Category:

The Week Clean Line Imploded

11/20/2015

There's probably more than a handful of folks down in Houston this morning falling to their knees thanking their makers that today is the last day of this week. What else can happen? The day's not over yet!!!

Each one of Clean Line's Midwestern projects suffered a setback that caused media backlash at some point this week, and the victories for affected landowners just keep piling up.

First, landowner groups in Illinois came out undaunted about the ICC's approval of the Grain Belt Express project last week. Because of the scathing dissent of two ICC Commissioners regarding the legalities of Clean Line's permit, appeal seems quite likely. And quite likely to be successful.

Block Grain Belt Express President Dave Buchman said, “We are disappointed by today’s decision but it was not unexpected. It is imperative for members of the opposition to remain united in our common goal of preserving property rights.” Buckman is anxious to review the order so that the group may formulate a plan of action. They have many avenues of defense still available, such as appealing the decision because the ICC violated state law by allowing Clean Line to file under an expedited permitting process for public utilities, although Clean Line is not a public utility. Additionally, Buckman advises that it is crucial to remember that if landowners stick together, the eminent domain process will be significantly more difficult, if not impossible, for Clean Line.

And in Missouri, the Missouri Landowners Alliance announced its victory in Caldwell County Circuit Court:

Opponents of Grain Belt Express recently won another significant victory in their efforts to block construction of a proposed mega electric transmission line through Missouri. Last month, the Caldwell County Circuit Court found that a project franchise initially granted by the County, but later rescinded, was void. Under Missouri law, Grain Belt Express must have the franchise of all counties crossed in order to build its project.

Last year the Missouri Landowners Alliance (MLA) filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Caldwell County, asking the Court to find that the franchise supposedly granted by the Caldwell County Commission to Grain Belt was void and/or unenforceable. The franchise would have allowed Grain Belt to build its line on and over the public roads of the county.

On October 7, the Circuit Court issued an Order finding in favor of the MLA. The time for Grain Belt to appeal that Order has now passed. Therefore, as a practical matter, Grain Belt now has no legal authority to build its proposed line across Caldwell County. And Grain Belt would have no such authority to build, even if it could somehow persuade the Missouri Public Service Commission to reverse its decision earlier this year that denied Grain Belt a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity. Grain Belt must obtain authorization not only from the PSC, but also from the County Commission in each of the Missouri counties where it plans to locate the line.

Grain Belt’s only apparent hope for building the line through Caldwell County would be to convince the County Commission to reissue a new franchise for the proposed line. Given that the County Commission supported the MLA in the Caldwell County Circuit Court case, the MLA is optimistic that the County Commission would reject any such overtures from Grain Belt. A survey taken last year for Grain Belt revealed that the citizens of Caldwell County overwhelmingly oppose the proposed transmission line.

Grain Belt could conceivably try to salvage this project by somehow re-routing the line around Caldwell County, into other neighboring counties. But given Grain Belt’s claim that the optimal route for the line is through Caldwell County, that option would seemingly raise a host of problems for Grain Belt.

The Grain Belt project is spearheaded by a Houston-based, investor-owned company with the goal of transmitting energy from Kansas to the richer eastern markets. After a lengthy court battle, in July the Missouri Public Service Commission issued an order finding that Grain Belt Express has failed to meet, by a preponderance of the evidence, its burden of proof to demonstrate that the project is necessary or convenient for the public service.

Recently, the Illinois Commerce Commission granted Grain Belt permission to build in Illinois, leaving Missouri as the only holdout. Jennifer Gatrel from grassroots group Block Grain Belt stated, “The decision by the Illinois commissioners is in no way final. There will be an extensive appeals process, which the opposition has an excellent chance of winning. We are all very grateful for the two brave commissioners who, in their dissent, outlined why it was illegal for Clean Line to be allowed the expedited permitting process available for public utilities. Their support will be invaluable in the appeal.”

Russ Piscotta, President of Block Grain Belt Missouri, stated, “We have beat them once and we will beat them again as many times as necessary. We have spent this time preparing our strategies and are ready to once again defend ourselves. Overall, as a grassroots group, we are doing excellent. We need to remember that Clean Line's goal is to dishearten us. Our goal is to prevent the precedent of a private company getting access to eminent domain. We are doing great so far and will continue to win. We simply cannot afford to lose. Many thanks to the thousands of devoted landowners who have sacrificed much. We are all in this together, and together we will succeed!”

Next up, the Illinois Third Appellate Court scheduled oral arguments on the Illinois Landowners' Alliance appeal of the ICC approval of the Rock Island Clean Line (RICL) project. The press release also mentioned:

In Iowa, the fate of RICL is equally uncertain. RICL has directed the Iowa Utility Board to suspend all work on their application. In spite of 18 months of land agent activity, less that 15 percent of the easements have been acquired and opposition remains strong.

Carolyn Sheridan, president of the grass roots organization Preservation of Rural Iowa (PRIA) commented, “We have a strong legal team and support continues to grow as they and we monitor all aspects of this proposed project. There is no indication that landowners will change their opposition to the misuse of eminent domain."

This came back to bite Clean Line on Thursday, when the press somehow got the idea that they'd previously been lied to. Never lie to reporters! They eventually find stuff out. Such as the fact that Clean Line quietly asked the Iowa Utilities Board to stop reviewing its application for RICL back in the spring.

Those closely monitoring the project say they were told months ago it had been put on hold. Land agents haven't been in the state for months.

Iowa Republican Gov. Terry Branstad, a supporter of the line, said at a wind energy conference in September that the plan had "kind of been placed on hold right now." Clean Line Energy Partners spokeswoman Sarah Bray said the next day that the project was "certainly still moving forward," with biological studies, wind resource assessment and commercial discussions.

Bray struck a different tone in response to an inquiry on Thursday.

"Given the unique regulatory structure in Iowa, we are currently assessing ways to move the project forward and continue easement negotiations without incurring significant financial and regulatory risk," she wrote in an email.

This caused a whole bunch of weasel words and backpedaling by Clean Line... and more inaccurate and whiny claims by the company spokeswoman. Bray also whined that the IUB regulatory process would cause the company to spend "tens of millions" of dollars to acquire land with no guarantee that their project would be approved. Not true! The IUB requires that a company seeking a transmission line permit submit certain information for each property it may take by eminent domain. Because Clean Line's land acquisition in Iowa has been such a failure (only 17% of needed easements have been acquired to date) Clean Line doesn't want to do all the work required to take the remaining 83% of the needed easements. The law doesn't require Clean Line to own all easements up front, it could just as easily acquire signed option agreements to purchase easements if the project is approved by the IUB. But, the fly in that ointment is that the landowners are having none of it. So, when Bray says that the company's negotiations with landowners "have been very positive," she's spinning like crazy.

Meanwhile, down in Arkansas, Clean Line's release of an "economic study" of the benefits of its Plains & Eastern project for Arkansas was a major flop. First of all, most people realize the study is nothing but cooked numbers created from Clean Line's data plugged into a generic spreadsheet that calculates numbers that don't jive with the economic data included in the Environmental Impact Statement released by the DOE.

A controversial electric transmission line project pushed by Houston-based Plains & Eastern Clean Line with the regulatory process challenged by members of Arkansas’ Congressional delegation would create a $660 million impact to Arkansas’ economy, according to a University of Arkansas report.

When asked about the UA economic impact report, Sen. Boozman said the issue is not the impact, but with the process and the potential cost to Arkansas ratepayers.

“Arkansans are not opposed to building needed infrastructure projects, but questions remain about whether this particular project is needed. No Arkansas utilities have signed up to purchase power from the line,” Boozman noted in a statement sent to Talk Business & Politics. “There are questions about the long-term benefits and costs to the state of Arkansas. Not only should a transmission project be necessary, but the state must be given an opportunity to review and approve it – just as it has always has in the past. When DC bureaucrats force a project on the state, as they have in this instance, the harm and costs may not be properly addressed.”

A statement from Rep. Womack’s office to Talk Business & Politics raised a question about who funded the UA study.

“Our concerns about the project are not based on whether Clean Line can commission a favorable study, but rather if the federal government should be able to supersede a state’s right to decide to license a utility and allow the use of eminent domain on behalf of a private company,” Womack said in the statement.

When asked about the perceived credibility of a study commissioned by Clean Line, Deck provided the following statement: “One of the things that our Center does for a wide variety of organizations is estimate economic impacts. Clean Line came to us to understand how its expenditures in Arkansas will affect the state’s economy. We very carefully looked at how much direct expenditure would be made and how the supply chain and personal expenditures that will result from that direct investment would impact the state. For this kind of study, there is no way to estimate economic impact without considerable input from the companies that are involved. And, of course, companies are the most interested in understanding their own particular economic impact. So, for economic impact studies, you will almost always find that the economic impact generator is the funder of the work.

“As always, economic impact should be considered a single piece of the puzzle as we live in a complex world. But, it is an important piece.”

Landowner opposition groups say the report doesn't address their concerns:

Jordan Wimpy, attorney for Arkansas Citizens Against Clean Line Energy, said Tuesday, “At this time, the primary concern of our clients is Department of Energy’s review of and potential participation in a project that meets no identified or documented transmission need. This is particularly concerning when the federal government’s involvement will circumvent normal state level review and may well include the use of federal eminent domain to condemn the property of private landowners in order to benefit a private, for-profit transmission company.”

Alison Millsaps, spokeswoman for Block Plains & Eastern Clean Line, said, “Again and again, Clean Line and their supporters attempt to focus solely on economic development in regard to Plains & Eastern. The people who make up the opposition to this line aren’t against economic development, they’re against the use of eminent domain to further what is essentially private economic development.

“Dangling big numbers doesn’t always make a proposal necessary or legal. We believe both of those issues will ultimately be determined in a court of law, not by a study on construction benefits,” she said.

Flop. Flop. Flop.

So, let's recap. Clean Line's RICL project is dead in the water and there is no federal override over the IUB's permitting authority. RICL's Illinois permit is being appealed. Clean Line's Grain Belt Express project is blocked by counties in Missouri, and will most likely be successfully appealed in Illinois. Clean Line's Plains & Eastern project just keeps gathering the ire of the State of Arkansas and nobody is buying the manufactured "benefits" of the project.

The only thing moving forward here is bad press.

0 Comments

What You Need to Know About Utility Eminent Domain Takings

11/17/2015

11 Comments

Well, it's finally happened. An electric transmission owner sited its line in the backyard of the wrong person. Those transmission siting etch-a-sketch toys can be so risky!

And now the way society thinks about the use of eminent domain for energy transmission easements is about to change.

Andrew P. Morriss, Dean & Anthony G. Buzbee Dean’s Endowed Chairholder, Texas A&M School of Law; Senior Fellow, Property & Environment Research Center; Senior Fellow, Reason Foundation; and Research Scholar, Regulatory Studies Center, George Washington University. A.B. Princeton University; J.D., M.Pub.Aff. The University of Texas at Austin; Ph.D. (Economics) M.I.T., lately found himself in the bullseye of an electric transmission project. And he hired counsel. And then Morris and his lawyers wrote a paper published in the LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources.

In the interests of full disclosure, we should note that we are not neutral observers of
eminent domain abuse in this area. Morriss’s wife’s parents, wife, brother-inlaw, and sister-in-law are involved in proceedings contesting the valuation of a power transmission easement across property held by a family limited partnership in Kimble County, Texas, in which they are represented by Barron & Adler. As a result, none of us feels particularly charitable toward utilities that make use of eminent domain for acquisition of power line corridors.

Whoopsy! But, finally, someone with a big enough megaphone to question the utility easement status quo has done the unspeakable -- suggested that the use of eminent domain for "large infrastructure easements" (or LIEs, proving that acronym creation is an art) should end.

We argue that eminent domain laws need to be reformed to address these problems. The simplest reform is to eliminate eminent domain from LIEs entirely, forcing utilities to negotiate easement terms in arm’s length transactions and leveling the playing field between the utilities and landowners. Because the burdened landowners are a dispersed and unorganized interest group, while utilities have considerable political clout, this may be
unobtainable through the political process in many states. Similarly, the even more potent “bootleggers and Baptists” coalition of utilities and environmental pressure groups, which
back expansion of transmission lines for renewable energy, if not natural gas or oil pipelines, mobilize powerful interests behind
maintaining the power.

In Involuntary Cotenants: Eminent Domain and Energy
and Communications Infrastructure Growth, Morriss and his co-author attorneys point out the bald truth about utility LIEs:

Easement agreements are written by utilities in their own interests.
Easement agreements do not adequately compensate landowners.
Courts hearing the eminent domain case simply accept the easement agreement as written and concentrate solely on "fair market value" of the property taken.

Why do we allow ourselves to be treated this way?

Much of the growth is likely to involve the use of eminent domain because utilities and
governments often consider eminent domain to be a cheaper and easier alternative to negotiating with potentially resistant, unhappy landowners for the acquisition of property.

The paper points out that in lieu of doing away with utility eminent domain authority altogether, reform is needed.

For example, providing courts (and other third parties with roles in eminent domain proceedings) with the opportunity to alter the easement terms proposed by utilities for LIEs would serve as an important step toward solving many of the problems we describe. In addition, states and the federal government can take further steps to improve the LIE acquisition process by gathering and disseminating market data to, and providing greater statutory guidance for, valuation
decisions.

The five reforms recommended in the paper include:

Limiting eminent domain power of utilities.
Empowering neutral decision makers to structure easements.
Create exit rights. (Utilities should not be able to take perpetual easements).
Create better data on LIE costs and provisions.
Establish standards to guide determination of value. (Not all costs to landowners are immediate or quantifiable).

The paper is also a great guide to things you should consider adding to any proposed easement agreement presented to you by a utility during the "good faith" negotiation period required by law before the utility resorts to eminent domain. Of course, the utility will most likely bat your efforts away, but in that case, how much "good faith" is the utility actually displaying? It's all about the money to them, although money is usually at the bottom of the landowner's list of concerns about involuntarily hosting a utility LIE.

And this paper makes you think. Ever since I saw my first purchase option agreement and easement agreement presented to landowners by the PATH transmission company more than five years ago, I've wondered how anyone thinks this playing field is fair. The agreements contained many clauses that I would never agree to, however these agreements are often presented to landowners lacking legal knowledge of any kind, and without the benefit of counsel. When real estate changes hands in a market-based arm's length transaction, both parties are represented by their own counsel. It's the way we do things. Have you ever sold your real property sitting alone at your kitchen table with a fast-talking stranger who's just come knocking on your door, checkbook in hand? Of course not, unless you've been a victim of a utility LIE. Why is it okay for utilities to prey on landowners this way? This needs to stop! The landowner should have the right to independent counsel, at the utility's expense, before signing any agreements. In fact, it should be required.

Any why should eminent domain for utility LIES continue? If you've never been affected by a LIE, you may think eminent domain is a necessary evil to providing a public necessity, like electricity, highways, and other public infrastructure. Arrogant eminent domain proponents believe that because the power you use required an easement across someone else's land at some point, that you should be eager to provide that same easement for someone else's electric need. It's been many, many years since America was electrified. During electrification, eminent domain was accepted because everyone was getting the benefit of the infrastructure. Today, some greedy transmission companies are proposing eminent domain be used for LIES that aren't needed to provide anyone with basic service. Transmission lines have been proposed that are intended to make the electricity cities waste keeping their skylines lit up all night "greener." This isn't public necessity. It's keeping you stupid believing that utilities shall have the right of eminent domain for whatever they propose. It's time to rethink this because America is rebelling against this kind of thinking in a big, big way.

Start your thought journey by reading the Morriss paper. And think, really think, what if this happened to me? Because if we let this continue unabated, it will.

This post wouldn't be complete without thanks to Janna Swanson in Iowa for digging up this thought-provoking paper. Janna moonlights as an energy activist and researcher, when not producing food to feed ungrateful utility executive pieholes.

11 Comments

Tick, Tock -- ICC Issues Grain Belt Express a Conditional Permit

11/15/2015

0 Comments

Clean Line's Grain Belt Express received a conditional CPCN (permit) from the Illinois Commerce Commission last week. Another random number covered on Clean Line's Bingo Board.

Clean Line's Skelly acted like it actually did something to speed up the project.

“The ICC approval brings the Grain Belt Express Clean Line one step closer to dramatically increasing the low-cost wind energy available to customers in Missouri and Illinois.”

I disagree. The ICC's CPCN expires two years from date of issue. Although GBE requested its permit be issued with a two and one-half year expiration date, the Order did not do so. So, it's two years. Tick Tock, Clean Line!

Clean Line's patchwork quilt of permits is an exercise in harvesting low-hanging fruit, with the most desired pieces still way out of reach. Despite its six years of effort to get any of its four (or it is five?) transmission projects totaling thousands of miles permitted, Clean Line still doesn't have all the permits it needs for even one of them. They've built a crazy quilt of random permits and their timing is way off. Permits are going to start expiring before new ones are issued, creating a game of permitting whack-a-mole.

Its Rock Island project has a two-year Illinois permit on which it only has one year left to begin construction. Meanwhile, Rock Island is completely stalled in Iowa. No way will it complete its Iowa permitting before the Illinois permit expires.

Its Plains and Eastern project lacks a permit in Arkansas and eminent domain authority in Oklahoma.

And its Grain Belt Express project has been flat out rejected by Missouri. Clean Line made some noises about figuring out its options in Missouri -- either reapplying with the state or attempting a federal override. Either way, Clean Line has no chance of clearing up its issue in Missouri within two years.

I think this is just poor strategy and management of Clean Line's permitting process. Clean Line seems more concerned about having a piece of paper to show its investors, rather than making logical progress toward building a single project. Maybe this handful of speculators have bitten off more than they can chew?

Anyhow... about Grain Belt's CPCN from the ICC... Its a conditional permit, again (the Rock Island permit also came with conditions and no eminent domain authority).

The first condition imposed by the ICC is that GBE have all its financing in place before beginning construction. The ICC figures this will stop GBE from building the transmission line to nowhere before running out of money and expecting the government or electric ratepayers to bail it out to finish the project. Does the ICC think this is a possibility without the condition? That's quite telling in itself, isn't it? A real public utility usually has more than an idea and a fantastical plan to get rich quick. At least the ICC seems to realize Grain Belt Express has nothing behind it.

The second condition imposed by the ICC is a whole bunch of make-believe. The ICC requires Clean Line to come back before it to receive "permission" to charge Illinois ratepayers for the project through FERC-jurisdictional regional cost allocation. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Why am I laughing? Because the ICC has no authority to accept or reject cost allocation to Illinois ratepayers. It is a regional process under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The most the ICC can do is file a complaint that goes like this, "But, FERC, GBE promised us that we would have jurisdiction over a cost allocation decision!" And who is GBE to change FERC's jurisdiction? Can't happen. So, the ICC's logic goes like this: If GBE tries to get cost allocation to Illinois ratepayers, then we can suspend its permit and then they can't build the project! But... what if... GBE constructs its project and THEN receives approval for regional cost allocation? What you gonna do then, ICC? Cry? Waste time and money fighting this at FERC like you did the PJM cost allocation for the Project Mountaineer projects? That took, what... 10 years? And cost how much? The really frustrating part about this is that ICC has had it explained to them six ways to Sunday that they have no jurisdiction to impose this "condition."

But here's the big oops... the vote to issue the CPCN in the first place was 3-2 in favor. Two Commissioners issued a dissent that I'm going to call "blistering" (because Clean Line likes to say that about the Missouri dissent). The issue here is particular to Illinois law. Section 8-406 allows for the application for and issuance of a CPCN. Section 8-503 allows the ICC to order or authorize a company to build a certain project. Section 8-503 is a prerequisite to eminent domain authority under Section 8-509. The ICC may issue a CPCN under 8-406 without Section 8-503's authority that is the basis for an eminent domain grant under 8-509. That's exactly what happened with the Rock Island project. The project was issued an 8-406 CPCN but the Commission did not order or authorize the project to be be built under 8-503. This gives Rock Island the ability to build its project if it can get 100% voluntary land acquisition, otherwise Rock Island has to go back before the Commission to request a determination under 8-503 before it can proceed to 8-509's eminent domain authority. However, in 2010 the Illinois legislature added Section 8-406.1 to create an expedited process for public utilities to apply for a CPCN. This speedy process automatically includes the 8-503 grant. Because Clean Line didn't want to end up with another useless CPCN without 8-503 authority, it decided to use the expedited 8-406.1 process. The fly in the ointment, however, is that only a public utility may apply under 8-406.1. Clean Line is not a public utility in Illinois. This issue was the subject of several motions to dismiss and an interlocutory appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court during the proceedings. I've heard that the ICC acted quite suspiciously in denying the motions, without public discussion of any kind at the meeting where they denied the motions to dismiss. And here it comes again, in the form of a dissent from two Commissioners. I'd say chances of GBE's permit being overturned on appeal are pretty good.

And what then, Clean Line, what then? Why were you in such a hurry to get your Illinois permit for GBE when it was obvious Missouri was going to deny your application? What strategy was that? Just covering another square on your transmission permitting bingo board? Yay, you!

So, the Clean Line saga grinds on. No generators, no customers, not enough permits. When are Clean Line's investors going to quit tossing money down this rat hole? One of the more interesting things to come out of Illinois recently was Clean Line's filing regarding its Rock Island project regarding a change of investors. Although Clean Line made much earlier this year of a "$50M investment" in its company by Bluescape Resources, it turns out that investment was tied up in a ball of string. Clean Line got $12M. Bluescape got two seats on Clean Line's Board of Directors. The Board of Directors can order Bluescape to kick in another $5M at any time, once Oklahoma approves Bluescape's investment. The other $33M is completely at Bluescape's option. Bluescape wasn't foolish enough to give these wind cowboys all $50M up front. Clean Line keeps adding investors to its stable as the ones already there don't seem to be interested in upping their investment. Remember, if Clean Line can't get their projects built, their investors lose everything. Every last dime.

And there Clean Line's management sits, with their permit bingo board missing crucial links and no idea whether the balls they need are even in the hopper.

0 Comments

Environmental Hypocrisy and Fantasy

11/12/2015

3 Comments

Remember when the environmental community was a kind and gentle, financially struggling, underdog that Americans could look to for help against corporate energy schemes? That wasn't so long ago, but the environmental community has done a complete 180 in the past seven years to morph into an arrogant, mean-spirited, well-funded, corporate bully. And their halo (and popularity with the American people) has tarnished. Along with their increased funding has come corporate and political agendas that the environmentalists must pursue in order to keep receiving their fat, donated paychecks. No longer does their funding come from the American people through memberships and donations. Now they're big business, living high on the hog while feeding on corporate largesse and political contributions. Big Green has become the enemy of the American people. Just another corporate lackey.

Some of them may be quite unaware of how they're perceived by the rest of us, but the majority must be quietly whispering in shocked tones about the way the public now perceives them as the enemy. In its defense, the environmental community continues to deny there's an issue, and make excuses for its hypocritical choice of which energy projects to support or oppose.

For example, a recent piece in political rag Triple Pundit attempts to compare and contrast the Keystone XL pipeline with the Plains & Eastern Clean Line. This piece fails at the starting gate:

After all, both involve transporting energy from one place to another; both require the taking of right-of-way from property owners; and both will create relatively few direct and permanent jobs once completed.

Those are the important points that Americans care about. The rationalization that follows to explain why those detriments are okay as long as the project has the name "Clean" in its name is nothing but fantasy.

The author is a public relations wonk and "author of books and articles on recycling and other conservation themes." Well, recycling... that certainly qualifies her to expound on the need for electric transmission and the condemnation of private property for energy projects. Not.

The author claims that Clean Line will provide more jobs than Keystone, and she bases that on information from... Clean Line. Just because Clean Line says it will "source" its components from US companies doesn't mean they will be produced in the US. The author points out that Keystone components will be produced in foreign countries and simply "sourced" in the US. In fact, Clean Line would be fiscally imprudent to sign contracts for components with US companies now, long before any shovel hits the ground. It's common practice to issue an RFP for project components and then evaluate the bids for price, quality and deliverability. If she'd looked underneath the "clean" veneer, she'd realize that Clean Line's promises of US manufacturing jobs are just that... promises. There are no signed procurement contracts for certain components at fixed prices. And there are no guarantees of new jobs.

There's no logic in pretending a transmission project provides more "operations" jobs than Keystone. Maybe if the author knew anything about how transmission lines are operated she'd realize that the "operators" are already employed at regional transmission authorities. One more line in the stable isn't going to create any new jobs. Jobs at wind farms? Sure, the same as jobs that would fill the Keystone pipeline with its liquid gold. No difference.

The Energy Department has not given Clean Line its "Seal of Approval," no matter what Clean Line wants to spout in the media. A decision still has not been made.

Mention of TVA? Why? The TVA has not included Clean Line in its Integrated Resource Plan and has remarked that any possible use of the project is at least a decade away. It isn't about where Clean Line connects, it's about finding buyers for the energy Clean Line transports at the connection points. There are none. Moreover, there are no generators to sign contracts with end users. Who builds a road without any cars to drive on it? We don't build public infrastructure unless there's a need for it, and only public utilities with a need to transmit power have a right to eminent domain authority. Sure, any investor can build a shopping mall and hope shoppers show up, but we don't use eminent domain for that kind of speculative, for-profit enterprise. And that's exactly what Clean Line is -- a "build it and they will come" idea. Block GBE-MO said it best, "No need, no gain, no eminent domain!"

And let's talk about those mid-point converter stations. Without buyers, they're just useless monstrosities. And there are no buyers. Just because Clean Line builds a converter station does not mean power flows to that location. The converter station is a tollbooth -- if there are no buyers to pay for the juice, it doesn't pass the tollgate. Arkansas doesn't magically "get" 500 MW of electricity unless someone pays for it. And if there are no buyers, why invest $100M in a converter station that sits idle? There's no guarantee that a converter station will be built in Arkansas if it's not profitable.

Perhaps the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce (a traditional utility ally that the environmental groups have disregarded as biased in the past) is looking forward to "new supplies of clean energy," but again, without buyers, they get nothing.

And then the author trots out a 5-year old "report" Clean Line presented to the TVA (who elected NOT to purchase any of its electricity). This has about as much validity as any other lobbyist promise, I suppose, and is not worth reading. But, this point is so off the mark it deserves mention:

Greater transmission reliability: The project increases transmission capacity and grid reliability. This is especially important in light of potential for coal power plant retirements and the lack of inter-regional transmission projects.

Reliability is not a measure of the amount of available transmission. Reliability is the ability to deliver power at all times. Our current grid is managed by regional planners/operators who order new projects needed for reliability. No regional grid planner has ordered Clean Line. It's completely outside any regional grid planning. It's completely unneeded for reliability purposes. Furthermore, the most reliable electric delivery system is located as close as possible to the point of use. Transmission lines are a link in the power supply chain that can be broken at a moment's notice. The more power you depend on from far away, the more unreliable your system (more moving parts, more chance for problems). As well, Clean Line is proposing an electric supply provided by intermittent renewables. There is no reliability to a generator that cannot be counted on to run when called. That's unreliability.

The article then goes down a political rathole to make partisan attacks on elected officials. Nobody in the real world cares!

And finally, the author gets on her soapbox to tell the world why and how Keystone will affect the landowners and what makes it "bad."

...property owners and communities throughout the length of the pipeline would be saddled with the risk of a pipeline leak, break or other mishap.

And what makes this different than the burdens saddled on Clean Line-affected landowners? There is no contrast here, just some blather she probably pulled out of newspaper articles about the opposition. I wonder how many Keystone-affected landowners this recycling queen has actually spoken to? I'm guessing none.

I've spoken to plenty of landowners affected by Clean Line's proposal, as well as regular folks concerned about energy issues. Here's the common thread: They're not going to put up with eminent domain for energy projects any more. Whether its Keystone or Clean Line, the project must be built without the heavy hand of government land theft. While use of eminent domain for energy projects was used repeatedly to build the infrastructure we have today, it's no longer acceptable. It's a new generation, with a new way to organize and fight. Nobody's lights are going to go off if we don't build new energy projects. Instead, what these environmentalists propose is to build an entirely new infrastructure to replace our current system, but basing it on yesterday's unpopular ideas. The American people don't want "clean" energy that costs them more or that usurps their right to own and enjoy property.

We're at an energy crossroads. We can embrace new ideas and create a new, democratic and reliable energy future -- or we can simply replace our corporate masters with new "clean" corporations and continue with the status quo. The people are rising up -- no more corporate energy control!

Only when the environmental groups come to terms with their new unpopularity will they become an impetus toward a new energy future and stop dragging the future down into the corporate past.

3 Comments

Arkansas Forms Landowner Group to Oppose Clean Line

10/25/2015

2 Comments

We have some big news from Dave and Alison in Arkansas!

First, we've heard a rumor that the final EIS may be coming out next week, so keep your eyes open.
Second, working with some friends at Arkansas Citizens Against Plains and Eastern Clean Line over the last month, we've quietly established a landowners' LLC. We kept it quiet because we didn't want Clean Line to know what we were up to until we were ready. As you probably know, landowners' LLCs have had some important victories against Clean Line in Missouri and Oklahoma, and they're working hard in Illinois and Iowa. We feel that, no matter what the DOE decides, we'll be better able to respond if we do it together. Strength in numbers!

The only way this works is if we can get enough affected and adjacent landowners to participate. That's where you come in. We'll be holding meetings across the state in November and early December with our legal representation there to answer questions. We're sending out postcards, but doing so is incredibly expensive. There's no way we can get to everyone we need to without your help. If you would like to donate to help with our mailing, please go here:

GoldenBridgeAR

We're asking you to spread the word and help us pave the way. You know us. Not everyone else does. We can't do this without you. This is the link to the website:

GoldenBridgeAR

The website details membership options (we've kept the buy-in cost very low) and includes a "pre-membership survey". The LLC is structured to keep voting memberships exclusively for affected landowners (preferred and alternates) and adjacent landowners. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

It is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT for all affected and interested parties to attend the upcoming meetings. Please do everything you can to help us maximize attendance. This is our chance to give people the opportunity to talk to an attorney for FREE. Together, we have the collective influence and power to fight this thing!

2 Comments

U.S. DOE's Congestion Study Fails to Designate Congestion "Corridors"

10/6/2015

2 Comments

Remember when the U.S. DOE's triennial "congestion studies" under Sec. 1221 of the Energy Policy Act were a big deal? That was before the 4th Circuit told them that a state's denial of a project was not a "failure to act" that triggered federal intervention to usurp state authority to permit a transmission project. And that was before the 9th Circuit vacated the "corridors" the DOE designated in 2009 because of DOE's failure to consult with affected states. What's left behind is a useless section of statute that doesn't actually DO anything except waste taxpayer money on ridiculous "congestion studies" that do nothing but compile unverified data and opinion from the internet and the industry to inform the DOE's designation of future "congestion" corridors. Now when DOE issues one of its "reports" (three years past the deadline, or maybe it's on time and DOE just skipped the 2012 report) it's so anticlimactic that nobody knows about it.

And that's what happened with DOE's 2015 Report Concerning Designation of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors. Big nothing. In fact, it was so uninteresting that DOE didn't even bother to send notice to all the folks who commented on its draft that it had completed its study. An astute commenter just happened across it.

Despite the industry's urging to continue attempting to use this tool to usurp state authority to site and permit transmission, or to simply delegate its authority to create corridors to transmission builders, the DOE decided not to designate any new corridors. Seems they have lost their taste for it after the beat down they suffered in federal court.

So, isn't it time to do away with this waste of taxpayer money? How much did this limp "report" cost to create? Congress needs to reconsider this mandate in any new energy legislation. It's a waste of time and money.

DOE's got issues. I note that this "report" appears to be the agency's recommendation to the Secretary on the designation of new corridors. I guess that would make it an "internal deliberation" that should be swept under the rug and hidden from the public? Maybe that's what the lack of notice was about? How come DOE is making this "internal deliberation" available to the public, but hiding its "internal deliberations" regarding Clean Line's application under Sec. 1222 of the Energy Policy Act? Something really stinks at DOE. They're operating like they are somehow above the public scrutiny and transparency that our federal agencies are bound to operate under. It's just one big taxpayer funded, opague industry party. And that spells trouble down the road the next time DOE finds itself in federal court over its industry-sympathisizing machinations of the Energy Policy Act.

Ut-oh, DOE!

So, let's toss Sec. 1221 on the failed legislation heap, but save room on the pile for Sec. 1222. It's coming.

2 Comments

Key Transmission Challenges in the Midwest

9/12/2015

0 Comments

Who's a key transmission challenge in the Midwest?

You're a key transmission challenge in the Midwest! The biggest "challenge" to building transmission in the Midwest is the people who are expected to sacrifice their businesses, their homes, their retirement, for benefit of the illusive "communities that have a strong demand for renewable power."

Electric Utility Consultants, Inc. (EUCI) is having another "educational" shindig to discuss you "challenges," and once again, you're not invited.

On November 9 and 10, EUCI will be gathering its fattened cows to the trough in Indianapolis to be "educated" about the following:

Transmission as a Market Enabler: Today's "conservative" approach to transmission planning exposes customers and other market participants to greater risks and costs because by understating the benefits of and risks addressed by transmission, valuable investments in transmission facilities are either not made or delayed.

This session will address a study paid for by WIRES, "The Voice of The Electric Transmission Industry." WIRES is made up of corporations who stand to profit from building new transmission. Apparently we're not planning enough transmission for their balance sheets. Awwww.....

But then there's this:

State Regulatory Viewpoint on Transmission Developments in the Region

State Regulators will share their perspectives on:
Balancing priorities
The role of stakeholder involvement
How different states are looking at the challenges involved to collaborate with other states
The benefits and challenges that competition for regionally cost-shared transmission projects creates for the PUCs and the ratepayer.

Adam McKinnie, Chief Utility Economist, Missouri Public Service Commission

Did anyone tell EUCI that the Missouri Public Service Commission recently denied Clean Line's Grain Belt Express application for a 700-mile transmission line through the state? Fun times! I hope they're planning to create some space between that guy and...

KURT ALERT! Amy Kurt, Clean Line Energy Manager for the development of the Grain Belt Express Clean Line, will be "educating" participants about "The Challenges of Renewable Energy Integration," including the sub-topic "Maintaining grid security and reliability while integrating increased penetrations of renewable energy." I wonder when Amy got her engineering degree that qualifies her to expound on grid security? Maybe she's been doing it online, in secret? Or maybe Hans Detweiler taught her how to be an "engineer?" At any rate don't let Amy sit with Adam at lunch! "A" is for awkward!

Participants will learn about "Embracing New Communication Technologies." Good to see that Amy isn't teaching this one, because her communication skills haven't been working too well on the people of Missouri. Did I mention that the MO PSC denied the Grain Belt Express application Amy "managed" because its benefits didn't outweigh the harm to Missouri citizens?

So, what "new technologies" will be embraced?

Communicating with the public is a critical element to successfully building new transmission line projects. Strategic communication requires teams to go beyond traditional outreach tools by embracing new techniques including zip-code targeted social media ads (Facebook and Twitter), electronic communication, videos, online comment collection, and Story Maps. For the busy public, an online open house provides access to open house materials, information videos, interactive maps, and input opportunities. With tight project budgets, it's time to embrace new tactics to communicate and stretch dollars and gain the input necessary to identify smart routes and communicate with all stakeholders throughout the project construction process.

What? No unit on using change.org to send supportive (but off-topic) comments from your Mommy and Little Sis into a regulatory process? Well, maybe there's a role for Amy after all!

Unfortunately, the "busy public" interested in transmission isn't interested in a corporate-slanted version of web "facts." The "busy public" gets its facts from equally busy "public" opposition groups... live and in person, via email, via social media, etc. Hot time in the ol' tool shed tonight! Nobody trusts the corporation to be honest, with good reason.

Don't miss Amy discussing:

Illinois is home to two of Clean Line's projects, the Rock Island Clean Line and the Grain Belt Express Clean Line. The Rock Island Clean Line received its regulatory approval from the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) in November of 2014. The Grain Belt Express Clean Line filed its application with the ICC this April. This presentation will provide an overview of Clean Line's approach to developing multi-state, direct current, transmission lines to deliver renewable energy to market.

Be sure to bring your own copy of the "Motion for Leave to File Complaint for Order of Prohibition" pending before the Illinois Supreme Court so you can follow along.

Sounds like a real party, doesn't it? Unfortunately, it's going to cost you $1195, plus travel and expenses, to get inside. But who needs to get inside to be a "challenge?"

0 Comments

When a "Grant" is Not a Bribe

9/10/2015

3 Comments

...because it's simply an appetizer for a bigger "grant" down the line?

Folks in New Hampshire are suspicious about "grant" money being handed out by Northern Pass Transmission and its sponsor, Eversouce. And one organization has returned the money when the "grant" didn't smell right.

“All our other grant awards come with letters of congratulations, including reporting requirements and specifications on how the funder would like to be recognized in Rec Center publicity,” she said, noting that the CCJCA award “came with no such letter.”

Morann said her board had recommended “that we apply for it (the CCJCA grant) and then wanted to see what the conditions were.”

“We were never able to discern the conditions” and whether they included giving public support to the CCJCA and Northern Pass, Morann said, “and after the check had been cut and I attended the ceremony at the request of the board of directors, the board met (Thursday) and decided to return the money.”

Grants are made for specific purposes, and usually the grant funder requires the recipient to make some demonstration that the grant funds were used for grant purposes, not simply pocketed for personal profit, or spent on things unrelated to the grant program.

There's lots of press about Eversource sprinkling "grant" money around the proposed route of its transmission project.

But, of course, there are no strings attached to the money.

The money came by way of the Coös County Jobs Creation Association, which was created by Eversource, formerly known as Public Service of New Hampshire.

John Gallus, who chairs the Coös County Jobs Creation Association and is a former state senator and representative from Berlin, said there were absolutely “no strings attached” to the CCJCA awards, other than they be used to create or keep jobs in Coos County.

While Eversource is the financial resource behind it, the jobs creation association is independent, said Gallus, who is disappointed that the recreation center returned the grant.

“They knew where the money came from,” Gallus said. “The grants aren’t based on how anybody feels about Northern Pass and nowhere on our application did it say you had to sign up to great feelings about Northern Pass. We would give money to the biggest opponent of that project if they were creating jobs in Coos County.”

But if there are no instructions, and no reporting requirements, how will the "Coos County Jobs Creation Association" ensure that the money is actually spent creating jobs? More importantly, HOW is the money supposed to create jobs? Will it fund a bunch of temporary, make-work "jobs" that aren't supported by any economic need in the county? How many permanent jobs would actually be created?

Is the "Coos County Jobs Creation Association" actually a legal entity that files an annual tax return? Or is it just an informal conduit to funnel this money into the community? Ut-oh, rabbit hole ahead!

The Coos County Job Creation Association is registered with the State of New Hampshire, to further the objects and purposes of the promotion and support of job creation for the growth and prosperity of the cities, etc. of Coos County. However, the organization doesn't seem to be registered with the IRS, or to have filed a tax return for 2014. How does New Hampshire keep track of its "non-profit" corporations if they don't file tax returns?

Even curiouser, there already seems to be an organization in Coos County that serves the same purpose. The Coos Economic Development Corporation has been in existence for many years and its purpose is to promote economic growth that fosters a strong and diverse workforce, sustainable employment, and a thriving business community in Coos County.

The documents show that a past president of CEDC was one of the initial directors of the CCJCA, but seems to have been omitted from the CCJCA's most recent annual state filing.

Why does Coos County need two separate non-profits doing the same thing? No wonder the Rec Center seemed uneasy and gave the money back.

Anyhow... the $200,000 in "grants" that the CCJCA has handed out with no strings attached, are just the tip of the iceberg, an appetizer if you will, for the $7.3M more the CCJCA will receive if the transmission project is approved and built.

Eversource has awarded grants to improve cellular service, and in founding the jobs creation association, it provided the entity with $200,000 in seed money while also pledging $7.3 million more if and when the transmission project is approved and built.

So, if Coos County wants more, it would be in its interest to make sure the project gets approved and built? No strings attached, of course.

How did Eversource "pledge" this additional funding? Is there a written legal agreement that this money will change hands? And I notice that Eversource also "founded" and "created" the CCJCA, according to this news source. If that's so, why is Eversource not mentioned anywhere in the company's Articles filed with the State of New Hampshire?

There's big money to be had for communities that support invasive infrastructure projects, not just in New Hampshire, but nationwide. It's an opportunity for those not directly affected to throw their neighbors under the bus for a little scratch, as long as the project is "not in my backyard." This reverse-NIMBY scenario causes unrest and bickering in the community, and pits neighbor against neighbor. It's divide and conquer in its purest form, often engineered by out-of-state corporations for their own profit. Greed is an enticing motivator.

And, finally, one organization stands up and says no. Bravo! There's a lesson to be learned here by other communities who care for each other and the long-term well-being of their community as a whole, and not their own immediate personal gain.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. How much is your personal integrity in the community worth?

3 Comments

Renewable Energy Lies

9/6/2015

0 Comments

Stop being dumb about energy, America!
The average person doesn't think twice when they flip the light switch. The lights come on. It's magic! No, it's not, but the energy corporations have made you believe it is over the years.

Now the energy corporations have made you believe something else that's just not true. All but the most flat-earth cretin believes in global warming, right? It's politically correct to be environmentally conscious, and to "do your part" to save the earth. The corporations have trained you to want... CLEAN ENERGY NOW!

Under the guise of CLEAN ENERGY NOW! the energy corporations have made you a soldier in their CLEAN ENERGY NOW! army. You've become so good at marching to the beat of their drum, that you'll support just about any energy project they propose, as long as they tell you it will bring you CLEAN ENERGY NOW! They've even brainwashed you to serve their purposes in their campaign against "dirty" energy. Fossil fuels are "bad" and CLEAN ENERGY NOW! is "good"!

Well, guess what? You've been used. Isn't it high time that you educate yourself about democratic energy and wean yourself off the media mind control of the energy corporations? What if you had the power to produce energy for your own use? But let's be realistic... unless you want to live with the capital costs and inconvenience of running your own power plant, you're still going to be somewhat dependent upon the common infrastructure system that the energy corporations have built. What happens when the wind stops blowing, or the sun goes down? The light switch magic stops, and you're once again dependent on the energy corporations. We've yet to develop a cost-effective, reliable, renewable, democratic energy system. That doesn't mean we can't be smart about energy though. Indeed, it's imperative that you to be smart about your energy future.

Think having your CLEAN ENERGY NOW! provided by energy corporations is a responsible and thoughtful way to be smart about your energy future? It's not. There are better ways to get to a cleaner, more democratic energy future than simply moving from one corporate trough to another.

If we believe that coal, oil, and gas are bad sources of energy and work toward eliminating the corporations that cling to them, what shall replace them? Do we want to replace them gradually with local, democratic sources of energy? Or do we want to spend billions building new centralized energy sources for our CLEAN ENERGY NOW! corporate overlords? The environmental community has become so goal-oriented and dependent on grant money (and where does grant money come from? energy corporations, of course!) that it wants CLEAN ENERGY NOW! at any price. The wants of the environmental community do not align with democratic energy, or your pocketbook. Going all in on CLEAN ENERGY NOW! supplied by energy corporations is going to be wildly expensive, and at the end of the day, it does nothing to revolutionize the way we produce and use energy.

After fighting the traditional energy corporations for years, the environmental community has suddenly found itself in bed with a bunch of new energy corporations, CLEAN ENERGY NOW! corporations. And these new corporations stand to make a bundle if you continue to demand CLEAN ENERGY NOW! in any form. Many of the new energy corporations are owned by foreign interests. They're not interested in cleaning up your air, they're interested in making money building centralized renewable energy generation and transmission for a society practically shrieking for CLEAN ENERGY NOW!

One such company is Clean Line Energy Partners. Riding the CLEAN ENERGY NOW! wave, this company wants to build more than 2,000 miles of new energy infrastructure across the country. In order to get there, Clean Line has been trying to keep you stupid by repeating the worst renewable energy lies. The more times a lie is repeated, the more it's believed. It's time you learned the truth.

The best wind energy resources are located in the middle of the country.

No, they're not. Clean Line is using the wrong map, one that conveniently omits offshore wind potential. Here's a comprehensive map that shows true U.S. wind energy potential. Notice that the strongest winds are located just offshore on both coasts and in the Great Lakes, conveniently near the biggest population centers. We don't need 2,000 miles of new transmission to harvest these wind resources.

Population centers are demanding clean energy from the Midwest.

No, they're not. While Clean Line has been pushing its projects for six years, not one eastern utility has signed an agreement to purchase Midwest wind power via a "Clean Line." In fact, other areas of the country are busy developing their own renewable energy resources that can provide jobs and economic development at home.

Exporting wind energy brings jobs and tax revenue to Midwestern states.

But at what cost? Wind power is highly subsidized, both federally and at the state level. Wind farms may pay little in the way of taxes in your state or locality, because the state is so focused on jobs and economic development that it may make a deal to abate tax responsibility for a number of years, hand out additional state tax credits, or some other economic development scheme where the wind farm doesn't pay. The federal production tax credit allows big tax credits - $4B per year, according to some recent press. Who do you think pays that $4B of taxes that wind generators don't? You do. When electricity is sold across state borders, it becomes interstate commerce and cannot be taxed. Exporting energy causes your local energy prices to go up through the simple principle of supply/demand. Once you open new pipelines to ship energy to higher priced markets, that's where locally produced energy will go first. If you want some, you're going to have to pay the same export price. For every penny new transmission lowers east coast energy bills, it raises yours by the same amount. New transmission levelizes energy prices between source and use. New transmission lines lower the taxable value of real estate, meaning less local property tax revenue. Still think new transmission is a good deal for your community? Why?

Clean Line will build its transmission lines in "fallow" or empty spaces not currently generating income.

No, it won't. Clean Line is proposing to build its transmission lines across some of our best farmland. Farmland is already economically useful terrain. New transmission takes prime farmland out of production and increases the cost of farming around it. Lower yields and higher costs lead to lost agricultural jobs and revenue, and harms local economies. Clean Line is proposing its transmission lines to cross farms that have been in production for centuries. People live and work on these farms that have been handed down through many generations. Much of a farmer's wealth is wrapped up in his land, so it's not a stretch to compare Clean Line's eminent domain taking of farmland to dipping their hand into your retirement fund. How much of your retirement would you donate to CLEAN ENERGY NOW!? The highest and best use of this land is farming.

Transmission right-of-way payments are a highly sought-after source of income for farmers, so supporting transmission helps struggling farmers.

No, they're not. Paying "market value" for a strip of land through a larger parcel devalues the entire parcel, not just the strip of land. Nobody wants their land devalued... nobody. The payments offered by CLEP are insulting. Farmers have overwhelmingly rejected CLEP's offers. That is proof in itself. Clean Line's projects hurt struggling farmers, the same way having your retirement account cleaned out to provide energy and economic development to other states would hurt you.

Transmission is like a highway or a railroad.

No, it's not. There are already plenty of transmission "highways" in use, developed through a coordinated planning process and paid for by all electric ratepayers. If these highways are old or inefficient, then they should be upgraded by their owners. Building a new "railroad" next to an existing one is wasteful. Building a new "railroad" and not allowing the communities bypassed to use it is unfair. Building new "railroads" to places that nobody wants to travel, and then hoping that some customers develop, is a folly.

State denial of a transmission permit can be appealed to the federal government.

No, it can't. States have full authority to site and permit transmission within their borders. There is no federal override. However, an untested section of the 2005 Energy Policy Act allows the federal government to "participate" in a privately-funded transmission project sited within the set geographic reach of two federal power marketers. When the federal government participates, it may be able to use federal eminent domain to take land for the project from unwilling sellers. That's it. Bundy Ranch on steroids. There is no federal transmission permitting process. Clean Line wants the federal government to strong arm land acquisition, and then it plans to build its projects without permits of any kind.

Clean Line is privately funded so ratepayers won't have to pay for it.

All transmission is privately funded! There is no pot of "public" money used for other transmission projects. It's all private capital! All transmission projects are paid for by ratepayers (users). Other transmission projects are regulated and their profits are set by regulators. Clean Line will be unregulated -- its profits are set by market forces. Clean Line will charge users whatever rates it can get away with. The sky's the limit on Clean Line's profit, no wonder it's attracted big, foreign investors who believe the incredible riskiness of Clean Line is overcome by huge returns. While regulated transmission projects must submit their costs to public scrutiny, Clean Line can roll whatever costs it wants into the rates it charges for service. Every penny Clean Line spends on lobbying and influence, public relations and front groups, pulled pork and bouncy houses, will end up in the rates it charges. And who pays those rates? Whoever buys the energy transmitted over the line, possibly you!

We have been conditioned to believe that we must demand CLEAN ENERGY NOW! without taking the time to examine why or how, thinking a fairy tale image of a couple of wind turbines gently turning in a field of golden grain. We've been taught that this fantasy is a "good" way to control our energy future.

It's not. It's simply a way to transfer corporate energy control from one group of owners (fossil fuel companies) to another (clean energy companies). It enables them to collect billions keeping you captive and stupid about energy. Renewable energy isn't necessarily sustainable energy. Sustainable energy does no harm to others. Clean Line's plans are unsustainable and economically harmful. Take ownership of your energy future and seek out local, sustainable solutions. Break the energy corporate chains, America!

0 Comments

The Dirty Underbelly of Clean Line Energy Partners

8/26/2015

7 Comments

Ever heard the idiom "qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent." Probably not, but you must be familiar with its English translation, "when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas." Clean Line has recently exposed its dirty underbelly by publicly scratching its fleas.

Clean Line is now a proud "member" of the Consumers Energy Alliance (#25 under "Energy Providers and Suppliers").

What is the Consumers Energy Alliance? According to SourceWatch:

The Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) is a nonprofit organization and a front group for the energy industry that opposes political efforts to regulate carbon standards while advancing deep water and land-based drilling for oil and methane gas. The CEA supports lifting moratoria on offshore and land-based oil and natural gas drilling, encourages the creation and expansion of petroleum refineries and easing the permitting process for drilling. The group also says it supports energy conservation. CEO portrays itself as seeking to ensure a "proper balance" between traditional non-renewable and extractive energy sources and alternative energy sources. The group also supports construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

According to Salon.com, which obtained over 300 emails of personal messages between lobbyists and Canadian officials, the CEA is part of a sophisticated public affairs strategy designed to manipulate the U.S. political system by deluging the media with messaging favorable to the tar-sands industry; to persuade key state and federal legislators to act in the extractive industries' favor; and to defeat any attempt to regulate the carbon emissions emanating from gasoline and diesel used by U.S. vehicles.

So, the CEA is a well-known front group for the fossil fuel industry? But, wait a tick, I thought Clean Line was all about "clean" energy and shutting down the fossil fuel industry? Money makes strange bedfellows.

What is a front group?

A front group is an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned. The front group is perhaps the most easily recognized use of the third party technique. For example, Rick Berman's Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) claims that its mission is to defend the rights of consumers to choose to eat, drink and smoke as they please. In reality, CCF is a front group for the tobacco, restaurant and alcoholic beverage industries, which provide all or most of its funding.

Of course, not all organizations engaged in manipulative efforts to shape public opinion can be classified as "front groups." For example, the now-defunct Tobacco Institute was highly deceptive, but it didn't hide the fact that it represented the tobacco industry. There are also degrees of concealment. The Global Climate Coalition, for example, didn't hide the fact that its funding came from oil and coal companies, but nevertheless its name alone is sufficiently misleading that it can reasonably be considered a front group.

The shadowy way front groups operate makes it difficult to know whether a seemingly independent grassroots is actually representing some other entity. Thus, citizen smokers' rights groups and organizations of bartenders or restaurant workers working against smoking bans are sometimes characterized as front groups for the tobacco industry, but it is possible that some of these groups are self-initiated (although the tobacco industry has been known to use restaurant groups as fronts for its own interests).

Front groups are formed and managed by well-paid public relations/lobbying firms. They are paid for by the industry. The CEA is managed by HBW Resources. The group has been "conducting a grassroots operation" in "target states" that would "generate significant opposition to discriminatory low carbon fuels standards" that were created to address climate change.

The term "grassroots" means ordinary people with no financial interest in the proposal at hand. CEA is not a grassroots organization. It is funded and directed by the corporations that pay HBW to run it.

But now the CEA has a new "initiative" to support Clean Line Energy Partners. The "initiative" supports Clean Line's Plains & Eastern Clean Line.

“Unfortunately, virtually all energy projects face at least some level of opposition. But, in most cases, the opposition comes from the vocal few who stand in the way of the silent majority who see these necessary projects providing tremendous job and economic development opportunities on many levels. The EDJ Alliance will help taxpayers, energy consumers, landowners and businesses to voice their opinion to elected officials so that they embrace the opportunities associated with energy development.”

Vocal few? Silent majority? You mean landowners and consumers who object to the Plains & Eastern project vs. Clean Line Energy Partners? CLEP is hardly silent (paid mouthpieces like HBW stand in evidence) and it's certainly not any kind of "majority" in Arkansas. In addition, CEA does not represent any actual "consumers" or other "grassroots" interests. It simply pretends to speak for them.

Like this:

Support landowners in Arkansas and Oklahoma! Support energy infrastructure! Support the Plains & Eastern Clean Line!

We need your help!

America's energy infrastructure needs your help! Lobbying efforts at the white house level have inhibited the passage of an energy infrastructure project beneficial to citizens and landowners in Arkansas and Oklahoma!

........

Support energy infrastructure, land owners, and the Plains and Eastern Clean Line project by simply clicking the link below to sign the petition! Every click makes a difference!

It is absolutely imperative to demonstrate support as a citizen! The future of America's energy infrastructure is in your hands!!

When a couple of the landowners CEA claims to represent questioned the group's claims, HBW promptly removed the claims from its facebook page.

How stupid does HBW think the American people are? Do they ever type a sentence that doesn't end with one (or two!!) exclamation points? This is ridiculous, ineffective drivel. C'mon!!!!!!!!

What "lobbying efforts at the White House level" have inhibited "passage" of an energy infrastructure project? Do you mean the DOE's consideration of Plains & Eastern's Section 1222 application to "participate" in the project in order to override state authority to site and permit transmission? That decision won't be made until next year. And it's supposed to be made by DOE secretary Ernest Moniz, not the "white house." Does HBW and Clean Line know something about some dirty dealings that the rest of us aren't privy to?

So, who are the faces of CEA's "initiative?"

Ryan Scott, Outreach Director

Since 2005, Ryan has provided strategic advice to clients across a number of industries with a focus on the oil and gas sector in particular.

While working as an attorney, before joining HBW, Ryan focused on commercial litigation, often representing business clients in contract disputes. Prior to practicing law, Ryan worked at Deloitte & Touche’s Strategy & Operations Consulting practice. While with Deloitte, he worked with clients such as Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), developing and delivering Financial Reporting & Legal training to a BMS executive team. Ryan evaluated Finance function processes to improve and transform them leading up to a major SAP implementation for Wal-Mart.

Ryan received a B.A. in Economics from the University of Southern California, and a JD – MBA from Case Western Reserve University in Ohio. Ryan is licensed to practice law in Illinois and is a member of the Illinois State Bar Association.

Here's Ryan Scott trading papers with Clean Line public relations "manager" Amy Kurt at the second Mendota Illinois Commerce Commission public forum in the fall of 2013:

And here's Ryan Scott interacting with the ICC judge at the forum:

Here's what Ryan Scott had to say about the Rock Island Clean Line at the forum:

MR. SCOTT: My name is Ryan Scott;
R-y-a-n, S-c-o-t-t. I'm here as a resident of Illinois and representative of Consumer Energy Alliance. We're a trade association representing virtually every sector of the economy from trucking, to organized labor, to energy producers. The reason I'm here to speak in favor of Rock Island is simple. Consumer Energy Alliance and I support this project because it represents an important piece of the energy puzzle to supply consumers with affordable and reliable energy. Anyone who plugs in their smart phone into an electrical outlet, fires up their television to watch the Bears or perhaps a better football team or just uses their air conditioner will benefit from this project. The bottom line is in the United States demand is increasing. As one of the previous speakers stated, according to the Department of Energy and Energy Information Administration, forecasts of 25 percent increase in demand for electricity over the next three decades are expected in the United States. At the same time, the supply of electricity is expected to decrease due to aging plants and tightening Federal regulations. Many coal-fired power plants will be shuttered in the coming decades. In Illinois coal, which we expect to be decreasing in production, actually makes up approximately 40 percent of the State's energy base level. So that's an important piece of the puzzle that will no longer be available to Illinoisans. For all the reasons stated above and in order to meet Illinois' energy needs, the Consumer Energy Alliance and I support the Rock Island Clean Line project. Thank you.

That's funny. Ryan didn't mention that Clean Line Energy Partners is a member of the CEA.

Who does Ryan Scott work for? It's not CEA or its "initiative," it's HBW Resources. HBW doesn't do anything for free, so I believe that Ryan was paid to appear at the ICC forum and make that statement.

Didn't Clean Line have the opportunity to present its case to the ICC as the applicant? Why, then, did Clean Line feel it necessary to have paid speakers posing as third party "consumer" interests supporting its project at the forum? Did Clean Line think it was fooling the ICC into believing that consumers supported RICL?

And now Ryan, HBW, and its new "initiative" think they're fooling a whole new bunch of folks at the "white house" and in the Mayberry towns of Arkansas and Oklahoma?

I wonder what Clean Line's big green supporters think about its getting into bed with fossil fuel interests in the CEA? At what point are these environmental fools going to conclude that Clean Line isn't about "green" energy, but a different kind of $green$?

And, as far as Clean Line's attempted deception about the "benefits" of the Plains & Eastern Clean Line? Report to your battle stations, Mayberry! We're going to have some fun! You've got to get up pretty early in the morning to fool a farmer. Also an idiom you've probably heard. Not translated into Latin.

7 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

The Week Clean Line Imploded

What You Need to Know About Utility Eminent Domain Takings

Tick, Tock -- ICC Issues Grain Belt Express a Conditional Permit

Environmental Hypocrisy and Fantasy

Arkansas Forms Landowner Group to Oppose Clean Line

U.S. DOE's Congestion Study Fails to Designate Congestion "Corridors"

Key Transmission Challenges in the Midwest

When a "Grant" is Not a Bribe

Renewable Energy Lies

The Dirty Underbelly of Clean Line Energy Partners

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