from utilities for his entire career.  Why would anyone think he'd become a utility leader when sliding through the revolving door from regulated to regulator?

The WV PSC believes its mission is to "balance the interests of all parties."  It shouldn't be.  As a fully regulated state, the WV PSC should be a utility leader.  Regulation is the price utilities pay for the privilege of operating a monopoly for a necessary public service.  Regulation is supposed to serve as a substitute for competition where none exists.  If a utility cannot perform in the public interest, then it should lose its franchise privilege, allowing others to compete for the privilege of serving the captive customer base.

Instead, the WV PSC behaves as if we must keep the utility happy and healthy, and puts the utility's interests first in any proposal before them.  The captive customers the PSC is supposed to protect become nothing more than chattel, used to support utility profits.  The WV PSC doesn't care what the customers want, nor what is truly best for the customers.  The WV PSC has become completely detached from the public interest, only serving  political interests that the utility purchases.

Commissioner Brooks McCabe presided over last night's public hearing in Martinsburg, looking like a brave little puppy, absorbing public scorn over FirstEnergy's proposal to sell a failing asset into West Virginia's regulated system in order to bail out the company.  He began the meeting reading a description of the case and giving an overview of the proceedings thus far.  He mentioned over 900 comments in opposition to the proposal, balanced by something like 35 comments in support.  The audience laughed.  If it were all about balancing the interests of all parties, this case would be over.

The few brave souls who made comments in support of FirstEnergy's proposal were all motivated by money, whether it was as a contractor whose income depended upon future operation of a failing power plant, or some political creature dependent on campaign contributions and quid pro quo.  And then there were the unions, rightfully concerned about the future of the plant employees, however misguided they were in where funding for power plant jobs would come from in the future.

FirstEnergy has owned and operated Pleasants as a source of profit.  The hardworking men and women who have kept this financial asset of FirstEnergy performing for many years have done an admirable job.  FirstEnergy owes them a huge debt for their faithful service.  But FirstEnergy doesn't care about them, FirstEnergy only cares about profits, and Pleasants is no longer profitable.  FirstEnergy owes its workers a soft landing and transition into other jobs of equal pay and responsibility.  But FirstEnergy wasn't squirreling away a tiny portion of its profits over the years into a soft landing fund for benefit of its workers.  FirstEnergy spent every last penny of the profit these workers created on other important things, like naming rights to a football stadium, or a corporate jet and tax planning services for its over-compensated executives.  Now that Pleasants is no longer profitable, FirstEnergy and the PSC believe captive ratepayers should pick up the burden of supporting Pleasants employees and the economic contribution it makes to its community.  But the ratepayers never shared in the profits from the plant when times were good, it is only after the profits evaporate that FirstEnergy wants to pass the cost burden onto captive ratepayers.  There's no "balance" here either.

A regulator who was a true utility leader might put an end to ratepayer-financed corporate welfare.  It would make the utility responsible for the failure of its asset, including the economic impact to its workers and the surrounding community.  A true utility leader would chart a clear course for a solid energy future in the public interest for our state, and require franchised utilities to adhere to it or forfeit their franchise privilege.

But we don't have a true utility leader.  We have a corrupted and captive utility follower.

Thankfully, there are stronger, smarter, policy leaders in other regulatory venues who also have authority over FirstEnergy's proposal, because the WV PSC is a lost cause.

Neigh.

Clean Line and its big city environmentalist friends want to change Missouri law for their own benefit.  Changing Missouri law doesn't benefit Missouri.

The problem?  A Missouri law that has been functioning for 100 years.  Sec. 229-100 says

Missouri counties must assent to the crossing of their roads by linear infrastructure projects.  Missouri counties are responsible for their roadways, so naturally they have control.  Without that control, linear infrastructure projects could block, make useless, and destroy roadways that the county is financially responsible to maintain.  A transmission company could cause all sorts of problems with county roads and skip off into the night, leaving repair costs to burden county taxpayers.

When the Mark Twain Transmission project was approved subject to future county assent, a Missouri court corrected by determining that county assent must come before PSC approval.  Mark Twain found itself in a predicament.  The counties would not give assent because the Mark Twain project proposed new rights of way over county roads.  So, what did Mark Twain do?  Did they have a big, sniveling tantrum and demand that Missouri change its law to allow crossing without county assent?  No.  Mark Twain went back to the drawing board to create a better project for which the counties could give assent.

The revised Mark Twain project used existing rights of way and road crossings for its project, adding new capacity and rebuilding an old circuit.  Eminent domain for new rights of way was minimized.  While not everyone was happy, the revised project was improvement enough to receive the assent of impacted counties.  That's right... Missouri law worked as intended to allow impacted counties to have control over the crossing of their roadways, while still allowing transmission projects to be built.

The Mark Twain Transmission project is a MISO-ordered project.  MISO thinks this project is important and needed.  Perhaps it was important enough that compromise was the best path forward to achieving success.  While MISO didn't get what it originally wanted, it did eventually get county assent to build a project that achieved its goal while also compromising to create a project that the counties could approve.  This is the way the law is intended to work.  Mark Twain changed its project to work within Missouri's law, instead of attempting to repeal the law in order to build its original plan.

Missouri law works to protect Missouri.  There's no reason to toss the baby out with the bathwater and bow to out-of-state interests who don't want to follow Missouri law.

Clean Line's contention that no linear infrastructure projects can be built in Missouri with the 100-year old law in place is completely and totally wrong.  Mark Twain is proof that infrastructure CAN be built in Missouri.  It's testament that acceptable projects can be built.

The problem here is that Clean Line does not want to revise its project to become something acceptable to Missouri counties.  Clean Line has cut off all communication with Missouri counties.  Clean Line is not even trying to compromise for a win-win -- where counties are happy and projects get built.  Instead, Clean Line wants to have its own way, building its project and leaving counties with the tax burden of caring for the roads Clean Line destroys.  This is not in the best interest of Missourians.  It is only in the best interests of Clean Line, an out-of-state company with foreign investors.

Just say no to Clean Line.  Say no to its outside interference in Missouri's legislative process.  Once Missouri cedes control of its fate to the hands of outside influence, it can never be regained.

Clean Line needs to go back to the drawing board and build a better project, one that doesn't require Missouri to cede control to greedy foreign investors or urban environmental groups.  One that works for Missourians.  Put Missouri first!

Say what?  "Missing buyer syndrome?"  That's not a "syndrome," that's a capitalism fail.  If someone offers a product or service that nobody wants to buy, it's not a "syndrome" that can or should be cured.  It simply means that the product or service offered is not marketable, not needed, and not beneficial to targeted customers.

Except what if the seller wants to force the purchase of its product or service because it sees an opportunity to make a lot of money if someone buys the product or service?  Then it's a "syndrome" that must be cured through government intervention.  That's absurd.  Why don't we call it what it is... government-facilitated corporate greed?

"Missing buyer syndrome" is the bastard child of greedy corporations who want to make a bundle of money building new wind farms in the Midwest and huge new transmission lines to move the electricity generated to population centers.

Ah, sweetcheeks, if your buyer is "missing" then there is no market.  There is no need.  There is no "limbo."  It's simple supply and demand.  Economics 101.  It's not up to Wyoming, or Chokecherry Sierra Madre Wind, to determine what energy suppliers in other states buy.  Nobody cares what you think, especially because you're driven by greed.

And here's another "missing buyer" for a greedy company that also found there was no demand for its service.

But yet environmental groups continue to sing and dance at each quarterly TVA board meeting, and certain news outlets continue to eat it up and present it to the public as if environmentalists are better at planning and running the TVA system than the slate of professional economists and engineers employed by TVA.  Unlike urban environmentalists, TVA professionals plan its resources based on need and economics, not some pie in the sky environmental goals.  TVA is "pro consumer."  Environmentalists are "pro environment," no matter the cost.  Clean Line and other wanna be transmission developers are "pro profits."  The only one in this menage a trois who is looking out for consumers is the TVA.

And how do these greedy corporations think they can cure "missing buyer syndrome?"

This one wants to force the federal government to take the place of the "missing buyer."  And if the federal government became the "missing buyer" then its customers would be forced to shoulder economic risk and financially support corporate greed through higher electric rates.

The Anschutz Corp. wants state governments to force "missing buyers" to purchase its product and service through legal mandates.  It's all the same corporate greed looking for a government bailout for bad investments in renewable energy and electric transmission.

While these investors thought they saw a financial opportunity to use government tax credits to build something that's only needed through forced mandates, their gamble has not paid off.  The government mandates are shifting and there's a new call to keep energy local.  While the industrial wind industry thought it could exploit windy states to produce energy for export, the target importing states have a greed of their own to keep their energy dollars in state.  This creates the mythical "missing customer."

If a state can choose between local economic development and sending those same dollars out of state to develop the economy elsewhere, the choice is simple.  But what about those states that think they can develop their own economy becoming an exporter?  They're selling themselves short.  Instead of becoming an industrial wasteland in exchange for a few jobs and tax dollars, those states should be marketing themselves as a cheap energy mecca.  Instead of exporting energy, perhaps they should try importing energy-intensive businesses?

And what about all those "fly over" states caught between states that want to export renewable energy and their "missing customers?"  They're getting nothing in the deal and they're not going along with it.

I think it's pretty clear.  Those corporations who gambled that they could make a lot of money developing remote generators and transmission lines to connect the generators to demand centers made a bad investment.  It was a bad idea fueled by greed.  We've all made bad investments in our lives, from  huge market-crashing bad deals to the weekly waste of buying lottery tickets that never win.  But when we lose, we realize we can't demand a government bailout to save us from our own bad decisions.  And that's the difference between us regular folk and the one percent, who aren't used to taking responsibility for their own losses.  Nobody cares how many millions Philip Anschutz, National Grid, or the Ziff brothers have poured into these bad renewable energy ideas.  They made a bad decision and they no more deserve a government bailout than the guy on the corner who is holding a worthless lottery ticket.

Remote renewables are dead.  Stop throwing good money after bad.  Local renewables are on the rise.  Quit wasting the remaining years of the production tax credit on bad ideas.  Here's the next great thing:

Because aerial transmission lines on private property are the problem.  There would be no need to "work closely" with regulators, governments, or landowners if you were creating partnerships and providing value for customers.  "Working closely" is another euphemism that needs to go.  "Working closely" means "we're lobbying them intensely but they're not buying our bullshit."

Instead of trying to beat everyone into submission, perhaps you should offer a product or service that people like, want, and need?  That would turn your "missing customer" into "eager customer."  Unless you just really like swimming upstream, against the current. There are smarter and easier ways to make money.  Some days I wonder how you rich people got that way in the first place...