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

Southern Cross Transmission - Just One More Attempt to Take Private Property for Corporate Gain

7/31/2016

1 Comment

 
It's not about where to put the Southern Cross Transmission line, it's about whether to build it at all.

Here we go again...
However, most the attendees at the Bell Schoolhouse Fire Station meeting opposed the project. Dennis Daniels, who organized the meeting, said he has already been a victim of eminent domain once and does not want to go through the process again.
 
"Honestly I don't have any questions for (representatives)," he said. "I just don't want them to come through my property."
 
He's concerned that the power line will decrease property values, restrict further development on his land and be an eyesore.
 
"It bothers me most that it's a private, for-profit company," he said. "They're going to use eminent domain to take our property rights away to give to a company in San Francisco to make millions of dollars off of each year."

The Southern Cross transmission project is another unneeded HVDC merchant project intended to ship renewable energy into higher priced markets for corporate profit.  But this one isn't owned by Houston-based Clean Line Energy.  It's owned by a different company, San Francisco-based Pattern Energy.  Pattern proposes that it shall build a 400-mile HVDC transmission project across Louisiana and Mississippi in order to serve energy markets in "the southeast electric grid" with wind energy generated in Texas.

The Texas wind market is tapped out.  They've built so much wind generation and transmission to ship it around the state that sometimes they have to give it away for free. 
But yet, Texas wants to be its own little electric grid, islanded from the rest of the nation's power grid.  Except when all its renewable energy goodness tanks prices.  Then Texas wants to connect to the rest of the grid in order to export its excess wind generation into other markets where it will fetch higher prices.  And that's the only purpose for Southern Cross.

This project has been in the works for years, but was only recently sprung on landowners along its 400-mile route.  And chaos ensued.  Of course the landowners don't want to be forced to sacrifice their property, personal wealth and peace of mind for the benefit of electricity consumers in other states in "the southeast."  Southern Cross will only interconnect with the rest of the grid serving Louisiana and Mississippi at two converter stations, one near the Texas-Louisiana border, and the second near the Mississippi-Alabama border.  What's in it for all the residents of Louisiana and Mississippi in between?  Not much.

And to make matters worse, landowners in Mississippi are getting smoke blown in their faces by one of their PSC Commissioners, who is urging them to communicate with Pattern Energy instead of the PSC.
In a public meeting at the Bell Schoolhouse Fire Station just outside Starkville Thursday, Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley urged residents to reach out to representatives from Southern Cross Transmission if they have questions about the company's proposed wind energy transmission line.
 
"Let it not be said of you that you didn't call on these people and that you didn't file an objection," Presley said at the meeting.

While eminent domain is not out of the question, Presley said he believes the company will do everything in its power to avoid having to use it. Southern Cross representatives have told him they have put in similar lines in other parts of the country without resorting to eminent domain.

Presley said his office received a plethora of letters, emails and phone calls from property owners who received letters. In a meeting with company representatives, Presley said someone from the company has to meet with property owners one-on-one at the time and place of the landowner's choosing.
 
In an interview with The Dispatch Thursday, Presley said a Southern Cross representative had already begun meeting with landowners individually. Presley also had the company designate a point of contact for landowners to call. Since then, his office has received fewer calls from concerned citizens.
 
In June, Southern Cross Transmission sent letters to landowners whose property is within 500 feet of one of the proposed routes and promised to hold meetings and answer questions from landowners. The company then hosted an open house for property owners, but many left that meeting with more questions than answers, Presley said.
 
Legally, Southern Cross Transmission doesn't have to communicate with the public at all until it has decided on a route and filed a proposal with the Public Service Commission. But Presley wants to ensure that the company shows landowners the dignity and respect they deserve.

Sure, that makes Presley's job easier if all the landowners have folded and granted easements to Pattern Energy before it files its application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and eminent domain authority in the state.  But, for the landowners, it's not simply about where to put the line, but whether or not to build it in the first place.

Pattern is misleading landowners about FERC's authority to permit this project.
FERC has previously found that the interconnection of the Southern Cross Project to the ERCOT transmission system is in the public interest and that the Project will create substantial benefits both for the ERCOT and the Southeast regions.
But FERC has no authority to permit this transmission project, or to grant eminent domain authority over private property to Pattern Energy.  Only the states do.  Both Louisiana and Mississippi will have to find need and public benefit for the project in their respective states.

Landowners can make a big difference by participating in the PSC process, and that's where they should be directing their energies right now, not wasting their time discussing where to put the project with Pattern Energy.
Southern Cross Transmission plans to settle on a route and file its proposal with the commission this fall. Once that happens, Presley said, citizens have 20 days to file an objection, which gives them legal rights in the case.
Not much time, opponents need to prepare to file objections, or better yet to intervene in the case.
He requested landowners write down whatever questions they have, take those questions directly to the company and wait until they had met with Southern Cross representatives before deciding whether to oppose the project.
Don't waste your time, landowners.  Begin crafting your "fact-based" arguments now, but the only facts you need to begin is that Southern Cross's proposal will affect your interest in real property located on or near a proposed route.  And don't think if your property is on a proposed route that is later taken off the table that you're safe.  Until an actual siting permit is granted, routes can and will change, with very little notice.  In fact, the companies like it better if landowners don't know anything about the project until the bulldozers show up.  How can you cause trouble for them if you're unaware?

Exactly... and that's why landowners are getting such late notice about this project.  But there's still plenty of time to organize and legally intervene.  The bigger the stink, the better the chances the project will be cancelled.
Presley has also said he will not approve the project unless the company can prove it has some benefit to Mississippi.
 
"I'm as much for clean air and clean energy as the next guy, but it's got to be about more than renewable energy," he said. "For us, that's a plus, but there has to be other things."
I'm sure Commissioner Presley is "for clean air and clean energy."  After all, the Sierra Club was a big donor to his campaign to be elected to the PSC.  And Sierra Club has never seen a transmission project "for wind" that it didn't love.
"At the end of the day, the ability to connect into wind energy, which does not cost anything as far as burning coal, burning natural gas, (is) obviously an energy source that could have a benefit to the state," Presley said.
 
"That's the benefit," he added. "But also obviously if this electricity is low cost, I'm not going to be supporting trucking it through Mississippi to pump it to Atlanta, Georgia, and our people have cheap electricity ran over the top of their property and not being able to take advantage of it."
That's nice to hear, but Commissioner Presley has coyly avoided the elephant in the room.  Eminent domain.  While eminent domain has historically been used to construct transmission lines for which there is some reliability need, using that authority to build transmission lines for the sole purpose of moving renewable energy to higher priced eastern electric markets is an issue of first impression.  In the case of transmission solely for profit, eminent domain takes on a whole new purpose:  Eminent domain for the private gain of a company located in San Francisco.  And that's just the rub.
1 Comment

How To Violate Your "Code of Conduct" Before You Even Begin

7/29/2016

0 Comments

 
If this were a guide published today, it might be written by Clean Line Energy Partners.

Today, the company engineered a press release that says "TRC Supports Clean Line Energy."  Who is TRC?  Is TRC an elected official?  Is TRC a regulator?  Is TRC a transmission customer?  Is TRC's "support" of Clean Line relevant to Clean Line's regulatory approval, or even the approval of the landowners whose property the project wants to cross?

The answer is none of the above.  TRC is Clean Line's newest contractor.  In exchange for $12M, TRC says it will, "provide land acquisition services, survey permissions and overall project management for the Plains & Eastern Clean Line transmission project."  Of course TRC "supports" Clean Line.... it stands to pocket $12M for its efforts to coerce landowners to sign survey permissions and easement agreements.  Does TRC's "support" for Clean Line necessitate YOUR support?  Of course not, that's ridiculous!

Clean Line has been resoundingly rebuffed by landowners across its route.  So, what's the new plan?  Employment of propaganda devices such as testimonial, card stacking, and bandwagon.  Oh, whoop-de-doo, Clean Line!

TRC thinks you care if it makes the following statement:
The Plains & Eastern Clean Line is one of the largest clean energy infrastructure projects in the country. It will provide a pathway for 4,000 megawatts of low-cost wind power to be delivered from Oklahoma to the Mid-South and Southeast. The agreement between Clean Line Energy and TRC, which has a major office located in Tulsa, furthers Clean Line's commitment to working with local suppliers.
"Clean Line Energy's mission of building modern energy infrastructure closely aligns with our own core values of sustainability, including our commitment to grow our clean energy services year over year," said Chris Vincze, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. "The 700-mile transmission line will improve the U.S. electric grid, support economic development and job growth, and make safe, reliable and lower-cost power available to consumers.
Wait a minute... is TRC acquiring survey permissions and easement agreements, or is it leading a cheerleading squad?  How much arrogance does it take to believe that some company's belief in a project has relevance to your personal decisions regarding your land?

And we're just getting started here...
TRC will provide program management, acquisition of environmental and cultural survey consents, and acquisition support. It also will be communicating with landowners across the route to educate them about the benefits of the project.
What?  "Educating landowners about the benefits of the project?"  What does that have to do with acquiring easements and survey permissions?  Sounds like some kind of brain-washing attempt to coerce landowners to sign on the dotted line.  Does Clean Line really believe that the only barrier to land acquisition and survey permission is "education" of landowners?  News Flash!  The landowners are already "educated," which is why they have been rejecting all Clean Line's attempts, not only at acquiring permission, but at any contact with the company at all.  The landowners got "educated" years ago by opponents of the Clean Line projects.  They know everything they need to know to tell Clean Line to go away.  Clean Line does NOT have eminent domain authority.  The most Clean Line can do is annoy landowners with their "offers."  Clean Line cannot make any legal filing to condemn and take property.  Instead, Clean Line must turn over acquisition of any property it cannot obtain to the U.S. Department of Energy.  The DOE may then reattempt permissions, but only after Clean Line has reached certain milestones with its project.  First, Clean Line must find customers for its transmission capacity.  It has not made any customers public.  It also must receive financing to construct its entire project.  It has not made any financing public.  It's going to be a long time before the DOE comes calling with more offers for landowners, and only DOE has the authority to condemn and take property through the courts.  Meanwhile, landowners can tell Clean Line and TRC to go take their Vulcan mind-meld tricks for a flying leap off the nearest cliff, mountain, hill, rock, or pebble.

What's in it for the landowner to sign permissions now?  Nothing.  Big goose egg.  Zero.  What's in it for the landowner to sign an easement agreement now?  A payment of a small percentage of the easement's value.  That's right... Clean Line wants you to sign over your property rights today in exchange for a portion of their monetary value.  You give Clean Line permission to use your property today, but they're not going to pay you in full for that permission for up to four years.  Landowners would essentially be allowing Clean Line to buy their property rights on the installment plan.  Doesn't sound like much "benefit" to the landowner. 

And let's talk about Clean Line's "self-policed" Code of Conduct.  This document is nothing but window dressing.  Since Clean Line is the only party enforcing this worthless document, it can do whatever it wants.

Behold:
Do not represent that a relative, neighbor and/or friend supports or opposes the Project.

Do not suggest that any person should be ashamed of or embarrassed by his or her opposition to the Project or that such opposition is inappropriate.

Do not argue with property owners about the merits of the Project.


All things that Clean Line and its contractors, such as TRC, cannot do.

But yet, TRC has taken to the media to support the project, and has stated that it intends to "educate landowners about the benefits of the project."  That sounds suspiciously like a violation of the Code of Conduct, doesn't it?  After all, if a landowner is already educated about the project, any statement by TRC about the project's benefits is by default argumentative.  Any statements by TRC that "[t]he 700-mile transmission line will improve the U.S. electric grid, support economic development and job growth, and make safe, reliable and lower-cost power available to consumers," are designed to make the resistant landowner ashamed or embarrassed by his or her opposition to the project and insinuate that such opposition is inappropriate.  And it's argumentative.

These people are a day late and a dollar short.  The majority of affected landowners are already "educated" about the project and have found that it doesn't provide any "benefits" for them. 

You've got to get up pretty early in the morning to fool a farmer.  Or a Mayberrian.
0 Comments

What's Beyond Coal?  More Coal!

7/23/2016

1 Comment

 
Block Clean Line in Arkansas made a stunning discovery the other day.  In testimony filed at the Georgia Public Service Commission, Clean Line Vice President David Berry informed that his Plains & Eastern "Clean" Line project could be used to "deliver bulk power from the SPP system" when it's not being used to deliver "wind generation."  That's right, "Clean" Line is now being marketed as just another transmission line to transport "bulk" fossil fuel electricity between regions.

And in its recent application to the Missouri PSC for its Grain Belt Express transmission project, "Clean" Line's Berry said that service from Missouri to Indiana on his project could be used to "provide opportunities for Missouri load-serving entities to earn additional revenue from off-system sales."

Cutting through the jargon, Berry says that his "Clean" Lines can now be used to ship fossil fuel generation.  In its desperate search for customers to financially support the project, Clean Line is dropping its "clean" purpose.  Clean Line is now "clean" in name only.

This isn't really surprising to me.  For years, opposition to the projects have been telling everyone who will listen that "Clean" Lines are a fantasy that only works on paper.  All electric transmission lines are "open access" to all customers, no matter what fuel they use to generate electricity.  And now that the rubber has hit the road, Clean Line has dropped its "clean" mask to reveal its true purpose -- to make money transmitting any kind of electricity.

Will environmental groups continue to support transmission projects that breathe new life into old Midwestern coal plants by creating new markets for their generation?  The Sierra Club and other groups supporting "Clean" Lines should have been on notice that new transmission lines supposedly "for wind" would ultimately be used "for coal."  However it looks like they got snowed by a fast-talking front man to forget what they already knew and believe in the fantasy of "clean" transmission lines.  And what was it the environmental groups knew?

As far back as 2009, The Sierra Club was wondering about the true purpose of new long-distance electric transmission lines:

Is the project just an excuse to expand the reach of coal-fired power plants rather than supporting a clean energy project?
In the case of Clean Line, the answer is now an unequivocal "yes."  The Sierra Club has been had.

Back around the time Clean Line created its corporation around the idea of "green" transmission lines, it was common knowledge that transmission lines being marketed as a way to increase the penetration of renewable energy would end up being used to increase the penetration of coal-fired power instead.

In May of 2010, a presentation was made at the National Coal Council's Spring Meeting entitled POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS OF “GREEN TRANSMISSION” FOR
COAL POWER GENERATION
.  The presentation was made by Roger H. Bezdek, Ph.D., President of Management Information Services, Inc.  Dr. Bezdek also co-authored an article on the same subject in industry magazine Fortnightly in 2012.

Dr. Bezdek proposed that new transmission "for renewables" would instead be used to increase use of existing "middle U.S." coal generators.
Existing coal fleet utilization currently ~ 72% -74%

Can increase to ~ 85% with adequate load & transmission

Most underutilized coal capacity in Middle U.S.

Current U.S. coal capacity ~ 310 GW, furnishes ~ 2 trillion kWh annually, U.S. consumes ~ 1.1B tons of coal

If new transmission increases existing coal fleet utilization 10%, then:
--Coal could provide additional 200B kWh
--Coal demand would increase by 100M tons
--Even assuming no new coal plants are built
--However, new transmission could facilitate new coal plants

Bezdek summarized:  "Thus, RES transmission could enable expansion of coal-fired generation by equivalent of 30 new plants by 2020."

And he put the idea that new transmission could be restricted to "clean" energy firmly to bed with this simple quote:
“Restricting new transmission to green electrons is as bad as restricting a new highway to only electric vehicles.”
You can't restrict transmission lines to renewable energy.  The environmental groups have denied this in the case of "Clean" Line, believing that because the transmission line is HVDC, building additional converter stations to load coal-fired power along the way would be prohibitively expensive.  But Clean Line's recent marketing of itself as a pipeline for coal-fired power proves that if coal-fired generators can get their power to the planned end-point or midpoint converter stations, then "Clean" Line shall carry coal-fired power.  Siting the end point converter in a "renewable energy zone" is no guarantee of cleanliness, especially when combined with midpoint converters in Missouri and Arkansas that will pick up dirty power on the line's way east. 

Instead of "shutting down coal plants," Clean Line will actually be breathing new life into existing coal plants in the Midwest that may otherwise be displaced by increased in-state use of renewables, and end up shipping dirty generation to other regions.

Will the environmental groups continue to support "Clean" Lines that they know aren't really "clean?"  Will they equivocate to make trade-offs to imagine the "clean" energy will balance out the "dirty" energy on the Clean Line? 

The environmental groups need to admit the truth -- "Clean" Line isn't about "clean" energy at all.  It's only about the money to be made owning transmission lines, no matter what kind of electricity they will ultimately carry.
1 Comment

Importing Renewables to West Virginia?  No, thanks!

7/12/2016

0 Comments

 
Block Grain Belt Express - Missouri has a brand new petition to let their Public Service Commission know you oppose the building of a 700-mile electric transmission line to export renewables to "states farther east."

Check it out here and add your name as a signer!
I signed it this morning.  Want to know why?
As a resident of a "state farther east" proposed to be the beneficiary of this senseless sacrifice of Missourians, I am not in favor of importing renewables from other states. For years, West Virginians made a sacrifice to export energy to states to the east. Now that the bottom has fallen out of that market, West Virginia is left with nothing to show for its years of sacrifice. We must rebuild our energy economy and that includes building our own renewable energy generators for local use. We cannot afford to ship our energy dollars out of state to import Midwest wind, but must put them to work in our own communities to promote local jobs and economic development. Grain Belt Express is not wanted in Eastern states.
What we need here in West Virginia are local generators, serving local customers, providing local jobs and economic development.  We don't need to ship all our energy dollars to Midwestern states, but invest them at home in our own communities.

Do you want to put your energy dollars to work in your own community?  Or pad the tax coffers of other states and the bank accounts of the foreign investors hoping to strike it rich building unneeded transmission to export renewables from the Midwest?

Those foreign investors and their greenwashing buddies are pretending to represent your interests at the Missouri PSC by purporting that you desperately need and want this energy.  Nothing could be further from the truth, and you need to speak up for yourself now, or risk having foreign investors speak for you!

NOTE:  This is a brand new Block GBE petition.  Even if you signed their petition several years ago, you need to re-sign this new one!  Sign and share it now!
0 Comments

Open Letter to Clean Line Investors

7/7/2016

3 Comments

 
Dear Clean Line Investors*,

You guys are scared to death, aren't you?

Mr. Prescott Hartshorne's recently filed testimony at the Missouri Public Service Commission positively reeked of barely controlled hysteria.  You all have dumped millions into a company that hasn't produced a dime of revenue in seven years.  Despite Prescott's delusional self-rationalization that Clean Line's future prospects must be bright, reality says they're dim.

And when Clean Line's business plan mirage disappears and all the money you've invested is gone with the wind, heads will roll, particularly yours.  This is the only reason you're holding on and throwing good money after bad, isn't it?  Ride the wave, tell your boss everything is hunky dory, and live the good life while you can.

That's what "Frack Master" Chris Faulkner did.  Now I'm not saying that Jimmy Glotfelty has a "whore card," but if he does, he's using your money to pay the bill.  Maybe you all even have "whore cards" of your own?  I think you know that Clean Line's "deep" executive team is living large on your money, and have been for the past seven years.  It's just one big, expensive party!  Without your support, they'd all have to go get jobs where they're expected to produce something other than hot air and promises.

Looks like you got suckered by a fast-talking huckster who has no experience building transmission, and furthermore absolutely no experience with projects where land acquisition isn't voluntary.  Just because someone claims to have successfully constructed projects that relied on voluntary land acquisition does not equate to their mastery of projects where eminent domain is a possibility.  Eminent domain is an extremely inflammatory action, and when clumsily used as an arrogant sledgehammer, always ends in disaster.  You should know this already.

Since Prescott was the only investor brave enough to submit testimony in Clean Line's second attempt at Missouri PSC approval, I'll believe that he speaks for all of you.
National Grid considers many factors when it evaluates whether to invest in the development of a new transmission project, including the economic viability of the project and the prospects for the project to attract debt financing for construction. But perhaps most important is the ability of management to bring the project to commercial operation, including the ability to work well with customers, regulators and other stakeholders while managing all aspects of the development and construction process.
And how did you evaluate Clean Line's ability to work well with others before investing $55.7M, National Grid?  Did you actually research project opposition, political appeal, state regulatory processes, and locate some willing customers?  Or did you just take Clean Line's word for it?  Just the fact that you think you have to say that to get the approval of the Missouri PSC speaks volumes.  If Clean Line had been working well with others, you would never have had to testify in the first place.  Which brings us to:
Each [project] is overseen by a capable project management staff, with strong support from a deep and experienced home office.
But, yet, in your next breath you felt the need to say:
National Grid has the right to designate two out of seven members of Clean Line’s Board of Directors. These rights, among others, provide National Grid with the ability to assist in and help direct the development and commercialization of Clean Line’s portfolio of HVDC transmission projects, including the Grain Belt Express Project.
If they are so capable, why do you feel the need to babysit them this way?  But don't get the idea that being stern and trying to change things at this point would make any difference though.  The die has been cast.

Prescott continues,
First, the Grain Belt Express Project is economically attractive, as it provides a valued service to customers as exemplified by the contract with MJMEUC. Grain Belt Express has already identified significant customer interest in the project through its open solicitation for capacity, which has resulted in requests for more than 20,000 megawatts of service.
MJMEUC?  Have you actually read that contract, Prescott?  It allows MJMEUC to withdraw completely at any time up to 60 days before the project goes online.  If all Clean Line's contracts contain that stipulation, they're worthless for project financing purposes, right?  The contract was for "up to" 250 MW of capacity in different tranches.  Is that insignificant contract going to financially support the project?  Is MJMEUC what helps you sleep soundly at night?  It's laughable posturing!  And I haven't seen any other contracts, no matter how many shippers "expressed interest."  Why is that?  Because those shippers have no wholesale buyers?  Common sense says if Clean Line had other contracts, or even prospects for contracts, they'd be using them in the regulatory process.

It's all a string of dominos that realistically cannot topple in proper sequence.  And speaking of dominos, you're one, too.  You're nothing but a little domino in a string of dominos currently living high on the hog atop a flimsy house of cards.  Each one of you is probably afraid to admit the truth because then the party is over.  Where's the tipping point?  How much money are you going to toss into the Clean Line bonfire before closing your bosses' purse strings and taking a loss?  You know, a real utility would have given up long ago.  In fact, they had the smarts not to even attempt such a risky endeavor.  Utilities have no appetite for risk where their entire investment can disappear in an instant. And there are no guarantees of investment recovery.  It's all going to be gone.

And your investment might not be all you stand to lose.  Have you heard that a judge in Nebraska ordered TransCanada to pay the legal costs of Keystone XL landowners who successfully defeated the project?  Yup, not only is TransCanada out the development cost of its failed project, they're also out the cost of the legal fees of the landowners they harassed with eminent domain suits.  It's likely that Clean Line could face similar suits after its projects go belly up.  And since all Clean Line's money is YOUR money, guess who gets left holding that bag?

It's not just a matter of permitting before the customers show up.  Clean Line's Plains and Eastern project got DOE's nod four months ago and still doesn't have customers.  Where are the customers, Prescott?  Where's the revenue?  None of these projects can happen without customers.

Clean Line is never going to happen.  When the hucksters run out of pigeons, you might be joining them in the unemployment line.  No wonder you sound hysterical.


*National Grid, aka GridAmerica Holdings, Inc.; Bluescape Resources Company, LLC, aka Clean Grid Holdings, LLC; ZAM Ventures, L.P.;  and Michael Zilkha.

3 Comments

U.S. DOE Spends Billions of Your Tax Dollars Carrying Water for Big Business

7/6/2016

0 Comments

 
Mainstream media reports that the U.S. Department of Energy has paid out $5B in legal claims to the energy industry in the last decade.
...the DOE is among the most prominent defendants requiring payment from the Judgment Fund, which pays for claims against the government. The department paid out more in legal claims than any other agency last year and the year before, according to the fund's records — more than $5 billion over the last decade.

And according to the department itself, the bloodletting as far from over. The DOE has failed to make good on some of its most important contractual obligations for years, and its private partners have been collecting billions in damages.
And where does the DOE's billions come from?  Your pocket, little taxpayer, your pocket.

So, how did the DOE get you into this predicament?
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 requires that the DOE dispose of nuclear waste being produced at civilian energy plants around the country, which in turn pay fees for a long-term storage facility. The department's contracts with dozens of energy companies said it would start disposing of the waste in 1998.

The companies held up their end, feeding about $750 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund each year. But the department did not manage to set up any facility to receive the waste, forcing energy companies to store it themselves on-site.
Why was the DOE carrying the nuclear industry's water to set up a facility for nuclear waste?  Is it because the nuclear industry hasn't made enough money from consumers over the years to dispose of its own waste?  Or is it because the nuclear industry can't be trusted to properly dispose of its own waste safely?  After all, look at what the coal-fired power industry has done with its waste and how many times that has turned into disaster.  No, it's because
The hang-up has been in finding a location for the centralized storage facility. For decades, Yucca Mountain in Nevada was the only location that could legally be considered, despite fierce opposition from state and local groups. The Obama administration eventually abandoned the site as "unworkable" in 2011.
Who wants a nuclear waste dump in their neighborhood?  Nobody.  So the DOE was tasked to carry the industry's water by using its federal power to force a dump on an unlucky community.

Sound familiar to any of you regular blog readers?  That's exactly what the DOE is doing "partnering" with filthy rich investors to dump a humongous electric transmission line across Midwestern states that receive no benefit from it.  When the affected states said "no," DOE hefted the industry's water and ran with it to forcefully dump the project on communities fiercely opposed.

Why?  Because the U.S. DOE is a politically influenced entity run by a political appointee.  And political agencies are controlled by lobbyists for industry.  DOE has no business trying to regulate the energy industry in the public interest.  It's not about what's best for consumers and citizens, it's about bought and paid for political influence.

But here they are, trying "to transform America's electrical grid to handle much larger quantities of renewable energy" at a taxpayer cost of $220M.  DOE is not a grid planner, it's a political water carrier and there's buckets of money to be made building renewable energy generators and a special, separate electrical grid to serve them.  But only if the DOE uses federal muscle to force it to happen.

How does DOE square this
How will a grid that provides a two-way street to carry and store more renewable energy help resolve this situation? DOE's Hannegan responds with a sports analogy. On a mesh-like grid, the problem, whether it is a computer hacker, a big forest fire or a battery failure, is a threat that can be quickly isolated, allowing the rest of the surrounding grid to operate normally using better controls and quickly dispatched stored electricity.
with "partnering" on a 750-mile DC transmission line that requires obscenely expensive converter stations to connect into the existing grid?  Because the converters are so expensive there are very few of them.  It can't "allow the rest of the surrounding grid" to operate normally and recover.  Because it's not connected to the grid that surrounds it.  It's an entirely separate grid, only connected at a few points.  The surrounding grid continues to operate normally without any help from the DC line bypassing it.  And if this DC transmission line "closes coal-fired power plants" like the Sierra Club idiots believe, the surrounding grid cannot recover.

The "two-way energy street mesh-like grid" of the future is dependent upon many small, local energy sources that can back each other up to "allow the rest of the surrounding grid to operate normally" when trouble happens.  That's distributed generation, the complete opposite of centralized generation and long distance transmission.  When there's no energy source in your community and a major, imported, centralized generation source fails, there's nothing there to pick up the slack.

DOE needs to quit carrying the industry's water.  We can't afford it anymore.
0 Comments

When It Is About The Eminent Domain

7/2/2016

9 Comments

 
Clean Line Grain Belt Express spokesman Mark Lawlor, when discussing his company's recent re-application to the Missouri Public Service Commission, told KMBZ:
Lawlor says this "isn't about eminent domain," which is one of the worries of many who live along the proposed route.  

"We will sit down with every single landowner and negotiate with them on the unique nature of their property. In fact we've been doing that for a couple years now."
If that were true, then there would be no need for eminent domain authority. 

Except the application GBE filed on Thursday stated:
What happens if a landowner doesn’t want to negotiate with Grain Belt Express?

The Company is allowing sufficient time for negotiations with each individual landowner along the route. Grain Belt Express is committed to conducting easement negotiations in a manner that respects the private property rights of landowners and achieves a voluntary easement acquisition. The Company is also committed to working with landowners to minimize the impacts of the Project upon their property. In order to ensure that infrastructure projects in the public interest can be completed, the entities building them need the right to condemn certain easements, particularly in cases of parcels that have title issues, parcels with missing or unlocatable landowners or heirs, or parcels where landowners refuse all reasonable attempts at contact or negotiation. Grain Belt Express views the use of eminent domain as a last resort that is appropriate only after exhausting all reasonable attempts at voluntary easement acquisition and title curative work. In all cases, landowners are entitled to due process and payment of fair market value for any easement acquired, and will retain ownership of their land.


So, no matter how many "landowner protections" Clean Line pretends to dream up, there's only one landowner protection that actually protects the landowner.

THE RIGHT TO SAY NO.

And IT IS ABOUT THE EMINENT DOMAIN to the landowners.

In fact, the eminent domain is at the heart of the opposition to this project.

Without eminent domain, Clean Line would have to:
...sit down with every single landowner and negotiate with them on the unique nature of their property.
But Clean Line doesn't even want to attempt that without having the right to condemn to use as leverage.

None of Clean Line's "landowner protections" will protect you.
9 Comments

Can You Trust the Government, Missouri?

6/30/2016

7 Comments

 
Missouri Governor Jay Nixon announced yesterday that he had negotiated "landowner protections" with a Texas-based company on behalf of Missourians affected by its for-profit transmission project.
Picture
Except none of the affected landowners participated in the Governor's negotiations with the company.  In fact, the landowners were not consulted in any way.  Nor were they even notified about these "protections," except to read it in their morning newspapers.  You'd think that if the "protections" were for benefit of landowners, that they would reflect actual landowner concerns, right?

Something stinks here...

Governor Nixon's "protections" are nothing more than smoke and mirrors.  They don't protect you.  Let's take a look:
Specifically, Clean Line has agreed to:

Offer the option of binding arbitration to resolve any compensation disputes.

Establish a Missouri Agriculture Protocol. Clean Line will follow strict guidelines to avoid, minimize and mitigate any impacts to agricultural fields or activities. The Missouri Agriculture Protocol should implement utility best practices and establishes an Agriculture Inspector to monitor construction activities. The Agriculture Inspector has the power to immediately stop construction when best practices are not being followed or when contractors are in violation of any negotiated obligation with landowners.

Establishment of a fund to decommission the project when it is determined to be near the end of its useful life.

Have a local firm update land value assessments. In the event land values have decreased since the last assessment because of commodity prices or any other reason, the Grain Belt Express will honor the higher of the values. Also, compensation will not be reduced after an Order has been issued approving the project by the Missouri Public Service Commission.
Oh, binding arbitration?  What is that, exactly?  "If the arbitration is mandatory and binding, the parties waive their rights to access the courts and to have a judge or jury decide the case."  Binding arbitration is quicker.  Binding arbitration is cheaper.  Binding arbitration may be free from public scrutiny.  Binding arbitration is giving up your rights to have a similarly situated landowner determine your value in a public, appealable court proceeding.  Now who would have an interest in making eminent domain takings of hundreds of land parcels across Missouri quicker, cheaper and quieter?  It's not landowners.  It's Clean Line and Governor Nixon!  Protecting you?  Not so much.  These people must think you're really stupid.

As well, financial compensation may be the least of a landowner's worries when presented with an easement agreement written by Clean Line's lawyers.  Who's representing the landowner's interests in this situation?  Not Clean Line.  Not the arbitrator, he only wants to talk about land value.  It's up to the landowner to retain his own counsel to review any easement agreement.

Missouri Agriculture Protocol?  How many actual farmers were consulted to develop this "protocol," and why does the Missouri Farm Bureau still oppose the project if this "protocol" ameliorates agricultural concerns?  Buyer beware on this one!   Ya know the best way to avoid impacts to agricultural activities?  Don't build the project.

Establishment of a decommissioning fund?  How much will that be?  Since Clean Line has the idea that the scrap value of the project's physical components will be more than enough to pay for its decommissioning, this "fund" might contain nothing more than pocket change and a couple of gum wrappers.  Where's the guarantee?  Where's the oversight?  Where's the money?

Update land value assessments?  When was the last "land value assessment" performed, and where can landowners access this information?  Will landowners be able to access the information in the new assessment, or are they just supposed to take Clean Line's word for it?  A transmission company never reveals any professional assessment of what your land is worth before approaching you to sign an easement or purchase agreement.  That's because your property is represented by a range of values that comes from land sales data in your county or region.  It's all very generic and created by some company in another state that never visits your property.  Because it's a range of general value, the company will start by offering you the lowest amount in range.  As you negotiate, the offer will increase within the pre-designated range.  Get to the top of the range, and suddenly any offers need to be approved by supervisors and managers.  How IS a landowner supposed to know whether their "land value assessment" increased or decreased under Governor Nixon's "protections?"  Is he going to come to your house to help in the negotiations and "protect" you?  Of course not.

Compensation will not be reduced after approval?  Again, who is going to police that?  Are you just supposed to trust Clean Line to honor this, when their profits are directly tied to the amount of money they must pay for your easement?  This is another worthless "protection."

So, what is going on here?  Political gamesmanship.  Clean Line and the Governor have now turned this into a political process.  They hope that the Missouri Public Service Commission can be politically influenced to approve the project the second time around, since Clean Line's first attempt was rejected on its technical merits.

Public Service Commission decisions are supposed to "provide an efficient regulatory process that is responsive to all parties, and perform our duties ethically and professionally."  They are not supposed to be politically motivated.  Commissioners are supposed to be free from political influence so that they may make independent decisions based on the law.  They're supposed to be ethical.  They're supposed to have integrity.  Will the Commissioners be brave enough to remain true to their own personal code of ethics when making their decision, or will they fall before political pressure from lame duck Governor Nixon?  And what good is Nixon's political pressure, when he'll be long gone before any decision is made?  Be careful who you vote for, Missouri!  Your Governor is not protecting you.  In fact, he's giving your private property rights to an out-of-state company to use for their own profit.  With a leader like that, nobody's property in Missouri is safe.  It's all for sale to the highest bidder.
7 Comments

Iowa Utilities Board Wants Clean Line To Get On With Things

6/24/2016

0 Comments

 
In an Order issued yesterday, the Iowa Utilities Board set a scheduling conference and intervention date for Clean Line's applications for electric transmission franchises in 16 counties.  The IUB wants to discuss "the likely time requirements for this proceeding," and presumably set a procedural schedule.  The conference is scheduled for July 11.

The IUB explains its actions are the result of recent new law in Iowa that sets a strict time standard for merchant transmission applications.
On May 27, 2016, House File 2459 was signed into law, adding § 478.6A “Merchant line franchises – requirements – limitations” to the Iowa Code. This newly- enacted statute creates a new class of electric transmission lines, called “merchant lines,” and sets time limits for processing franchise petitions for merchant lines. Clean Line’s proposed electric transmission line is a merchant line as defined in the new statute. Going forward, all petitions for a franchise for a merchant line that involves the taking of property under eminent domain will be subject to § 478.6A, which establishes a three-year deadline for Board action on those petitions.  If that deadline is not met then the petition shall be rejected and the petitioner may not file a petition for the same or similar project within sixty months following the date of rejection.
Section 39 of House File 2459 sets out slightly different time requirements for merchant line petitions filed on or after November 1, 2014, that have not yet been approved by the Board as of May 27, 2016. The three-year approval period is not applicable to these petitions; instead, the Board must act on these petitions within two years. The Clean Line petitions fall into this classification and therefore a decision on these petitions must be issued by the Board no later than May 27, 2018.
The Board recognizes that such proceedings can take significant time to conduct.  Therefore, a schedule must be set.

Clean Line can no longer hold Iowa landowners hostage by refusing to move its applications forward.  The company has failed to complete its applications by submitting what is known as "Exhibit E" material.  Instead, Clean Line has repeatedly attempted to bifurcate the permitting process to avoid submitting Exhibit E.  Exhibit E is a package of materials particular to each property upon which the applicant expects to exercise eminent domain, if granted.  Because Clean Line has been so ridiculously ineffective in obtaining easements in Iowa, Exhibit E's will be required for up to 80 - 85% of properties crossed.

Clean Line has repeatedly whined that creating Exhibit E material is too time consuming and too expensive.  Its whining has fallen on deaf ears.  Now it's time to put up or shut up.  The clock is ticking.

Could this be the end of the Rock Island Clean Line project?  Check mate!
0 Comments

Mark Twain's Ghost Thinks You're Ridiculous, Bob

6/20/2016

1 Comment

 
Peppering every thought and process with quotes from Mark Twain.  Is that really a thing in Hannibal, Missouri?  Apparently so, judging by this article in the Hannibal Courier-Post.  I guess I've been derelict in my communications efforts directed toward good ol' Bob and his friends at the Hannibal Board of Public Works by not including a trite quote from Twain as a preamble to my opinion.  My bad.  I hereby remedy that failing.

Reporter Danny Henley surely knows
The very ink with which all history is written is merely fluid prejudice.

MARK TWAIN, Following the Equator
Because he obviously didn't look at the actual "contract" between MJMEUC and Grain Belt Express before writing his article.  He relied on Bob Stevenson's sly "memo" to simply report incorrect facts and opinion as "news."
To string incongruities and absurdities together in a wandering and sometimes purposeless way, and seem innocently unaware that they are absurdities, is the basis of the American art, if my position is correct.

MARK TWAIN, "How to Tell a Story"
The contract clearly states it is for transmission capacity ONLY.  Henley needs to quit reporting lies such as this:  "Hannibal was also given the chance to buy electricity for as little as 2 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh)..."  No, they weren't given the opportunity to buy electricity.  They were given the opportunity to buy transmission capacity.  That would be like buying an extension cord, Danny, not signing up for a new account with the electric company.  One provides a means to move electricity from one location to another, and the other actually supplies the electricity.  Without electricity, the extension cord is useless.  And there have been no quotes offered from electricity suppliers.  None.

Henley reports that Bob Stevenson read a "memo" he had written to the BPW at the June meeting of the Board, lamenting that Hannibal had missed out on Grain Belt Express "opportunities."
In order to make a man or a boy covet a thing, it is only necessary to make the thing difficult to obtain.

MARK TWAIN, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
Picture
Grain Belt Express has a fence that needs whitewashing at the Missouri Public Service Commission.  Someone took away Bob's paintbrush.  Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

Bob thinks the project is "moving forward without Hannibal."  It's okay, Bob, the project isn't moving anywhere.  It can't go anywhere without eminent domain authority from the MO Public Service Commission, and that contract isn't a guarantee of success.  In fact, if you would actually read it yourself, Bob, you'd see that it's not even a firm contract, but sort of like a pre-contract, where MJMEUC can back out at any time up to 60 days before Grain Belt Express energizes its line.

Bob also expects to receive an offer from MJMEUC to join its useless pre-contract, even though he chose to wax poetic about missed opportunities at the Board's June meeting.  Of course Hannibal is not precluded from buying a paint brush and joining in the whitewashing.  It just made better theater to pretend Hannibal has missed some rare opportunity.

Hannibal should beware unsubstantiated claims that Grain Belt Express will save Hannibal (or any other municipality) money.  It's clear from GBE's "offer" to MJMEUC that the purported $10M/year savings aren't the result of any "study" by MJMEUC (as falsely reported in the press) but a summary of Clean Line's "preliminary calculations." 
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.
It's nothing but Clean Line's made up "preliminary calculations!"  None of the figures in this "calculation" has any validity.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

MARK TWAIN, Autobiography
Despite his fretful report that other cities are scheduling council action long before they sign a contract, and urging Hannibal to do so quickly in order not to miss out on this great opportunity, Bob needs to remember that he is merely a servant of the people.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.

MARK TWAIN, The Bible According to Mark Twain
There's no danger "up to 200 MW" of transmission capacity is going to disappear like hot Krispy Kreme donuts.  There's plenty of fence for everyone to paint!

The harder Bob tries to sell GBE, like the world's worst circus sideshow barker, the more suspicious he looks to the people of Hannibal.  Here's what Twain would tell him about his failure:
Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God.

MARK TWAIN, Europe and Elsewhere
Trust your ratepayers, Bob.  After you see what happens at the Public Service Commission, you're going to be thanking your lucky stars that it didn't happen to you.
1 Comment
<<Previous
Forward>>

    About the Author

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

    About
    StopPATH Blog

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

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


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

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

    RSS Feed

    Archives

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

    Categories

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

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.