Category:

The Clean Line Blame Game

8/16/2017

In the wake of the Missouri Public Service Commission's denial of Clean Line's Grain Belt Express project today, fingers were pointing everywhere.

Clean Line's Michael Skelly blamed the PSC.

“The PSC’s decision to deny approval of the project, despite the clear public benefits, sends a clear message that investors contemplating new infrastructure projects should not come to Missouri. Today’s ruling is inconsistent with good government and sound public policy and it is our hope that moving forward Missouri will work to remove barriers to building new critical infrastructure projects.”

The PSC blamed the courts.

Instead, the commission said it was bound by a court opinion rendered earlier this year on the Mark Twain Transmission Project. That case involved the issue of assent — or permission from counties to use right-of-ways to construct the project.

Screwball environmental fringe group Renew Missouri blamed the governor.

"...the decision on the Grain Belt Express today shows our new Governor’s administration isn’t serious about economic development and household budgets as promised. Just more talk with no action.”

Let's pause here and put on our thinking caps, shall we?

What's the problem?

Grain Belt Express did not have necessary county assents.

Whose fault is that?

It's Clean Line's fault, of course! None of this would have happened if Clean Line had produced county assents.

And why couldn't Clean Line produce county assents?

Because it treated county commissions and affected landowners like they didn't matter. Instead of offering something landowners could accept, Clean Line thought it prudent to ignore landowner concerns and request eminent domain to take their property against their will. If Clean Line had truly worked to find a way to get landowner support, the county commissions may have granted assent.

But Clean Line didn't.

The denial of Grain Belt Express is only Clean Line's fault.

3 Comments

Grain Belt Express's Worst Nightmare

8/8/2017

2 Comments

Legal transcripts contain an index. The transcript of last week's Missouri Public Service Commission Oral Argument in the Grain Belt Express case includes the word "nightmare."

There was a bit of debate regarding exactly what constitutes Grain Belt Express's worst nightmare. PSC Chairman Hall thought issuing a non-appealable favorable finding (but not a permit) for GBE to use as leverage for assent of county commissions would create GBE's "worst nightmare" of hanging in limbo forever. However, GBE's attorney was quick to correct him. He said dismissal of the application was GBE's "worst nightmare," because dismissal means the project is dead. Chairman Hall started to disagree, then changed his mind. I still think a dead project is better than a limbo project, at least it has finality and stops costing the investors money that maybe they don't want to invest anymore.

Chairman Hall thought GBE's idea that a "favorable finding" by the PSC would convince the counties to give assent to the project "naive."

CHAIRMAN HALL: Yes, I have a few. I want to start with your alternative argument that
the Commission go through the Tartan analysis, determine that Grain Belt has met each of those factors, but then withhold issuing the certificate. Would that be an appealable decision?
MR. ZOBRIST: I think it would be because if you construe Neighbors United to say that you cannot issue a CCN, you're making these other findings and you're simply withholding it at that point. To be honest, I really haven't thought through that. It may be -- it depends on what your language is. I think if you say that this part is final, you view it as appealable, that that might be something for us to take a look at because it may not be an appealable order until either --
CHAIRMAN HALL: I think that would be your worst-case scenario. Then you're sitting in limbo here and you can't take the order up. MR. ZOBRIST: Well, I'm being the optimist, Chairman. I'm assuming we get favorable factual findings on the public convenience and necessity. We'd use those to go to the county commissions and say the Public Service Commission has weighed in and says the public is not going to be harmed and you should issue your county assents and then we'll be back. Now, if you -- if you deny it, if you dismiss it, then I think --
CHAIRMAN HALL: Well, that's --
MR. ZOBRIST: Pardon me. Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN HALL: That, to be perfectly blunt, seems a little naive to me that this commission's decision on public interest is going to sway the county commissions, and so --
MR. ZOBRIST: Like I said --
CHAIRMAN HALL: I think the reality is that that would be almost your worst nightmare because then the case just sits in limbo here and you can't take it up on appeal.
MR. ZOBRIST: Well, let me put it this way. The nightmare is if you just dismiss it out of hand because then the project's dead. The
problem --
CHAIRMAN HALL: I would say that's better than this because at least then -- oh, okay. I'm sorry. I'm with you now. Keep going.

The transcript also contains derivatives of the word "baffle." As in

I mean, I completely understand Mr. Zobrist's argument. I'm baffled by yours.

So said Chairman Hall regarding MJMEUC's argument that the ATXI decision supports the issuance of a conditional permit for GBE.

I'm thinking that the hearing did not go well for GBE. Chairman Hall did not seem to be buying the arguments that the ATXI decision wasn't relevant to the GBE case. In order to declare the ATXI decision inapposite, GBE would have had to distinguish itself from ATXI, and it completely failed to do so. Instead it put forth arguments that were "naive" and "baffling" that urged the Commission to defy the courts and issue a CCN with language that tells the court their ATXI decision was wrong. If the Missouri Supreme Court declined to do so, it's not the place of the PSC to attempt to re-interpret the law. The law is clear, and the courts have spoken. Done.

And speaking of specious arguments, the attorney for the Sierra Club and other parties really stepped in it. He told the Commission,

We've also raised the possibility of a county veto being in violation of federal law, and this is based solely on my general knowledge, but it seems that local interference with interstate commerce and electricity would violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Federal Power Act gives FERC authority over interstate transmission lines. The state still has authority to regulate the siting of interstate transmission lines, but they're otherwise preempted.

This guy's "general knowledge" is flat out wrong. The Federal Power Act only gives FERC authority over interstate transmission RATES. It does not give them permitting or siting authority. FERC cannot approve transmission projects. The states have complete jurisdiction over the siting and permitting of interstate transmission lines and are not "preempted" from acting. With this kind of stellar legal analysis, can we believe anything this guy says? The Sierra Club needs to mind its own business and stop trying to interfere in state transmission permitting cases. They only succeed in making themselves irrelevant.

So now it's up to the Missouri PSC to decide what to do with this case. The ATXI decision does preclude the issuance of a CCN for GBE. Any attempt to go around it, as suggested by GBE and its sycophants, will most likely be struck down by the courts. GBE's attorney has to recognize this. He seemed nearly hysterical in his anger and frustration when it appeared that he failed to convince the Commissioners to go along with his "path forward." Remember, the nightmare isn't keeping this case in limbo, but in dismissing it. While logical thinking says that limbo is the worst thing that could happen, for some reason GBE is looking forward to it. It's almost as if GBE is already hanging in limbo, unable to unlock enough cash to continue operations unless it receives some sort of "favorable" opinion from the MO PSC. It doesn't seem to matter if the favorable opinion hangs the project in legal limbo, or results in a future court vacating the favorable opinion. It's all about having that piece of paper right now.

The Missouri Public Service Commission holds the key to the Clean Line money vault. Without it, the project is dead... and likely the other Clean Line projects as well. In the wilds of Mayberry, an animal so injured it cannot recover is put out of its misery. It's a kindness to end its suffering. GBE is suffering. It cannot be saved. It's time...

2 Comments

Why Buy the Milk When You Can Own the Cow?

7/27/2017

2 Comments

Have you often wondered why Clean Line Energy Partners doesn't have any customers for its transmission projects?

Clean Line proposes to build a transmission line and sell capacity on the line to load serving entities who want to buy power from future wind facilities and ship it east to serve their retail customers.

But what if that load serving entity already owned a bunch of its own generation and transmission assets... would buying one more generator and building one more transmission line be no big deal?

Utilities make money by owning physical assets like transmission lines and regulated generators that allow them to shift the costs and risks to captive customers and earn a guaranteed return (or profit) on their ownership.

Clean Line wanted to make money just like any utility by owning a profitable asset. Except other utilities would much rather own the transmission (and generation) asset themselves and collect a return. It's sort of like the difference between paying rent and ownership, and ownership comes with a guaranteed return on your investment. What's not to like for big utilities who want to purchase generators and transmission lines to serve their geographically distant customers?

This article explains how utilities are cutting out the middleman wind farm and transmission line owner in favor of scoring the biggest profit.

Yup, AEP has announced that it wants to buy the country's largest wind farm currently under construction and build a transmission line from the wind farm to its customers. I'm guessing AEP doesn't want to buy transmission capacity from Clean Line and then hope generation springs up at its terminus. The risks of that are that Clean Line will never actually be permitted and financed to build any transmission, or that the wind farms won't be built, or that prices will be much higher than expected if they actually do. Utilities hate risk.

But AEP is no hero and its $4.5B plan has an uphill regulatory battle as it seeks to stick customers with the risks of its renewable energy plays. AEP figures its plan will save customers in four states $7 billion, most through use of federal production tax credits for wind. Ahhhh... AEP.... did you stop to apply any simple logic to that idea? Where do you think federal production tax credits come from? They come from taxpayers. They're not cash that just falls out of the sky when a wind turbine spins. So, those customers who receive $7B in savings are also paying into a tax system that creates the savings. How much do customers actually save when the tax burden of creating the credits gets added into the equation? How many other taxpayers around the country that don't receive any of AEP's $7B savings are going to be subsidizing this artificial savings house of cards? And what happens to a wind farm with a 25-year lifespan when a 10-year tax subsidy expires? What are the savings then? This plan may never come to fruition.

But it stands a much better chance than Clean Line's plan. It's interesting that AEP's ginormous wind farm is located in exactly the spot Clean Line claimed independently owned wind farms to support its Plains & Eastern Clean Line would spring up.

I'm thinking this announcement pretty much makes what Clean Line is peddling even less appealing. Did AEP ask Clean Line to build a converter station near Tulsa to deliver power from a wind farm in the panhandle? Of course not! If AEP builds its own transmission line, it can earn anywhere between 9-12% annual return on its investment, plus have all its operating costs fully covered by ratepayers.

This is why you failed, Clean Line. Why buy the milk when you can own the cow?

2 Comments

Not Even Environmentalists Love Transmission Lines "For Wind" Through Their Own Little Slice of Paradise

7/26/2017

3 Comments

We're going to start here. Play this song and turn up the volume.

Karma gave me a giggle last week when I read a story about the Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission line proposed for Wisconsin and Iowa. The project, one of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator's (MISO) multi-value projects designed to increase the distribution of wind power across the region, is being panned by Howard Learner of the Environmental Law and Policy Center.

"The world has changed since MISO began this," said Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center, with offices in Chicago and Madison, serving as attorney for the Driftless Area organization. "It's sort of like saying it's important to build more telephone wires and poles to serve the additional landlines that people in Middleton and Cross Plains are going to use, and then all of a sudden, cell phones came in."
Learner, who has a home near Spring Green, said upgrades to local power lines would be more appropriate than a huge transmission line that will carry electricity produced by fossil fuel and nuclear plants, as well as wind power.
"This is not the right place ... unless it's absolutely needed to keep the lights on, and this line is not needed for that purpose," Learner said.

Oh, Learner has a home near Spring Green, you say? Gosh, that's dangerously close to Cardinal-Hickory Creek's proposed route, isn't it?

So, now, after years of supporting other big transmission projects "for wind" across other states (see list of "supporters" at bottom of page), Learner has finally seen the light. Can we get a Hallelujah, brothers and sisters?

"It's not the right place..." if it's near Howard's little slice of paradise. But it is the right place if it's near someone else's. Got it.

I think Howard might be a hypocrite.

Here's wishing a transmission line "for wind" in every environmentalist's backyard! Perhaps then we can get on with real progress, like distributed generation and upgrading local power lines to distribute locally generated renewables. That might REALLY change the world!

3 Comments

Rural America Doesn't Want to Become America's Power Plant

6/26/2017

8 Comments

A friend sent me an op ed that cracked the door on a little bit of truth that urban America needs to accept. Rural America doesn't want to become your power plant. Donald Trump was in Iowa recently, and issued a Trumpism critical of wind power. The media jumped on its propaganda pony to point out that Iowa loves wind, and gets 36.6% of its energy from wind. The story was that Trump was a lone critical voice and that Iowans are happy to reap wind profits and jobs and nobody minds becoming America's power house. That's just not true, according to the op ed. There is serious resistance to industrial wind in Iowa and other rural states. I already know this, but many do not, preferring instead to believe the rosy picture painted by an industry making money hand over fist exploiting rural America.

What's the difference between what happened in West Virginia a hundred years ago and what's happening in the Midwest now? Not much. Out-of-state corporations invaded and bought up the land and the people in order to exploit them for corporate gain. The people were told it was a great opportunity for jobs and tax revenue, and became so dependent on a single industry that they can't survive without it. Energy became the only game in town, and the politicians and profiteers refused to utter any criticism, despite the reality that it was actually destroying the state. And then, just like that, energy was no longer sustainable in the state because society had moved on from that particular form of energy. And the state was left in ruins as the corporations raced on to the next big energy goldmine. Those who refuse to learn from history are destined to repeat it.

Wind energy relies on tax credits. The companies who build wind farms are raking in the dough courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. When the governmental largess stops, so will the wind farms. But meanwhile, wind energy companies are desperately, madly, trying to build new tax credit generators while they still can. And rural America resists.

What was it Donald Trump said? "I don't want to just hope the wind blows to light up your house and your factory..." Wind is an intermittent resource. It doesn't blow constantly at a consistent speed. If Iowa was 100% dependent on wind energy, homes and factory lights would rise and fall like the wind. I saw another propaganda blast last week that claimed a European country's train system runs on "100% wind energy." Untrue. Electrons are all the same color, whether created by coal or wind, and they're all mixed together when combined on the electric grid. Otherwise, that train would start and stop, slow down and speed up, based on a gust of wind. Face it, other forms of energy generation must back up intermittent resources to provide a steady stream of energy. At some point, wind reaches saturation in a geographic area, and considering that rural America doesn't use a whole lot of power compared to urban America, Iowa may be at its saturation point right now. But the tax credits are still good for another 3 years, and once a wind farm qualifies, it can draw on that credit for 10 years. When the last big hurrah of wind gets built in 3 years, and when the 10-year draw of taxpayer profits expires, Iowa is going to be left in a graveyard of broken wind turbines that are too expensive to fix, and without tax credits, it doesn't make sense to replace them. But the wind industry needs to build NOW, even if Iowa can't use the power, so the companies want to export it. And the next thing you know, some cowboy wants to build gigantic transmission lines for export. While hosting turbines is completely voluntary on the part of the landowner (and some argue that the landowner is paid quite generously for leasing land), cowboy's transmission line wants to use eminent domain to force landowners to host its towers for a pittance. There's a complete disconnect here -- if wind farms are voluntary, then the infrastructure to enable them should also be voluntary. But it's not. And rural America objects to having its productivity and lifestyle sacrificed for benefit of big wind's profits and the environmental dreams of electric consumers in other states.

This article makes a better attempt at balanced coverage. This is the story that urban America never hears. And the few who do hear it tell the ones living in wind alley that their criticisms of industrial wind aren't true, or that the should just suck it up, or that criticism of big wind is a sock puppet of the Koch brothers. As one Iowan commented, you just haven't become effective in your opposition until some arrogant, urban environmentalist accuses you of being funded by the fossil fuel industry. Nailed it.

Putting aside the politicians and wind farm hosts, and the corporations who fund them with a tiny portion of their profits, all the "support" of big wind comes from urban environmentalists who don't live there. This is often expressed quite arrogantly by folks who want to save the planet at someone else's expense. They're condescending, they're blithe, they're arrogant, and they don't want to host energy infrastructure in their own communities. They're looking for the next patsy, because importing coal-fired power from West Virginia is now just so gauche. It's not about taking responsibility for their own needs (something rural America is very familiar with), it's about demanding that someone else take responsibility and sacrifice for their needs. The dictating to rural America about what they must do isn't going over too well. Rural America isn't some cretinous population easily swayed to paint Tom Sawyer's fence, and they resent being treated as such. And they will continue to resist urban America until the arrogance stops. Everybody matters, or nobody matters. Those who think they're so smart that they can control rural America like a monkey on a leash just can't seem to grasp why they continue to lose. We must come together on even footing. If you love wind energy, urban America, put it in your own backyard. Rural America doesn't want to become your power plant.

8 Comments

If Grain Belt Express Wants a MO PSC Decision, it has to be a Denial

6/13/2017

1 Comment

Remember when GBE's Mark Lawlor told the media that the MO PSC Commissioners "were confused" about the project when they denied its application in 2015?

Now GBE and its allies have again informed the PSC that they got it wrong at a recent Commission agenda meeting when they unanimously decided to put a decision on hold until the matter of Neighbors United v. Ameren is firmly decided by the courts.

Grain Belt Express, MJMEUC, Infinity Wind, and some environmental group all filed whiny, superfluous briefs urging the Commission to issue a decision on Grain Belt Express and repeat the legal mistake they made on the Ameren case. They rehashed their prior arguments that the GBE case is different than the Ameren case. Obviously the Commissioners read those arguments the first time and rejected them. What's changed? Nothing. Nothing at all. They just increased the volume of the whining, made specious claims, and behaved like spoiled brats who can't stand it that they're not getting their way.

The whiners claim that delay will make it impossible for Infinity Wind to claim this year's 80% production tax credit and if it can't qualify, then the price for MJMEUC will go up. Say what? MJMEUC signed a contract for wind at a cost that wasn't fixed? Well, wasn't that poor planning on your part, MJMEUC? Didn't your momma ever tell you not to count your chickens before they hatched? And if MJMEUC's cost to purchase wind from Infinity Wind goes up, doesn't that also mean that the claimed "$10M savings" disappears and that the Commission can no longer rely on that to make a decision? You didn't think this one out too well, did you?

So, let's see... the production tax credit is paid for by U.S. taxpayers. Infinity Wind claims it will use that credit to sell power to MJMEUC at a low price. It's not like it's "free"... any PTC not claimed equals a tax break for everyone, including MJMEUC customers.

And maybe I missed something, but I don't remember anything from the evidentiary hearing saying that MJMEUC's contract with Infinity Wind was dependent upon the company scoring an 80% PTC, and that prices would go up if the MO PSC doesn't approve GBE this year. So, is this claim even true?

GBE also whines that no decision is a "defacto denial" of its application. Is that sort of like a "pocket approval?" They both belong in the land of make believe.

The Commission just can't issue an approval of GBE and make it conditional upon future county assent. The last time they did that with Ameren, the court vacated their approval. The Commission can't issue an approval and pretend that county assent isn't needed at all. The court also said that was wrong. The only thing the Commission can do is delay, or issue a denial. It seems that GBE is either so arrogantly sure of itself that the only decision can be approval, or they actively want a denial of their application so they can put the project on a shelf and stop wasting cash on it.

Grain Belt Express must invest tens of millions of dollars in engineering, environmental permitting, and easement acquisition to continue to develop the Project. The Company’s ability to make this investment is severely limited by the present state of regulatory uncertainty in Missouri. If the Commission grants a CCN in this proceeding, that uncertainty will disappear and Grain Belt Express will continue to develop the Project. While parties opposed to the Project may appeal such a decision because of the lack of certain county assents, planning for the Project can continue. Because the Company has agreed that the Commission may condition the CCN to provide that Grain Belt Express will not begin construction until it has obtained all Section 229.100 county assents, no party will be prejudiced.

The parties are entitled to receive a decision by the Commission. Whether that decision grants or denies the Application, the parties and the public at large deserve to know whether the Commission believes that Grain Belt Express has met the Tartan criteria, and if it has, what conditions should govern the CCN. Any significant delay in the Commission coming to a decision benefits no one.

It's not true that the Commission can issue a decision on whether or not the project meets the Tartan criteria and either condition it, or ignore completely, county assent. County assent is the threshold issue, and there's no point in an advisory opinion on Tartan criteria when the threshold has not first been met. The only thing GBE "deserves" is to have its project denied for failing to acquire county assent. It's not like GBE is out there pounding the pavement trying to get county assent, which would definitively clear up this matter and allow the Commission to issue a decision on the Tartan factors. GBE is doing nothing to help itself, instead urging the Commission to commit a legal error and accept responsibility for GBE's failure.

Show Me Concerned Landowners' response succinctly sums it up:

If the Commission desires to rule on this case now, it must reject the Application.

Let's end this debacle now.

1 Comment

Is MJMEUC's Contract With Infinity Wind a Regulatory Stunt?

5/17/2017

1 Comment

During the Missouri Public Service Commission's hearing on the most recent Grain Belt Express application for a permit, much was made of a supposed power purchase contract between Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission (MJMEUC) and Infinity Wind. In Rebuttal Testimony before the PSC, Infinity Wind's Matt Langley stated:

I am referring to a contract that was just entered into on January 23, 2017, between Infinity and MJMEUC. Because the contract is contingent upon the approval of the Grain Belt Express Project, many of the terms remain confidential, but what I can say is that it is a 20-year term fixed-price contract that provides for the purchase by MJMEUC of a minimum of 100 MW of capacity and energy per year from our Iron Star Wind Project, a maximum purchase of 300 MW per year, and a likely purchase amount of 200 MW per year.

So, if we believe MJMEUC is committed to purchase at least 100 MW (but more likely 200 MW) from Infinity's Iron Star Wind Project, and that the energy must be delivered to MJMEUC via the Grain Belt Express, then the construction and operation of Iron Star must be contingent upon Grain Belt being in operation.

But, a recent article in the Wichita Eagle stated

The 400-megawatt Iron Star wind farm near Dodge City is in advanced development and likely will be built this year.

Even if the MO PSC approves Grain Belt Express this year, the soonest the project could be online is somewhere after 2020. And even that is a stretch, considering that GBE doesn't have near the amount of customers needed to finance its project.

So how is it that Infinity Wind will be building its 400 MW Iron Star project this year, when a committed customer that would purchase half the project's capacity cannot take delivery until sometime after 2020? Is Infinity Wind going to build the Iron Star project and let half of its turbines sit idle until sometime after 2020? Does Infinity Wind have another committed customer who promises to buy MJMEUC's share of the project, delivered over existing transmission lines, until GBE is built and MJMEUC can take delivery? Or is the MJMEUC contract simply a stunt designed to persuade Missouri regulators to approve GBE, and that Infinity Wind doesn't believe will actually come to fruition? Infinity Wind simply can't have it both ways. Either Infinity is going to build Iron Star and sell the full capacity to another customer, or Infinity is not going to build Iron Star, and forego the opportunity to make money from the project for many years. It just doesn't make sense.

In its Amicus brief at the Illinois Supreme Court (in the matter of Rock Island Clean Line's appeal of the Third District Appellate Court) Infinity Renewables stated

In sum, in the absence transmission certainty,
with regard to both the existence of the physical line and the user fees, wind generation developers, such as Infinity, will not commit capital to develop new generation projects in areas that currently lack such access.

So Infinity will not tie up its money developing new generation until the transmission it plans to use for delivery to customers is physically online.

But yet, Infinity claims that its Iron Star project is in "advanced development" and will likely be built this year, even though Grain Belt Express has not been approved and can't possibly even deliver until sometime after 2020. "Advanced development" most likely indicates that Infinity has invested some capital in "developing" the project.

So, which is it, Infinity? Are you developing Iron Star for production and sale of generation without the existence of Grain Belt Express? Or are you committing capital to develop new generation without transmission certainty?

Or was Infinity's testimony to the Missouri Public Service Commission just a bunch of hot air? These contradictions just can't be reconciled. One of those Infinity Wind statements just isn't true. Which one do you think it is?

1 Comment

U.S. Offshore Wind One Step Closer to Reality

5/15/2017

0 Comments

Big news last week when the Maryland Public Service Commission gave the nod to two wind projects to be built 12-21 miles offshore along the Maryland coast.

Cost impact is expected to be less than $1.40 a month for the average residential customer

Well, now how about that? "States farther east" building their own renewable generation, in their own backyard, and paying for it themselves. Bravo!

Sure looks cheaper than spending $10B on honkin' big new transmission lines to import "wind" from the Midwest.

And guess what?

The PSC said the two projects are expected to yield more than $1.8 billion of in-state spending. The agency says the projects are estimated to create nearly 9,700 new direct and indirect jobs and contribute $74 million in state tax revenues over 20 years.

The PSC's decision is contingent on approval by the federal government of the developers' site assessment plans, as well as construction and operations plans.

The plan includes a focus on developing port facilities in the Baltimore area and Ocean City. It calls for developers to invest at least $76 million in a steel fabrication plant in Maryland and at least $39.6 million for upgrades at Baltimore County's Tradepoint Atlantic shipyard, formerly Sparrows Point.

Commissioner Michael Richard said the wind farms will "enables us to meet our clean, renewable energy goals using energy generated within the state while conditioning our approval on holding project developers to their promises of creating jobs and spurring economic growth."

Economic development in Maryland, where the energy will be generated and consumed!

Sure beats the hell out of Clean Line Energy's plan to create economic development in Iowa and Kansas by building new terrestrial wind farms and ginormous electric transmission lines for thousands of miles that they expect Marylanders to use and pay for. Why would Maryland want to ship all its energy dollars to other states to create economic development somewhere else? Does that make sense, when local keeps it all in-state?

Win, win, win, Maryland!

0 Comments

Clean Line's Problem is Lack of Customers

4/27/2017

9 Comments

I was really trying to ignore it, because it's just so ridiculous. But, apparently many of you have seen the news video of Clean Line's Michael Skelly looking utterly desperate to spin his lack of success as an "infrastructure problem."

At one point in the video, the host says, "We're talking all around this... what is the problem?"

This is where Skelly should have spoken up and told the truth... the only "problem" with Clean Line's projects is that they have no customers. There is no market need for a "clean" line. There's not a thing in the world that Congress or President Trump can do about a product that nobody wants to buy. We already have a perfectly adequate, government-supervised electric transmission grid that has some of the best reliability in the world. That's what keeps your lights on, yesterday, today and tomorrow. Nobody wants to pay extra to use a "clean" line, and that's why Skelly has no customers. Clean Line has failed. Nobody can save it.

Forget about the rest of the blarney. But it is okay to wonder... has Skelly started dyeing his hair?

9 Comments

Guess Who's Now a Wind Company?

4/21/2017

6 Comments

So, hey, remember this?

"Clean Line Energy is independent from any existing or planned wind energy generation." Or so they said.

Except now...

Clean Line Energy has a brand new project on its website, the Mesa Canyons Wind Farm. It is owned by Clean Line Energy. So now they're suddenly a wind company?

What happened? Transmission business not going so well, Clean Line? Trying to find refuge in your former glory days developing wind? Are you going to "develop" wind projects to serve all your proposed transmission lines now, since you've been so unsuccessful at finding independent customers to buy your transmission capacity? Why not be your own customer? Kismet!

Honestly, the malarkey surrounding Clean Line is getting pretty thick. Grab a shovel and let's get to work...

How did this happen, anyhow?

Last time you looked, Clean Line was developing five transmission projects, right? Three heading east, and two heading west. Clean Line wasn't a wind company.

One of Clean Line's western projects, the Centennial West Clean Line, has been ineffectually spinning its wheels for years. Now, all of a sudden, Clean Line is going to develop a wind farm that will purchase transmission capacity on its Centennial West Clean Line.

Clean Line says:

Members of the Southern Corona Landowner Association (“Corona Landowners Association”) have executed long-term lease agreements for the development of Mesa Canyons on their properties. The Corona Landowners Association was formed in 2007 to facilitate wind energy development in the area.

It doesn't exactly say they executed a lease agreement with Clean Line. In fact, a little poking around on Google informs that the Corona Landowner Association that was formed a decade ago to market land to wind companies was eventually split into two groups, the Northern group, and the Southern group.

The Northern group signed with Shell Energy. Shell Energy is a partner on the proposed SunZia Transmission line. SunZia has announced an anchor tenant for its transmission capacity, San Francisco-based Pattern Energy. So that bunch has been happily developing their transmission project and wind farm ever since, and they actually got enough work done to qualify for the full production tax credit last year. Of course, not all is rosey. There is much discontent among landowners forced to host the transmission line, because they're not getting the kind of money the landowner group is getting for leasing their land to a wind company. But that's really not of interest to me today.

However, the Southern group signed with a company named FirstWind. FirstWind sold its wind assets to SunEdison in 2015. SunEdison filed for bankruptcy last year and sold their wind assets to NRG. And next, Clean Line is announcing they're a wind company again. But I notice Clean Line doesn't claim to own that lease... and where would Clean Line get money to buy a wind lease from NRG right now anyway? And where would Clean Line get more than a billion dollars to "invest" in building a wind farm? They've burned through hundreds of millions of dollars of investor cash trying to get customers for any one of their un-built transmission ideas. Clean Line has no revenue. So, maybe NRG still owns the lease and there's a deal with Clean Line to "develop" it?

How might that deal have happened? NRG isn't in such great shape itself. NRG fired visionary CEO David Crane in 2016. NRG got a new CEO. And in February of this year, there was another dustup where members of NRG's board were ousted in favor of "activist investors." Who now sits on NRG's board? One is C. John Wilder Jr., described as Executive Chairman of Bluescape. And what is Wilder going to do?

The agreement also establishes a new committee on the board that will review NRG's initiatives, asset portfolio, capital structure and broad strategic plans, and make recommendations on those to the board, according to the SEC filing. Wilder will chair that committee.

And, hey, Mesa Canyons Wind Farm dot com bought their dot com on the day after Wilder took his seat on the board. What a coincidence, right? You can look it up here. Go ahead. I'll wait.

Bluescape... Bluescape... where have I heard that name before? Oh, I know! Bluescape is the company that pumped a $50M investment into Clean Line in 2015.

Even with all that money from Bluescape, Clean Line still hasn't managed to get any of its projects built. Maybe Wilder can save his investment by getting struggling NRG involved? What a great idea! Ya know, if Clean Line can change itself into a wind company, and recognize some revenue, maybe it won't have to shut down while its transmission projects flounder and die... and maybe Clean Line can claw its way out of the toilet and save all the investors some happy cash? Well, unless Clean Line manages to botch up its new wind company as bad as it botched up its transmission business, and they all go down the potty together... Clean Line, Bluescape, and NRG.

Sniff, sniff... hey, do you smell something? It smells like an overflowing outhouse on an August afternoon in here. Gotta go get some fresh air....

6 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

The Clean Line Blame Game

Grain Belt Express's Worst Nightmare

Why Buy the Milk When You Can Own the Cow?

Not Even Environmentalists Love Transmission Lines "For Wind" Through Their Own Little Slice of Paradise

Rural America Doesn't Want to Become America's Power Plant

If Grain Belt Express Wants a MO PSC Decision, it has to be a Denial

Is MJMEUC's Contract With Infinity Wind a Regulatory Stunt?

U.S. Offshore Wind One Step Closer to Reality

Clean Line's Problem is Lack of Customers

Guess Who's Now a Wind Company?

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