Category:

"Clean" Bravado

12/23/2016

The collapse of Clean Line Energy Partners has begun. Although a long, screaming, fantastic flameout would tickle everyone's schadenfreude in a most delightful way, the death of Clean Line is more likely to look like this:

Now you see it, now you don't. You simply wake up one morning and it's gone. Snuck out of town in the middle of the night with its tail between its legs.

So, it looks like the company doesn't have enough "development" funds from its investors to continue running "full steam ahead" in Iowa. The company was faced with filing very expensive exhibit material at the Iowa Utility Board, while its Illinois permit for the same project has been ordered void by a court. It ended up being cheaper to withdraw its applications in Iowa. If the company chooses to refile at a future date, it will have to go through all the IUB requirements for a new application, such as landowner meetings in each county. Although time consuming, and disastrous from a public relations standpoint, withdrawing was the cheaper of the two options in Iowa.

Cheaper. Now all of a sudden Clean Line is concerned about costs? Have they burned through $200M in "development funds" already? Is the treasure chest getting a little low with no replenishment in sight? Maybe that's because Clean Line has been using its "development" funds to pay for parts of its projects that should be financed. Things like final engineering, environmental studies, purchase of rights of way, procurement of parts and labor, are all project costs, not development costs. Development costs are the costs of obtaining a permit to build. Once a permit is received, project costs begin. Except Clean Line still has its cart before its horse and is funding project costs with development money. Because it has no project financing. Because it has no customers.

Wow! How panicked are they in Houston right now? Yesterday's press release on the Iowa withdrawal screams false bravado.

Despite the Rock Island Clean Line’s schedule delays, the need to build electric infrastructure remains. Clean Line Energy continues to move full steam ahead on its other transmission projects. Currently, hundreds of people are at work to complete engineering and design, test materials, and negotiate easements to prepare for groundbreaking on the Plains & Eastern Clean Line, the country’s largest clean energy infrastructure project. The Plains & Eastern Clean Line will connect low-cost, clean energy resources in the Oklahoma Panhandle to Arkansas and states throughout the Southeast.

No, Clean Line will NOT be breaking ground on Plains & Eastern any time soon. Landowners in Arkansas and Oklahoma have refused to grant Clean Line right of way across their property. Clean Line does NOT have eminent domain authority. The most it can do is to run crying to the U.S. Department of Energy and ask that DOE begin condemnation proceedings against landowners who refuse. And guess what? The DOE has already written in stone that it will only begin condemnation proceedings against any landowners AFTER Clean Line reaches certain milestones with its project. First and foremost, Clean Line must have customers for its transmission capacity. Clean Line must have a contracted revenue stream sufficient to support financing to build its project. Clean Line has no customers. Therefore, Clean Line won't be breaking any ground until it has customers.

And on top of that, there is a lawsuit against DOE pending in federal court that claims DOE exceeded its statutory authority and trampled on the due process rights of Arkansas citizens. DOE is unlikely to move forward with this project until the matter is settled.

Clean Line is going nowhere fast. There is no "need" to build thousands of miles of "clean" lines. No transmission planner has determined a "need" for these lines, and the lines have no customers. No customers, no need!

No "clean" line!

4 Comments

Landowners Step Up to Protect Property Rights in Missouri

12/10/2016

0 Comments

The Missouri Public Service Commission held four public hearings this week on Grain Belt Express' second application to build an enormous electric transmission line across Missouri that is intended to serve eastern states. Four more hearings are scheduled for next week.

Dec. 13, 2016: Cameron, 12:00 p.m.*
Cameron Community Center, 915 Ashland Avenue
Dec. 13, 2016: Faucett, 6:00 p.m.
Mid-Buchanan High School, Multipurpose Room, 3221 SE Route H
Dec. 14, 2016: Polo, 12:00 p.m.*
Community Center at Stagecoach Park, 1010 Main Street
Dec. 14, 2016: Carrollton, 6:00 p.m.
Rupe Community Center, 710 Harvest Hills Drive

Landowners have filled the public venues, like they did during GBE's first run at the PSC. Some have spoken quite eloquently about the detrimental effect the project will have on their land, their business, their heritage, and their life. It doesn't have to be fancy, just heartfelt. I encourage everyone to get up and let the Commissioners present know how this project will affect them.

Kelly Sherman of New London: "The irony of this sickens me...our sons are in the military and are willing to die for our country, but they can't come home to the very land they will inherit, it will be taken from them and devalued forever."

Larry Markley: "If this energy is so good for Missouri then why don't they sell it all here?"

Read many more landowner comments in news articles here and here.

In the second article, the pictures tell a story that the reporter failed to mention. Notice the sea of Amish hats in the foreground? That's right, these public hearings were well attended by the local Amish communities. Several Amish folks spoke against the power line. You might be thinking, "big deal," but it actually is a VERY big deal! The Amish rarely involve themselves in what they consider "resistance" and "worldly things." It is uncharacteristic for the Amish to participate in social protest, or to do anything other than "turn the other cheek" when they are threatened. The fact that they came, and spoke, should take the PSC's breath away.

As expected, Grain Belt Express stepped up their game to deliver even more clueless advocates for their project than before. The first day, they presented a bunch of students from St. Louis University. FREE FOOD AND DRINK, and at a popular St. Louis brewery no less! Do you all need me to buy you a drink in exchange for showing up and speaking your mind? (Or really, my mind, because that's more apt.) Pathetic!

So, what did these students, and their Sierra Club counterparts have to say for themselves? They told the PSC that Grain Belt Express would shut down existing coal-fired power plants in Missouri and clean up the air. Nothing could be further from the truth!! I'm betting they didn't get a copy of Grain Belt's "contract" with Missouri municipalities to go with their free beer. The "contract" also includes up to 50MW of transmission service from Missouri to Indiana, where the line is proposed to connect with PJM Interconnection, the regional grid that serves the mid-Atlantic states. What are Missouri municipalities planning to ship to Indiana? Will they be re-selling their "clean" electricity to eastern cities? Of course not! They are creating an arbitrage opportunity whereby they may sell their own dirty, stinking generation (such as Prairie State) into PJM markets when price differentials are favorable. This will create new markets for dirty Missouri generation and prolong the life of the coal-fired power plants that currently foul Missouri's air. Without a "clean" line to open new markets for them, these plants would be forced to close when competing with regional renewables. With a "clean" line, however, they can continue to belch their dirty exhaust into Missouri's air, and sell their output into expensive eastern markets for many years to come. Silly beer-powered advocates! If you'd spent more time actually researching the project, instead of simply repeating Clean Line's glitering generalities, you might actually take some action to clean up the air you breathe.

The same goes for the GBE advocates who simply accept and repeat the falsehood that GBE will save consumers money on electric rates, instead of spending just a moment to research the facts. Where did this magical "savings" come from? Did you ask? It came from here:

Preliminary calculations, assuming existing production tax credits for wind project participation in the project, could reduce costs by as much as $10M/year or $10 per megawatt hour compared to delivery of other wind projects from SPP to MISO.

That's right... it came from Clean Line's guesstimate of savings that it used to promote its transmission line to Missouri municipalities. No cost study was ever performed! There are no firm generation costs included in pricing, because Clean Line does not own or sell generation, and the wind farms in its guesstimate have not yet been built. What's wrong with that? Clean Line's guesstimate includes hypothetical pricing from wind farms that are eligible for the full production tax credit. Those farms have not been built, and the tax credit begins phase out after December 31 of this year. Even if the wind farms are eventually built, they will receive a reduced credit, and that means that their cost of generation will be increased by an amount at least equal to the foregone credit. Any actual "savings" will be much less than the quoted $10M, and then split between more than 30 cities, and millions of customers. How much could ratepayers save? Pennies, perhaps, but it could also end up costing them even more in the long run. It's so hypothetical, nobody knows!

And those Clean Line advocates from economic development and chamber of commerce offices? They believe they will be showered with tax payments and jobs. Reality will be far different, and not equal to the cost of hosting the line and a few temporary, low-wage jobs. They're in it because they think they smell a big payday.

Which leads us to the another kind of advocate -- companies who think they will be awarded contracts for supplies and labor. They support the project simply to fill their own pockets.

A landowner at one of the hearings observed that many of the Clean Line advocates left the hearing as soon as they had spoken. They have no skin in the game. Those sincerely interested in the project stayed through the entire hearing... those were the landowners.

And as far as the handful of landowners who have popped up to support GBE, isn't it funny that they all touted the same fictional "$10M savings"? It's almost as if their comments and Letters to the Editor were heavily edited by Clean Line. I wonder if that cost extra, aside from any easement payments made to date? Greed can make some folks do despicable things. At any rate, they are soundly outnumbered, hundreds to one.

So, week one of public hearings have come and gone. Score one for the landowners, who won the moment by simply showing up and being genuine! Bravo!

0 Comments

Missouri Lawmakers and Agricultural Associations Oppose Grain Belt Express -- Public Hearings Start Today!

12/7/2016

0 Comments

Numerous agricultural associations and business groups across the state have recently expressed strong opposition to Grain Belt Express, a high-voltage electric line proposed to plow through northern Missouri on its way to the east coast.

In a recent editorial, Missouri Farm Bureau president Blake Hurst said, “Grain Belt Express has promised a series of steps it says will protect landowners, bragging that landowners will receive 32 million dollars in total compensation. However, the landowner compensation anticipated from Clean Line is predicated on the use of eminent domain, which means that individual landowners will have absolutely no bargaining power. Also the idea of promising energy savings to a few, but politically-influential, municipalities so Clean Line can then trample on the rights of others, is a precedent that is distasteful if not downright frightening.”

Mike Deering of the Missouri Cattlemen's Association (MCA) said his organization stands firmly behind the protection of private property rights. “The actions to-date of Clean Line Energy are best characterized as a pervasive invasion of private property rights. MCA fully supports the efforts of Block Grain Belt Express-Missouri to protect landowner rights and opposes Grain Belt Express Clean Line's application to the MO PSC,” Deering stated.

Other agricultural groups opposed to the project include Missouri Corn Growers, Missouri Sheep Producers, and Sydenstricker Implement, one of the largest John Deere businesses in the state.

Owner Eddie Sydenstricker, whose business has been serving the Missouri agricultural community for more than 70 years, supports agriculture and landowner rights, and opposes a private-for-profit company obtaining the power of eminent domain.

“I believe Grain Belt Express' massive high-voltage DC transmission line will not only violate property rights, but will reduce property value far beyond any token compensation, spoil our rural landscape, create obstacles in fields for our agricultural producers resulting in reduced productivity and increased costs, and it will also limit future options for farms and cause the potential for adverse health risks for residents and their livestock,” said Sydenstricker.

Also expressing opposition to the project were several Missouri lawmakers, including 40th District Representative Jim Hansen.

"I hope the Public Service Commission can continue to stand with Missouri citizens and their property rights. They voted in support of Missourians the first time around and I hope they will the second time. As a strong supporter of agriculture, which is the key industry in my district, I oppose the efforts of Clean Line Energy, the Grain Belt Express project, and their efforts to obtain eminent domain. I feel it is not right to put the interests of an out-of-state company ahead of Missourians' private property rights. Going forward, I will continue to do all that I can to preserve landowner rights and ensure that the Public Service Commission does not grant Clean Line a certificate of convenience," said Hansen.

Eight Missouri county governments have formally withdrawn support of Grain Belt Express, including Caldwell, Clinton, Chariton, Monroe, Audrain, Pike, Marion and Ralls Counties.

Ralls County Commissioner Wiley Hibbard said, “The citizens of Ralls County oppose this mega power line. It is, in my opinion, just an attempt by a small group of investors to make profits from the clean energy movement. Please know that this is not the only way to get wind-generated power to Missouri or Ralls County. We are receiving wind energy now. I think that anyone who wants to take our land by force to provide wind energy to the East Coast is just providing another example of the East Coast elitists telling us we do not matter!”

The Missouri Public Service Commission has scheduled public hearings in eight counties across the state beginning next week.

Jennifer Gatrel, spokeswoman for Block GBE-Missouri urged citizens concerned about this and other attacks on private property rights to attend. “The PSC listened carefully to our concerns last time they denied this project,” she said, “It is very important that they hear our voices again.”

The public hearing schedule:

Dec. 7, 2016: Monroe City, Knights of Columbus Hall, 12:00 p.m.*
424 South Locust
Dec. 7, 2016: Hannibal, Theater Auditorium, 6:00 p.m.
Hannibal-LaGrange University, 2800 Palmyra Road
Dec. 8, 2016: Marceline, 12:00 p.m.*
Walsworth Community Center, 124 East Ritchie
Dec. 8, 2016: Moberly, 6:00 p.m.
Moberly Municipal Auditorium, 201 West Rollins
Dec. 13, 2016: Cameron, 12:00 p.m.*
Cameron Community Center, 915 Ashland Avenue
Dec. 13, 2016: Faucett, 6:00 p.m.
Mid-Buchanan High School, Multipurpose Room, 3221 SE Route H
Dec. 14, 2016: Polo, 12:00 p.m.*
Community Center at Stagecoach Park, 1010 Main Street
Dec. 14, 2016: Carrollton, 6:00 p.m.
Rupe Community Center, 710 Harvest Hills Drive

*In order to be able to move equipment to the next local public hearing that same day, 12:00 p.m. local public hearings will end no later than 4:00 p.m.

For more very important info please visit: http://blockgbemo.com/

0 Comments

Pavlov's Energy Markets

12/6/2016

0 Comments

What's the difference between a generator over-forecasting its output in order to collect DAMAP payments from MISO when their day-ahead schedule is higher than their actual real-time output, and an electricity market trader making trades designed to collect MLSA transmission credit payments from PJM?

It sure looks like it's based on pre-conceived notions of the "goodness" of the recipient of the regional transmission organization payments.

A recent article in RTO Insider details a report to MISO's market subcommittee by Market Monitor David Patton, which revealed "some wind generators appear to be deliberately over-forecasting their output to inflate their revenues."

Two-thirds of MISO’s $7.5 million in DAMAP payments to wind resources in 2015 and 2016 was because of over-forecasting and only $2.5 million was spent on curtailment, Patton said. “Most of our wind DAMAP payments are unjustified,” he said.

DAMAP payments are described like this:

The purpose of DAMAP is to provide an incentive for Market Participants to be flexible in their offers in the real-time market.

The DAMAP compensates suppliers when (i) the real-time dispatch of a resource is reduced below the day-ahead schedule's level, and (ii) the market participant would have been financially better off in real-time had it operated at its day-ahead schedule.

Read the whole article for an explanation of how DAMAP can and is being manipulated by wind generators to receive higher compensation payments.

This is complicated stuff! Regional energy markets are extremely complicated, to the point that they are nearly incomprehensible to the regular folks who fund millions of dollars in "market compensation" payments every year in their electric bills. But don't feel too bad, it appears that energy markets are also complicated for the experts who create and police them to try to prevent manipulation by traders and other participants. Every regional electric market would be well-served by a couple of whip-smart analysts whose only job is to continually test the market by attempting to find ways to manipulate it for profit. Obviously the creators and monitors of these markets are completely blind to the opportunities they create that allow participants to unwittingly "push the money button" and be rewarded by compensation payments. To expect Pavlov's dogs to immediately report the unexpected reward they received, instead of continuing to push the button and feast at will, is unnatural. If the creators and monitors of energy markets expect an unnatural response, they need to provide a compensatory reward for it. In lieu of having staff dedicated to and capable of rooting out flaws, market monitors should look at providing the stimulus necessary to find volunteers within the market participants.

So, how did the MISO Market Monitor propose to solve this problem, once discovered? He proposed changes to the market, instead of punishing the wind energy dogs who had been pushing the money button that brought it to his attention. He chose to stop ringing the bell.

But how did the PJM Market Monitor propose to solve a similar "money button" problem that developed in his own market? He worked with FERC to punish the traders who pushed the button and brought it to his attention. He beat the dog. In fact, FERC has proposed fining the traders somewhere in the neighborhood of $35M.

Why the disparate treatment? Is it because the general public looks disparagingly upon "Wall Street" (and therefore traders big and small) as the root of all evil? Is it because wind energy is looked upon by the same public as a "clean" and "good" struggling industry? I've got news for you, general public. Big wind is a hugely profitable industry whose greed knows no bounds! What may have started out as a cottage industry predicated upon selfless environmental gains has morphed into a gigantic subsidy- and compensation-gobbling monster that fills the pockets of foreign investors with your gold. Years of environmental propaganda has conditioned you to behave just like Pavlov's dogs when you hear the words "clean energy." You may believe anything with a "green" label must be "good" and therefore more valuable, without examining any actual benefits to you.

Energy markets will only work if they are consistent. Allowing one group of participants to escape the punishment heaped upon another group isn't consistent. What kind of bell are they trying to ring?

Oh, and big wind is ripping you off... big time!

0 Comments

Tick Tock, RICL

12/1/2016

3 Comments

Wow, time's a running short for the Rock Island Clean Line to get its Exhibit E material filed at the Iowa Utility Board. Even with Clean Line whining about the expense and time involved in collecting the information, the IUB set a deadline of January 13, 2017 for the filing of Exhibit E material for at least 4 counties, each of which shall have an approximately average number of condemnation parcels. That means no cheating by submitting the counties with the smallest number of condemnation parcels first. And then every month thereafter, Clean Line must file Exhibit E material for at least 4 more "average" counties, with all material to be filed by May 1, 2017.

So, where ya been, Clean Line? I thought the idea of all these delays was to give you opportunity to sign more voluntary easements? I'm guessing that's not going to happen, since nobody has seen Clean Line doing much of anything in Iowa. Just another waste of time. However, the clock is ticking toward the deadline for merchant projects that was made law by the Iowa legislature last session. There's no time to waste! And, speaking of the legislature, won't Clean Line have fun during the upcoming session, now that the Iowa Senate is Republican lead?

I wonder what's going to be more expensive, the Exhibit E material, or the money Clean Line is going to spend on lobbyists during the upcoming legislative session? Money-saving tip: Don't waste your money on lobbyists next year! Nobody's interested in listening to you cry about how poor you are at the IUB when you're shelling out millions for lobbyists all over the place.

And remember what the IUB suggests regarding eminent domain for utility projects:

•Avoid ED if possible (time, cost, public rel.)

Right. Those Exhibit E's take a lot of time and money to prepare, but that's nothing compared to the public relations (and political) nightmare you're about to embark upon. The taking of more than 1,000 parcels of land in Iowa by eminent domain to build your project is never going to happen. Successful utility projects typically take less than 10% of property through eminent domain, not 85%. You must have done something wrong in Iowa, Clean Line.... like arrogantly assuming you could force landowners to negotiate after the IUB rubberstamped your request for eminent domain authority. Ooops!

And what good is any of this when you don't have a permit in Illinois? You're awfully optimistic about your chances before the Illinois Supreme Court, not to mention your unrealistic timetable to which the Court is very unlikely to adhere. What does your fantasy timetable have to do with the amount of money you're spending in Iowa which may turn out to be a total waste?

And then you go and do this... you use "Theresa" to speak on your behalf in the Chicago Tribune story about your Supreme Court case. Err.... I mean Nancy, because that's apparently her real name, not the one she signed up as at the Illinois Commerce Commission public hearing in Mendota in September of 2013. Look, same woman in the Tribune story, except in that sign up line she wrote her name as "Theresa Hoover."

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Excuse me.You called Theresa Hoover who is a colleague of mine right before this gentleman spoke. Is there an opportunity for me to speak?

HEARING OFFICER: Say that
again.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: You called
Theresa Hoover.

HEARING OFFICER: Yes.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name was
supposed to be on the card instead of
Theresa's, so when you called her I
didn't step up because I didn't know it
was --

HEARING OFFICER: I have got to
go by what I started with.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: So would it
be okay if Theresa came up and spoke?

HEARING OFFICER: Pardon me?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Are you
saying Theresa would need to come up?

HEARING OFFICER: Correct.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay.

Fast Forward through one speaker...

HEARING OFFICER: Where did
that gentleman go that asked me the
question?
Is Theresa here?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: She is.

HEARING OFFICER: Where is she?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Here.

HEARING OFFICER: Theresa,
stand up, please.
Was it supposed to be his name on
there instead of yours?

THERESA HOOVER: Yes, sir, it
was.

HEARING OFFICER: Okay.

KERYN NEWMAN: Some other lady
signed that name because they were right
in front of us. Some lady that already
spoke signed Theresa's name up. I
watched her do it.
Theresa and him, neither one of them
signed their name

HEARING OFFICER: Is that true?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I did not sign my name. Theresa was supposed to sign my name.

HEARING OFFICER: Theresa, did
you sign your name?

THERESA HOOVER: No, sir,
actually someone who got here before us.
We made a long trip from Atlanta and
there was a gentleman that signed us up.

HEARING OFFICER: No, no.

Nancy, aka "Theresa" is obviously only supporting Clean Line in exchange for the tax money she thinks it will bring to her county. She doesn't look like she was having a great time tromping through the mud pretending to like Clean Line for the Tribune photographer. But what won't these local economic development employees do for a buck?

So, RICL, stop wasting your investors' money on this project and just go away. You'll never beat the clock.

Tick Tock!

3 Comments

Clean Fantasies

11/30/2016

4 Comments

There's been lots to laugh about in Clean Line's post-election media coverage. It's just so ridiculously inaccurate... and when sadly clueless environmental warriors petition the TVA to do something that's completely impossible, what else can you do but laugh, right?

The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy is currently running a petition asking the Tennessee Valley Authority to buy a commodity from a company that does not sell that commodity.

We strongly encourage TVA’s board of directors to immediately contract for at least 1,000 megawatts of wind power on the Plains and Eastern Clean Line. We need your help to urge TVA to buy wind power from Clean Line today

If this sounds possible to you, you're probably not alone. Plenty of reasonably intelligent reporters have somehow gotten the idea that Clean Line Energy Partners sells electricity. Clean "wind" electricity, for that matter. I wonder where they got that misconception? Was it from Clean Line? If so, Clean Line should really be ashamed of itself... or dinged for fraud. If not, Clean Line bears a tremendous responsibility to correct all the media and special interest groups that believe Clean Line sells electricity.

Clean Line Energy Partners does not sell electricity! Not now, not ever. I know I've explained this all before, ad nauseam, but CLEP is a transmission company. The only thing they propose to own in the future is a transmission line. They will not own or operate any electrical generators, and if they did, it would open a whole new can of regulatory worms that I won't get into here. CLEP claims to be an independent transmission company, unaffiliated with any electrical generators. This is a promise they made to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in their application for negotiated rate authority. FERC allowed CLEP to sell transmission service by negotiating rates with a group of interested customers. Transmission service is the only thing CLEP sells.

You don't buy your Christmas presents from UPS. You buy them from Amazon, and UPS delivers them to your house. UPS is the carrier, not the manufacturer, of your goods. Clean Line is the UPS of electricity delivery.

If TVA wants to purchase "1,000 MW of wind power," it must contract with a company that could generate 1,000 MW of wind power. Clean Line is not a generator. Therefore, it is completely impossible for the TVA to contract for "1,000 megawatts of wind power on the Plains and Eastern Clean Line." While it could contract with a generator that includes delivery on the Plains & Eastern Clean Line in its pricing, no such generator exists, and the TVA has no power to create one, much less one by the end of this year when the production tax credits expire.

SACE's petition is nothing more than Don Quixote, tilting at windmills.

A colossal waste of time!

And, even if it could do the impossible, power purchase decisions at the TVA aren't made solely by its Board of Directors, acting on a whim at the urging of environmentalists. In my experience, environmentalists have a very poor grasp of how the electrical system works, along with the myriad regulations that govern it. Power purchase decisions by the TVA are made very carefully by its huge staff of planners, who carefully balance price, deliverability, and need for power capacity. This staff makes recommendations, and the Board defers to their expertise. Whatever Kabuki Theater is performed at quarterly Board meetings during public comment sessions by Clean Line and its supporters can't change it. The TVA has evaluated a purchase of transmission capacity from the Plains & Eastern Clean Line many times and has thus far concluded that it would not be economic or needed by TVA's customers. End of story. SACE's petition is a fantasy.

And, speaking of fantasies, have you seen the gushing fantasies of CLEP President Michael Skelly, whose double-talk and glittering generalities have come positively unglued in the wake of the recent election?

If you build it, the wind developers will come, Clean Line has wagered.

But they haven't come. And that's just the problem. Clean Line can't build because it has no customers. It can only build if it has customers to create a revenue stream to finance the project. Wind generators haven't come because they have no customers lined up to buy power that can't be delivered in order to create their own revenue stream. Customers aren't coming because there is no transmission line, because there are no generators, because there are no customers. Chicken, egg. Everyday is Groundhog Day at CLEP!

Skelly can point to progress overseas with HVDC but also, closer to home, the Pacific DC Intertie bringing approximately 3,100 MW of mainly hydro power from the Bonneville Power Administration grid in northern Oregon to power almost half of Los Angeles.
“It was much debated for years,” Skelly recalled. “Today, that line is about 45 years old and has been upgraded a couple of times. It’s the backbone of the electric grid in the western United States.”

45 years old? Skelly is using 45-year old technology for his project. Remember that.

“The exciting thing is we’re putting together assets” which will contribute to the future wealth and diversity of the American economy, Skelly said. “We don’t know exactly where we’ll get our energy over the next 100 years, but we know it’s going to be different. We’re solving another challenge in how to get the best wind to market.”

Assets? What assets? What is he talking about? The only beneficiaries of Clean Line are its super-rich 1% investors, who think they can make a bundle off the last administration's clean energy scam. The only ones excited by that are the investors and Skelly. The rest of us know where we'll be getting our energy over the next 100 years, from small, distributed generators in our own basements or neighborhood. That's what's new. That's what's different. A one-way electrical highway designed to keep us all feeding at the trough of big energy generators is yesterday's news. Big transmission is dead.

Transmission lines have long been the almost exclusive domain of utilities, which use them to carry electricity from power plants to their distribution systems. But now a handful of companies outside those monopolies are developing much longer transmission projects paid for not by the people using the electricity, but the companies generating it - largely wind and solar farms.

Clean Line Power has four such projects under development. Founder and CEO Michael Skelly says most utilities have worked with his company, eager to get their hands on affordable and emissions-free power. But others have not.

Transmission "is the domain of utilities, but utilities typically focus on one state or a piece of one state," Skelly said. "If you look at Oklahoma, you have a fragmented set of players. Even though they sit on this fantastic wind resource, they're not chartered to move electricity to Atlanta."

What? Most utilities are eager to get their hands on Skelly's power? Where? Who? If that was true, CLEP would have some customers. Obviously "most" utilities are not eager to commit themselves to geographically-set transmission line capacity without a signed power purchase agreement.

And Skelly still thinks his projects are going to be paid for by wind and solar generators? What generators? I haven't seen one new generator advertise itself as a customer of Clean Line. New wind and solar generators are unlikely to spring up in the new political climate.

And, who "charters" electricity to be moved across state borders? What? I've honestly never heard of an interstate electricity "charter." That one comes straight from Skelly's rather fertile imagination. No wonder his company is struggling. C'mon, man, tell the damned truth for once, instead of making up crap and talking in glittering generalities and fantasies!

If nothing else, watching this company come unglued is entertaining. Pass the popcorn.

4 Comments

Why Grain Belt Express is a Bad Deal for Missouri

11/29/2016

6 Comments

Public hearings on Grain Belt Express' most recent application (its third) to the Missouri Public Service Commission are set to begin next week. Another huge public turnout to oppose the plan is expected.

None of Clean Line's smoke and mirrors about project "benefits" has any basis in fact or logic.

Clean Line's proposed "income" for landowners is a huge fabrication. Any payments to landowners are a lame attempt at compensation for property taken from landowners through the courts. In exchange for payments, landowners would be trading rights-of-way across their property. Eminent domain law requires the taking entity to compensate landowners for the market value of property taken from them. It is not additional "income." Income would allow a landowner to gain something valuable while losing nothing. The truth of the matter is that Grain Belt Express is proposing to make landowners whole for property taken from them. It's a wash, not a gain. It's no different than Walmart showing up at your house and cleaning out your pantry and freezer and then giving you "market value" for the goods it has confiscated. Meanwhile, Walmart has your food and can sell it to others for a profit. There are no benefits to landowners from construction of Grain Belt Express.

Clean Line's claims of increased tax revenue for counties crossed is another disingenuous glittering generality. In essence, it is a proposal that economic development opportunity trumps your right to own and enjoy property. Everyone's house would generate more tax revenue if it was a Walmart. Economic development alone is not reason enough to trample on private property rights. This is even more true when looked at through the public utility lens that Clean Line hides behind. Public utilities have enjoyed eminent domain authority when a project is necessary to serve the public. It's a high burden that a utility must carry to demonstrate that its project is necessary to serve the public. Simply stating that if property is taken and a project built that a public need will develop, is not enough to carry this burden to take property in the first place. Especially when the "utility" is Clean Line, who has no firm customers for its transmission line. It's all based on future speculation, and that's not good enough.

Clean Line's claims of increased tax revenue also fail to calculate any detriments Grain Belt Express will bring to affected counties. Properties crossed by electric transmission lines lose value. This lowers the assessed value of affected properties and decreases property tax revenue to the county. In addition, the burden of hosting the transmission line will cost the county in increased public safety expenses, both during the invasive construction of the project and for years afterwards when the counties must purchase equipment and supplies to prepare for any transmission line disaster that may happen in the future. For example, substation fires require different types of equipment and special chemicals to fight. Counties could spend their entire "windfalls" supporting Clean Line's infrastructure in their locality.

Clean Line's claims that its Grain Belt Express project will save Missourians $10M a year in energy costs is not based on fact. Although Clean Line witnesses make this claim in testimony to the PSC, there is nothing to back it up. No analysis, no numbers. Based on documents made public months ago, the $10M claim was concocted by Clean Line when it attempted to sell its capacity to Missouri municipalities.

Preliminary calculations, assuming existing production tax credits for wind project participation in the project, could reduce costs by as much as $10M/year or $10 per megawatt hour compared to delivery of other wind projects from SPP to MISO.

Preliminary calculations? Clean Line's calculations, which have yet to be revealed to the public. "Assuming existing production tax credits" assumes too much. At the end of this year, the production tax credit will begin phase out and the subsidy for wind energy will be cut 20%. The following year it will be cut 40%. The next year it will be cut 60%, eventually disappearing altogether within 5 years. Couple this with our friend Bob from the Hannibal BPW's recent statements that he has yet to contract for any wind energy to serve the City of Hannibal. That's because the generators Clean Line says will develop to use its project haven't been constructed yet. The only thing Missouri municipal utilities have tentatively contracted for with Clean Line is transmission capacity, not energy. Energy must be purchased separately, and come from the specific geographic area close to Clean Line's proposed converter station in southwest Kansas. It's not about purchasing the cheapest wind energy available in today's market, it's about speculation with unbuilt generators to supply energy via an unbuilt transmission line. Too many variables to accurately calculate any cost savings to Missouri, since Clean Line cannot and does not sell any energy proposed to be transmitted to Missouri via its project. How was this $10M "savings" calculated when there are no energy prices to work with? Sort of looks like Clean Line simply made it up out of hypothetical numbers presented in a light most favorable to Clean Line. But, hey, at least the Missouri municipalities have the option to back out of their "contract" with Clean Line at any time in the future and purchase nothing. If cities sit around waiting for Clean Line to ship them energy from generators that don't exist, at prices that have no basis in reality, then the cities may get stuck paying much higher prices to procure energy down the road if nothing develops and they're left without enough resources to serve customers. Coulda, woulda, shoulda... by law, utilities are required to have adequate resources under contract, not base their future service on hypotheticals.

And simply parading a collection of politicians and business interests who stand to personally profit from the construction of the project isn't support based on fact and logic. It's based on money, pure and simple.

True grassroots opinion based on fact and logic cannot be bought. True grassroots opposition will drown out expensive, manufactured "support" and will carry the day at the upcoming public hearings. Won't you lend your voice?

The public hearing schedule:

Dec. 7, 2016: Monroe City
Knights of Columbus Hall, 424 South Locust
The local public hearing will begin at 12:00 p.m.*

Dec. 7, 2016: Hannibal
Theater Auditorium, Hannibal-LaGrange University, 2800 Palmyra Road
The local public hearing will begin at 6:00 p.m

Dec. 8, 2016: Marceline
Walsworth Community Center, 124 East Ritchie
The local public hearing will begin at 12:00 p.m.*

Dec. 8, 2016: Moberly
Moberly Municipal Auditorium, 201 West Rollins
The local public hearing will begin at 6:00 p.m.

Dec. 13, 2016: Cameron
Cameron Community Center, 915 Ashland Avenue
The local public hearing will begin at 12:00 p.m.*

Dec. 13, 2016: Faucett
Mid-Buchanan High School, Multipurpose Room, 3221 SE Route H
The local public hearing will begin at 6:00 p.m.

Dec. 14, 2016: Polo
Community Center at Stagecoach Park, 1010 Main Street
The local public hearing will begin at 12:00 p.m.*

Dec. 14, 2016: Carrollton
Rupe Community Center, 710 Harvest Hills Drive
The local public hearing will begin at 6:00 p.m.

*In order to be able to move equipment to the next local public hearing that same day, 12:00 p.m. local public hearings will end no later than 4:00 p.m.

For more very important info. please visit Block GBE-MO.

6 Comments

Can You Smell the Fear?

11/17/2016

3 Comments

“Mr. Trump talks about infrastructure, he talks about jobs,” said Michael Skelly, founder and president of Clean Line Energy Partners, a company based in Houston that builds transmission lines for renewable energy.

“What we’re creating are welding jobs, steel manufacturing jobs, in Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa,” he said. “These are projects that create income for landowners, create jobs in the middle of the country.”

Smells like fear to me. Clean Line Energy Partners talks a big game, but the very fabric upon which their arrogance and contempt for Midwestern landowners has been built over the past 7 years has been ripped asunder. A new regime is taking shape, and no matter how Skelly tries to remake himself at this late stage, he no longer has any leverage.

There's a whole bunch of chatter from these arrogant blowhards about how Republicans support clean energy, or about how Republicans support things like jobs, infrastructure and economic prosperity. But Clean Line's projects don't measure up.

Jobs? Skelly thinks his overly expensive and invasive "infrastructure" projects should be built because they would "create" welding and manufacturing jobs? Building Clean Line would be temporary, while its detrimental effects would last a life time. For every temporary "job" created by Clean Line, many more small businesses and family farms would either be destroyed or have their productivity impacted.

And for what? Not for the personal wealth of landowners. Landowners have resoundingly rejected Clean Line's compensation offers in all impacted states. Compensation... that's right, it's not "creating income" for landowners, Clean Line's offers are lame attempts at compensating landowners for their loss of property.

Energy imported via a Clean Line could impact long-time energy generation jobs in "beneficiary" states. If you believe Sierra Club's rhetoric that Clean Line would "shut down coal plants" then along with that comes a whole bunch of displaced workers. Are they supposed to pick up and move to the Midwest to get a new job manufacturing steel? Or welding things for a couple of years before they're back in the unemployment line?

It's all about sustainability. Energy should be local, and it can also be "clean." Sustainability means that no one is harmed by an energy project. Clean energy may be good, clean energy may be cheap. But not when it depends on taking something from one part of the country to give it to another. Not when it depends on building billions of dollars of monstrosities to get it to market.

So, while Republicans may support clean energy, and they may support infrastructure, it doesn't mean they automatically support gigantic and expensive for-profit boondoggles like Clean Line. In fact, all the Trumpesque blather about "infrastructure" specifically talks about transportation infrastructure. When it comes to energy, a Trump administration promises to

...scrap the $5 trillion dollar Obama-Clinton Climate Action Plan and the Clean Power Plan and prevent these unilateral plans from increasing monthly electric bills by double-digits without any measurable effect on Earth’s climate.

And furthermore, it states

He will defend Americans' fundamental rights to free speech, religious liberty, keeping and bearing arms, and all other rights guaranteed to them in the Bill of Rights and other constitutional provisions. This includes the Tenth Amendment guarantee that many areas of governance are left to the people and the States, and are not the role of the federal government to fulfill.

Such as state transmission permitting and siting laws, which have been circumvented using the federal Department of Energy's trumped up federal eminent domain authority under Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act? Good riddance to bad rubbish!

It looks to me like Clean Line is on the verge of hysteria over their sudden reversal of fortune under a changing regime in Washington.

"Election Day was a big sea change in America," Jimmy Glotfelty, executive vice president for Clean Line Energy Partners, told the TVA board last week. "But we believe that just because we've gone from Democrats to Republicans (in the White House) that does not change the need for jobs and low-cost energy in America and we believe we will provide that. We've been before this board for the past seven years and our project dynamics have not changed."

But it does change, Jimmy, and you looked pretty overwrought as you were trying to convince the TVA board that nothing has changed. You've been trying to sell your project to the TVA for 7 years, but they've resolutely ignored you. That certainly won't change.

Remember, whatever the shade of lipstick you slap on your pig, it's still a pig.

Clean Line is in big trouble.

3 Comments

Clean Line Deathwatch

11/15/2016

10 Comments

Arkansas Business reports this morning that Clean Line "preferred vendor" General Cable is likely to shut its doors before it actually manufactures any cable for the long-delayed project.

Being a "preferred vendor" didn't help General Cable. Being a "preferred vendor" isn't useful on a project proposed by a company with no financing, no revenue, and no customers. It's pie in the sky empty promises, and any company whose financial success depends on "contracts" with Clean Line is probably in big trouble. This may be just the tip of the iceberg.

Clean Line got a huge kick in the jimmies last week when wind turbine-hating Donald Trump was elected President. The company's business plan depended on eastern utilities being forced to add huge amounts of renewables to their portfolios that could only be supplied by big Midwestern wind and new transmission lines. First it was a federal carbon tax, which never came to fruition. Then it was state renewable portfolio standards, which ended up favoring local resources, instead of long-distance imports. Then it was the EPA's Clean Power Plan, currently tied up in the courts and not expected to survive. There's no incentive for eastern utilities to buy huge amounts of new transmission capacity to import hypothetical renewables thousands of miles, and it's not looking like customer interest in a "Clean Line" is going to rebound during a Trump administration. If you think Clean Line struggled to find customers over the past 8 years, its future is even more grim now.

Despite the initial threat of mass public temper tantrums, which has now morphed into false bravado, big wind is in serious trouble. Do they think that just saying they're already too committed to their grandiose plan to stop now is going to make a difference? And, hey, how about those current claims that big wind is so economic that they don't even need the subsidies they think they have locked down for the next 4 years? If big wind is so economic, I challenge them to stop taking the handouts they obviously don't need, which is estimated to cost the U.S. taxpayers $14.5B through 2025. To add insult to injury, most of this taxpayer largesse is funneled out of the country to foreign wind companies. On a state level, wind incentives cost state taxpayers millions to lower the cost of power that is shipped out of state and provides absolutely no benefit to state residents. In fact, shipping more power out of an export state causes power prices in the state to rise. It's simple supply and demand. Oklahoma seems to be on the brink of cutting this huge drain on its taxpayers. Other states may soon follow suit, and add repeal or reform of renewable portfolio standards to legislative goals. The Trump phenomenon caused plenty of Republican trickle down into state legislatures and change is pretty much guaranteed.

Policy moves with the speed of a glacier in Washington, DC. It's taken 8 years for the present administration to greenwash big wind into existence. Over the next 4 years, the new administration is going to systematically dismantle and cripple it because it can't perform without subsidies and favorably biased policy. Big wind probably won't survive because economics and better ideas will remake our energy future in the short term. The void must be filled, and progress waits for no man. Midwest wind powering the entire country was never a good idea and it's doubtful it can sustain itself during this period of uncertainty. Right now, we're all in a holding pattern, waiting to see what happens, and utilities are no different. But they will adapt and quickly find new ways to tweak policy to complement their bottom lines, without big wind.

Adaptation probably won't include paying a premium for new transmission lines. Factually baseless, bogus claims of big wind front groups and their sycophants cannot stop the inevitable.

If you’ve never heard of the Global Sustainable Electricity Partnership before, join the club. It has the potential to influence rapid change in the global energy sector...

The exclusive organization (by invitation only) characterizes itself as “an entity with a unique operational knowledge of the electricity sector:”

Among the group’s four main recommendations is this one:

"Make urgent progress with innovative research, development and demonstrations of advances economically viable technologies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and accelerate the efficient generation, delivery and end ‐ use of electricity."

That goal dovetails neatly with U.S. Department of Energy initiatives under the Obama Administration. Many of these are already under way and are virtually irreversible. In some states they enjoy strong support from Republican policymakers. One good example is the 720-mile Plains & Eastern transmission line. It will deploy GE transformer stations for the economical delivery of 4,000 megawatts of wind power, sourced from wind farms located in the “red” state of Oklahoma.

These big city sycophants are only kidding themselves if they think that "recommendation" insures Clean Line will survive. Clean Line is the antithesis of the stated goal. It's not economic and it is not efficient new technology. The U.S. Department of Energy's goals will change considerably under new leadership, putting its Sec. 1222 ad hoc "program" in jeopardy. What has been a corrupt process under the current administration is not "virtually irreversible." I hope lying to themselves about where Clean Line is headed provides the safe space they need for their cry-in. The reality of Clean Line is that it is also "enjoying" strong opposition from Republican policymakers in "red" states, such as Arkansas. Even in Oklahoma, where the Governor has previously been supportive, continued financial support for wind exports is on the chopping block.

The globalization of America has come to a screeching halt. Only one company in the mentioned "Partnership" is an American company, and it only supports big wind if it can make some big bucks building and owning its own little cash cow wind projects. There's no room in there for Clean Line Energy Partners. Maybe they should start courting the other foreign "partners" and move their operations overseas?

They're dead here. Middle America is tired of having its fate dictated by greedy foreign corporations and their elite policy wonks in Washington, DC.

I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.
Isoroku Yamamoto

Damn right.

10 Comments

"Clean" Line's Dirty Little Secret

11/2/2016

4 Comments

I have a very good friend who always puts the word "clean" in quotation marks when writing about a certain transmission line. She's been doing it for years. She knew something Clean Line has only publicly admitted recently... that "Clean" Line's transmission projects would carry dirty energy.

This really isn't news. It was first reported by the folks in Arkansas several months ago when they found "Clean" Line marketing their Plains & Eastern "Clean" Line to eastern utilities as a way to ship fossil fuel power between regions and expand its market.

Now "Clean" Line admits its Plains & Eastern project will only carry wind energy an average of 60% of the time, and is marketing the other 40% of its capacity as an arbitrage opportunity to be resold to shippers of other kinds of power.

"Clean" Line is so desperate for customers right now, they don't care what the line is used for, as long as someone, anyone, buys some capacity.

Let's take a look at Mario Harturdo's recent presentation at a United States Association for Energy Economics conference. He expounds on the Mid-South and Southeast's "strong demand for renewable energy." Except that can't be right. If there was a "strong demand" then maybe "Clean" Line would have had customers pushing and shoving to get in line to purchase its capacity for years. Instead...

So, what's the problem? "Clean" Line can only sell capacity on a hypothetical transmission line that can't get off the planning page. Sure, utilities will add renewables to their portfolios, but the utilities want firm pricing and the assurance that the resource will be there when they need it. "Clean" Line can provide neither.

Here's "Clean" Line's "business model."

Converter stations function as on- and off-ramps; generators connect to the on-ramp and load- serving entities receive low-cost wind power at off- ramps

Clean Line will sell transmission service to shippers via long term transmission contracts - Those who use the line, pay for it

Except it's only "low-cost wind power" approximately 60% of the time. Shippers? What shippers? I haven't seen one generator develop and market themselves as a Clean Line shipper. But, but, but... "Clean" Line had so much "interest" to its open solicitation in 2014, and everyone was just waiting for DOE participation to get their deals arranged within mere days or weeks of the March decision.

Clean Line Energy has lined up firm commitments for about 100 MW thus far, but it has term sheets for more than 3,500 MW that outline key terms for negotiating with customers following DOE’s decision, Kottler told TransmissionHub.

Although the project has a couple agreements with utilities to take wind power through the transmission line if it is built, many utilities and interested companies have been waiting for DOE’s ruling before making such commitments, Michael Skelly, president of Clean Line Energy said during the March 25 conference call.

“We’re seeing vast and strong indications of interest” and Clean Line Energy will firm up commercial support for the project in the coming days and weeks, with the DOE decision an essential part of moving those discussions along, Kottler said.

Many parties in the Southeast have been waiting for DOE’s decision to reach a deal with wind project developers, Skelly said during the conference call. During a 2014 solicitation, more than 15,000 MW of wind projects expressed an interest in using the Plains & Eastern project to move energy to markets in the South and Southeast, he said.

And after all this false bravado, Clean Line has yet to announce agreements with any customers. And Harturdo's October presentation at USAEE tells the story... Clean Line "will sell" transmission service. Not that it has sold it, or that it's in the process of selling it... but that it "will" at sometime in the future. How long is everyone supposed to wait for this to happen? How many more years do landowners in Oklahoma, Arkansas and Tennessee have to have this cloud on their property while Clean Line tries to sell transmission service to all the folks it previously claimed were anxiously chomping at the bit to sign up? I'm thinking maybe Clean Line exaggerated, and that maybe there really isn't that much constructive interest in the project.

So, "Clean" Line seems to have changed the product they're marketing to appeal to a wider customer base. Instead of marketing itself as a "clean" 100% wind energy transmission line, now the company claims it will be "clean" only 60% of the time.

Plains & Eastern can transport market power when the wind is not blowing
Average line utilization from wind power will be around 60%
Remaining capacity available for SPP market power delivery to MISO or PJM
Possible use of unused capacity:
• Solar
• Arbitrage opportunities

SPP market power? I'm guessing they mean electricity from coal and gas-fired power plants in the Southwest Power Pool region. And do you know what that means, Sierra Club? It means your precious "Clean" Line will be extending the life of, and expanding the markets for, coal-fired power plants in the SPP region, to the tune of nearly half of its 4,000 MW capacity. That's nearly 2,000 MW of coal-fired power plants that would stay online because "Clean" Line is built, instead of gradually being squeezed out by additional wind power being added to SPP's market.

And of course it means the name "Clean" Line is no longer honest. I think we need to help them come up with a new name for their company so they can rebrand. How about "60% Clean" Line? or "Really only half-Clean Line, because we always exaggerate"? Maybe they should go with the simpler "Rich investors' cash toilet"? I've even got the perfect slogan - "Flush your climate change guilt away and cleanse your soul!"

And let's talk about that arbitrage thing... "Clean" Line thought it was so special, it gave arbitrage its own page in their USAEE presentation. What is arbitrage?

the simultaneous buying and selling of securities, currency, or commodities in different markets or in derivative forms in order to take advantage of differing prices for the same asset.

In other words, making money out of thin air. The arbitrager isn't manufacturing a product or adding value... it's simply buying cheap and reselling it to someone else at a higher price. "Clean" Line is now marketing its transmission line as an "arbitrage opportunity."

Arbitrage opportunities exist between RTOs that are connected through P&E even when including additional transmission service

Utilizing unused capacity to take advantage of these arbitrage opportunities create additional value to the owner of the transmission capacity

Market power arbitrage could yield up to $60 million a year, assuming perfect execution on unused capacity up to 1000 MW of OK-TN service and 500 MW of OK-AR service over the entire project

Positive market power price differentials are valuable when delivering SPP power to PJM or MISO, whichever is higher priced, including non-firm transmission costs and losses, and negative differentials are valuable when delivering PJM or MISO power, whichever is lower priced, to SPP including non-firm transmission costs and losses

So, the "perfect executioner" would buy capacity for the sole purpose of using it to trade power between regions in order to take advantage of cheap power and artificially inflate prices. Isn't this how Enron got into trouble? "Clean" Line is suggesting that its customers should buy its capacity for the sole purpose of selling a cheap commodity into a higher priced market. It's not about reversing climate change, it's about a greedy way to make money taking advantage of electric consumers. The $60M produced by "arbitrage" comes out of the pockets of electric consumers.

"Clean" Line's presentation demonstrates that it's nothing but a cash cow dressed in a green sheep costume. And it's also an admission that this company is still having a very hard time finding customers for its pipe dream.

"Clean" Line will never happen without customers. Despite the company's claims that it is "negotiating" and "building" its project, it can't build anything until it has customers. That was one of the significant conditions in the DOE's "Participation Agreement." The DOE requires the company to have firm customers (as opposed to hypothetical "interest" or open ended "contracts" that allow escape) before DOE will participate in land acquisition. This means that "Clean" Line is on its own acquiring easements, and the vast majority of landowners have refused to grant easements. Only after Clean Line has firm customers will the DOE attempt to negotiate with landowners voluntarily. My understanding is that landowners will have a whole new opportunity to negotiate directly with DOE before eminent domain use is even considered. Clean Line is stuck for now, because it has no authority to condemn property (and neither does the DOE, according to the lawsuit filed by Arkansas landowners).

And speaking of the Participation Agreement, it sort of looks like Clean Line's 60% "clean" admission violates the Agreement.

8.27 Renewable Energy Transmission. At any time during which any Transmission Services Agreements are in effect, the Clean Line Entities shall use all commercially reasonable efforts to ensure that at least 75% of the total Electrical Capacity covered by all Transmission Services Agreement that are then in effect to be covered by Transmission Services Agreements used for the transmission of renewable energy resources; provided that, to the extent the transmission of energy from non-renewable resources is required by Applicable Law (including pursuant to any open access tariff rules), such events would not render the underlying Transmission Services Agreement from being disqualified toward the 75% threshold.

The DOE requires at least 75% of the capacity be used for renewable energy, not the 60% Clean Line is now claiming will be used for renewables. Of course, it does say "commercially reasonable efforts" shall be used. I guess this means that "Clean" Line's renewable transmission pipe dream is not commercially reasonable. In other words, not only can't they produce it, they also can't sell it.

Instead of focusing on the real problem of Clean Line's lack of customers, the company is dishonestly trying to make landowners think its project is being built so they will feel trapped into signing easement agreements.

"Clean" Line's lack of customers makes it dirtier and dirtier with every day that goes by.

4 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

"Clean" Bravado

Landowners Step Up to Protect Property Rights in Missouri

Missouri Lawmakers and Agricultural Associations Oppose Grain Belt Express -- Public Hearings Start Today!

Pavlov's Energy Markets

Tick Tock, RICL

Clean Fantasies

Why Grain Belt Express is a Bad Deal for Missouri

Can You Smell the Fear?

Clean Line Deathwatch

"Clean" Line's Dirty Little Secret

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