by Sharon Bean, a small Kansas family farmer

To the Center For Rural Affairs--

I’m afraid I cannot get a few puzzle pieces to fit properly, even after several attempts.  The pieces that perplex me are marked “Our Mission”, “Our Values”, and the other is marked “SPDC”.  Perhaps you can help me out here.  I am assuming you took ample time and tremendous  research efforts to decide that SPDC is such a great thing for all of us.  So I’m sure you wouldn’t mind taking your Mission Statement and your Values and explaining to me exactly how those puzzle pieces can ever fit right with your glorious SPDC scheme.

My understanding of a good mission statement is that it gives assurance to members, clients, and the public that you are credible and always will be.  I also thought it was a tool, perhaps a compass, that would keep any potential new idea or plan to stay in line with your original vision.  In other words, simply put, keeping all the dots connected properly.  I thought a mission statement was put into place to help you achieve your goals and not lose sight of why you started your organization in the first place.  While you may believe your mission statement may be your “touchstone”, it looks to me like it is becoming a tombstone for your values.  I have been under the impression that values don’t change regardless of whether or not the world is changing.  It is my understanding that they remain steadfast even when undue pressures may be felt from external sources or when temptations arise to grab at the bright, brilliant, blinding light from a bunch of dangling carets.  Isn’t it true that while purpose may change, values should NOT change?

Might I ask, when was the last time your organization bothered to take the time to read (not skim) CFRA’s “Our Mission” and “Our Values”?  As I mentioned earlier the puzzle pieces just don’t fit and the SPDC piece is, without doubt, the culprit.   

To be frank, it appears to me that you, Center for Rural Affairs (an organization of conscience) has lost your vision, passion and direction and our rural communities, our society, our environment, and our future generations will pay the ultimate price.  That’s quite a legacy you and your grand plan, SPDC, will be leaving behind.

Would you trust this guy ?

Me neither. 

Where's Waldo?  He seems to have dropped out of the public eye, lately replaced by this other guy who smirks when he tells the people of Missouri that there are no health effects, no property devaluation, no impediments to farming.

Clean Line has a public relations problem.  They're running out of project managers and executives.

Waldo (aka Mark Lawlor) has been thoroughly trounced in the Missouri media by the forthright and personable Block GBE spokeswoman, Jennifer Gatrel.  People like Jenny.  They trust her.  Can't say the same for the Clean Line representatives.

Because Grain Belt Express is in so much trouble in Missouri, Waldo has been replaced by Clean Line president Michael Skelly.  Oh, brother!  That's like putting out a fire with a bucket of gasoline!  Where Waldo was awkward, uncaring and shifty, Skelly is arrogant, arrogant and arrogant.  This man simply doesn't care what you think.  He gets an attitude when questioned, and provides flippant answers.  Was "the President of Clean Line answering questions in Missouri" supposed to help or hurt the project?

Send this guy back to Skellyville, and bring on the next personality.  Or maybe Clean Line could try some more costumes to cheer everyone up?

Whither goest thou, Waldo?

Block Grain Belt Express Missouri, Block RICL, Block Grain Belt Express Illinois, and Arkansas Citizens Against Clean Line Energy are urging all landowners to approach a newly introduced proposal for transmission line land acquisition with caution.  Today's release of a report by the Center for Rural Affairs, "Landowner Compensation in Transmission Siting for Renewable Energy Facilities," has not been vetted or approved by the Block organizations.

Touted by its authors as a "better deal" for landowners, the report urges formation of Special Purpose Development Corporations (SPDCs) to assemble land for transmission corridors.  The report claims SPDCs will provide faster, cheaper land acquisition for developers.  However, Block leaders are putting the brakes on this approach to land acquisition that presumes landowners will sell if the price is right, and leaves no options for landowners who do not wish to sell.
 
"I will not be on board to support the high voltage transmission line at any price.  My property rights and the ideology of my farm are priceless to me. No amount of money is going to buy me into alliance with Clean Line. I am even more repulsed by this company now. This is just another avenue to deceive people. They are not going to entice me with shares of a company I want nothing to do with," said Shan Christopher, impacted Missouri landowner.
 
The report calls for state public utility commissions to form the SPDCs, after first receiving the power of eminent domain from their respective legislatures, and to get into the business of condemning private property and managing its sale to transmission developers.  Other report suggestions for SPDC formation and management include state agencies with eminent domain authority, local governments, or even the transmission developers themselves.

"We have constitutional rights, existing laws, and procedures that merchant transmission projects are already attempting to slide by which is the real reason that there are epic eminent domain cases looming.  This report advocates a drastically different approach that circumvents the protections we have in place protecting ratepayers from unnecessary transmission and homeowners/landowners from the abuse of eminent domain. This new, corporation approach raises major issues about whose best interests would really be served.  Truly ‘voluntary' land acquisition is being able to say 'No, go away,' without the threat of coercion. Whether it's by eminent domain or some corporation, the facts don't change that our private property rights are under attack," remarked Mary Mauch, co-founder of Block RICL, Illinois.
 
The Block groups, who collectively represent the interests of thousands of landowners across the Midwest currently being courted to sell rights of way to transmission developer Clean Line Energy Partners LLC, were not consulted in the creation of the report, and are unaware of any landowner groups who might have participated in its development.
 
"This attempt to align the financial interests of transmission developers and landowners will not decrease opposition to transmission projects," said Jennifer Gatrel of Missouri.

Joel Dyer, a member of Arkansas Citizens Against Clean Line Energy, remarked, “This SPDC idea seems to be an added layer that is intended to insulate the Clean Line investors and executives from the consequences of their actions.  My father, a World War II combat vet, Pacific theater, never asked for or expected any kind of recognition or special treatment because of his service, but Clean Line has shown their gratitude for his service by threatening him with the eminent domain authority of the federal government.  Where is our sense of moral decency when private investors can ruin a veteran's life work, his farm, and distance themselves from his pain with the help of SPDCs?”

The Preservation of Rural Iowa Alliance Board President Carolyn Sheridan stated, "We advocate for the right to control the use of our land. PRIA is a powerful grassroots resource that researches latest trends, public policies and documented impacts related to the RICL project. Our mission is simple: to empower communities and all landowners so that educated decisions, and not fear, can drive action to protect the land they rightly own. Extensive research and discussion with qualified legal counsel is necessary to determine the impact that SPDCs would have on landowners."
 
Landowners are confused by and wary of the Center for Rural Affairs recent support for transmission development, and some believe CFRA has lost its focus on representing the interests of small, family-owned farm businesses.

"The Center for Rural Affairs continues to champion corporate interests to the detriment of struggling farmers.  I don't believe they are representing my interests anymore," said impacted Kansas farm owner John Broxterman.
 
The idea of SPDCs shifts political responsibility for massive eminent domain takings from transmission developers to state and local governments, making them the "bad guys," and pitting neighbor against neighbor.
 
"I don't think Grain Belt is good for Clinton County or any Missouri resident. I don't want them to take my land and give me shares of a company I don't believe in or trust. Clinton County is supporting Block GBE one hundred percent. Two of the commissioners have promised residents we will invoke section 229.100 to prevent Grain Belt from coming across Clinton County," said Larry King Clinton County Missouri Commissioner.
 
The Block leaders view the report as just one more attempt by corporate interests to dictate landowner and agricultural priorities in order to further their own pocketbooks.
 
Link to CFRA report
 
For more information please visit:
 
Block RICL
Block Grain Belt Express MO
Arkansas Citizens Against Clean Line Energy

FirstEnergy held its Annual Shareholders' Meeting the other day.  It lasted 12 minutes.  Hardly anyone came.

Our hero Tony "the Trickster" Alexander's NEO compensation is now even further bound to the company's stock price.  Heads will roll and wallets will empty.  When it's all about Tony getting his performance awards, it's no longer about providing an essential service in a safe, reliable and cost effective manner.  It's about cutting expense and increasing dividend "performance."

Well, gosh, this could really impact happy hour at the Casa de Alexander, don't you think?  It would be rather unfortunate if this actually happened...

Tony:  "I'm home!  Where's that cocktail waitress with my martini?"

Mrs. Becky Alexander:  "I had to fire her.  She was simply too efficient and we need to cut down on expenses now that your pay is tied to your performance.  I know how hard it is for you to perform."

Tony:  "Have you been making unauthorized donations to charities again?  I told you, all our giving must provide a return!"

Mrs. Becky Alexander:  "Tony, who are those people on our front lawn?  I fear they may trample my petunias and cause extra work for our strapping, young gardener.  Can you make them go away?"

Tony:  "Call the police!"

Mrs. Becky Alexander:  "The peasants are revolting!"

Tony:  "You said it!  They stink on ice!"

Mrs. Becky Alexander:  "I think they might be your employees, dear.  Why don't you run out and say hello?  I think I have a bag of stale chocolate Kisses left over from Halloween that you could toss to make them move along."

Tony:  "Don't feed them!  It only encourages them to ask for ridiculous things like fair wages and benefits.  If you feed them once, they'll never go away.  What's for dinner?"

Mrs. Becky Alexander:  "Reservations, of course!  Can you have your public safety personnel clear us a path to the country club?"

The tenacious, but doomed, Northern Pass transmission project now has another nail in its coffin.

Imagine that... respect for the communities traversed by a transmission line!

Environmentalists seem to like it, and Northern Pass opponents seem to like it.  What if it sailed through permitting with community support, instead of expensive and time consuming opposition?

Transmission developers who whine about the cost of burying transmission need to take a lesson.  What's the true cost of opposition?

RTO Insider has a special report about yesterday's Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on the nominations of Cheryl LaFleur and Norman Bay to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Bay has been publicly criticized by twin investment fund managers Kevin and Richard Gates, who have been under investigation for market manipulation by Bay in his capacity as Director of FERC's Office of Enforcement, without being officially charged.  The Gates have recently made their case public in an effort to stymie Bay's nomination.

In LaFleur Cruises, Bay Bruises in Confirmation Hearing, RTO Insider reports:

There's even a photo.  It looks to me like the Gates brothers attempted to make Bay slap himself during the hearing through the power of telekinesis.  Go see the picture for yourself! 

Meanwhile, West Virginia's Joe Manchin used his time to talk about his master, coal.  I wonder what coal thinks about Norman Bay?

Carol Overland, transmission slayer of the great north, brings us the story of an apparent transmission line routing goof that has transmission opponents all over wiping away tears of laughter.  It seems that American Transmission Company's Badger Coulee 345kV transmission project got routed through the "back yard" of the CEO of Alliant Energy.  The spouse of the CEO has intervened in the Wisconsin Public Service Commission case to try to save his million dollar property from having transmission nasties constructed on it.

No, really.

Read more about it on Carol's blog here.

Congratulations, Mayberry!  Your entrenched opposition to Clean Line Energy Partners' transmission projects across the Midwest has pushed the company into the untenable position of having to perform massive eminent domain condemnations and takings.  Of course, this would never be allowed to happen in reality.  The political and public opinion costs would simply be too high.  As well, Clean Line has not been successful in convincing all state regulators to grant it the ability to effect eminent domain takings.

Check mate!

Clean Line Energy's only hope at this point is to try to trick you into supporting a new scheme to steal your land.

Last year, Clean Line sycophants at the Center for Rural Affairs and the Natural Resources Defense Council, along with other "big green" and "big wind" players, published a self-aggrandizing "report" they arrogantly dubbed "America's Power Plan" (although no actual "Americans" were involved in its creation).  In Clean Line's sponsored "plan," the important folks discussed several new ways to steal your land using eminent domain so that they wouldn't be forced to commit massive eminent domain takings.

One of the ways Clean Line wants to steal your land is called a "Special Purpose Development Corporation" ("SPDC").  A SPDC is a government-sponsored legal entity created especially to become the "bad guy" in an eminent domain situation.  Instead of Clean Line stealing your land, a government-blessed SPDC will steal your land and sell it to Clean Line.  The SPDC and the government that operates it will also profit in the transaction, paying itself a portion of the proceeds from the sale of your land.

Here's how it works:

1.    State or local government, or even a private corporation with government-granted eminent domain power, forms a SPDC for a particular purpose, such as securing new transmission line rights of way across private property.

2.    Landowners in the target area are given a choice:

        a.  Voluntarily deed their land over to the SPDC in return for "shares" in the corporation.
        b.  Refuse to voluntarily turn over your land and have it taken by the SPDC via eminent domain.  You will not receive any "shares" in the corporation.

       This allows your friends and neighbors who choose to join the SPDC to force you to sell your land for their personal profit.

3.    Once all land is acquired, the SPDC sells it to Clean Line and distributes the proceeds to the "shareholders" of the corporation, after first paying all sorts of legal, financial and management fees for the corporation and the costs of its employees.  There is no guarantee that a landowner's "shares" in the SPDC would be worth more at the end of this game than the landowner could expect to receive through traditional eminent domain processes.

It's all just a scam to encourage communities and local governments to take the fall for Clean Line's unconscionable land grab.  It pits neighbors against neighbors in local communities and causes local strife.  It absolves Clean Line from the consequences of its greedy action.

Don't be fooled by legal gibberish, fantastic promises of incredible riches, or empty claims of "better deals."  Just say "no" to Special Purpose Development Corporations.

The coordinated and knowledgeable opposition to Clean Line across eight states CAN stop these projects.  Hold on to your land -- you will be glad you did when Clean Line folds its tent and slinks back to Texas with its tail between its legs.

From the "better idea than PATH" files:

An independent company has received state approval to build a 750-MW natural gas fired electrical plant in Loudoun County, Virginia.  The plant is expected to help fuel Northern Virginia's many energy hog data centers.

Clean Line Energy Partners is making a big deal out of FERC's conditional authorization of its proposal to negotiate rates for its Grain Belt Express project.  Of course, this isn't surprising -- Clean Line has shown great expertise in "miscommunicating" the actual meaning of its regulatory activities in an effort to make it appear that regulators and other entities "approve" of its project, or require it to be built.

What is surprising is that Clean Line has chosen to further its "miscommunication" that its project capacity is only available for transmission of wind energy.  You'd think they might be thankful to have dodged the discrimination bullet for the time being and show more decorum, but no, not Clean Line.  It appears that the company has interpreted FERC's action of kicking the discrimination can down the road to mean that FERC won't enforce its own regulations later, or simply doesn't care.

Clean Line's press release claimed:

So, what are you saying here, Clean Line?  That "clean" wind energy will fill your project over three times before you allow any competition from other generators?  Naughty, naughty!

Back in March, when GBE's FERC application was still pending, the Missouri Landowners Alliance filed a protest, informing the Commission that GBE had been soliciting interest in its project exclusively from wind generators in contravention of FERC's open access policies.  FERC requires transmission owners to provide non-discriminatory transmission access to prevent gaming of electricity markets.  A transmission owner is like the highway toll collector, and may not pick and choose which cars can use its road as that would allow the toll collector to give preference to the cars that increase its market share, profits, or any other criteria it values.  Therefore, GBE must offer its capacity to ALL generators equally, not just those producing electricity at wind farms.

In response to the protest, FERC said:

FERC has merely kicked that can down the road for the time being.  FERC's Order is only a conditional authorization for GBE to negotiate to sell capacity, contingent upon the company making the required compliance filing after it sells its capacity.  In that filing GBE bears the burden of proving that it complied with its own plan to publish broad notice of its project to ALL generators, and that its selection of customers was non-discriminatory.

FERC's "approval" ain't no big thing.  Any legal monkey could have concocted a "plan" to negotiate transmission rates using prior FERC orders.  As more than one lawyer has told me, creating legal filings is mere mimicry of prior filings that were successful.  The real "approval" from FERC may only come after GBE has properly conducted its negotiations as per the plan and made its compliance filing without attracting protests or complaints that GBE discriminated against certain customers.  Good luck there, Clean Line ;-)

Of course, authorization to negotiate rates does not equate to the ability to do so.  GBE still needs approval from every state in which it intends to build its project, including Missouri and Illinois.  It needs to put a real price tag on the cost of its project so that the fantastical business plan can generate profits by selling its service.  It needs some customers, either generators (that don't exist), or utilities wanting to buy power from the non-existent generators.  It has none, and is not actively seeking any at this time.

This is not a "federal approval" for GBE's project.  Words on paper need to be followed through with actual deeds.  Do you think Grain Belt Express will be able to deliver on its promise to FERC?