Category:

Your Tax Dollars At Work

8/26/2015

I saw lots of your tax dollars at work over the past couple weeks. They're everywhere.

Long, boring road trips allow lots of time for pondering. Lots of wind farms allow for lots of comparison.

Why were some turning while others were not? It sure seemed like the closer to the road they were, the more they turned. Like stage dressing for eager Sierra Club motorists, puttering along in their polluting conveyances. Or perhaps the ones encroaching on highways were newer and earning the $0.023/kWh production tax credit, while the ones farther away had been abandoned or were simply priced out of the market at the time? Why was a wind farm on the right hand side of the road turning away, while one on the left hand side sat idle? I did see more turning than not, which probably means there's adequate wind transmission capacity for what's been built.

This report says that wind is curtailed for 3 main reasons:

1. Transmission constraints. Not enough transmission for peak periods. Since the capacity factor for wind averages 35%, is it economic to build additional transmission for the odd times when wind is producing at a higher rate? Probably not.

2. System balancing. High wind penetrations make it hard to keep the system in balance because they require curtailment of base load generators during periods of low load. That's not economic either. "Some utilities or grid operators have curtailed generation from wind plants when minimum generation levels on fossil-fuel plants are reached, because stopping and restarting fossil units within a few hours can be significantly more expensive than paying for a few hours of wind curtailment."

3. Other reasons: voltage issues, interconnection issues, frequency and stability issues. Too much intermittent wind can make the grid unstable. Wind generators also "self-curtail" to protect bats and enable de-icing. Probably not a problem, since it was well over 100 degrees when clusters of wind turbines sat idle.

The expired production tax credit pays wind farm owners $.023/kWH generated. How much is that on an annual basis? Not information easily found. Why not? This article says that the PTC has cost American taxpayers $30B over the past 35 years. Of course, the Koch monster gets blamed for spreading "misinformation," but nobody offers a corrected figure.

Warren Buffet has bragged that the production tax credit is the only reason to build wind farms, "they don't make sense without the credit."

The PTC allows wind generators to bid into energy markets at low, or even negative, prices. This makes it harder for unsubsidized base load generators to stay afloat. As a result, these generators beg for ratepayer subsidies and foist the cost of their failing generators off onto ratepayers.

Who thinks that we can replace all fossil fueled electric generation with intermittent renewables like wind?

Not PJM, whose recent capacity auction provides additional money to generators who can produce when called upon (you know, those baseload fossil fueled generators). This is going to cost consumers an additional $3.4B in yearly capacity charges.

And there we are. New intermittent wind capacity is being built at an alarming rate because it is profitable. New wind transmission capacity is being overbuilt at an alarming rate because it is profitable. All this intermittent generation is causing increased costs for consumers.

But the industry is raking it in. Thoughts to ponder...

1 Comment

Grain Belt Express Has Not Proven It Serves The Broader Public Interest

8/1/2015

8 Comments

I have a declaration to make. Clean Line Energy Partners doesn't represent my interests. I'm pretty sure they don't represent the interests of any other eastern state ratepayers or the eastern states themselves, either. It's all just a bunch of "royal we" smoke and mirrors where Clean Line attempts to speak for others who aren't present and don't necessarily agree with them. "Me and my imaginary friends..." has no place in a court of law.

That's pretty much the basis for Clean Line Energy's application for rehearing of the Missouri Public Service Commission's denial of the company's application for a permit for its Grain Belt Express project.

The Kansas City Star continues its excellent coverage of the Grain Belt Express debacle with its story about the request for rehearing.

“The project is too important to Missouri’s energy future not to pursue,” Clean Line Energy officials said, adding that the state’s ruling also deprived the rest of country of low-cost, clean energy."

Where's the proof of that? Who elected Clean Line to speak for "Missouri's energy future?" Who elected Clean Line to speak for "the rest of the country?" Nobody, that's who!

The Missouri PSC does have a role in determining "Missouri's energy future," however, and the "rest of the country" has not been actively participating in the case.

Clean Line's request for rehearing is a long-winded whine about the Commission not accepting its "evidence" at face value. Clean Line also whines that, because it is not required to participate in regional transmission planning, the Commission's consideration of federally-sanctioned transmission planning is somehow discriminatory. Clean Line wants the PSC to ignore regional transmission planning when considering the "need" for a transmission project dreamed up for the sole purpose of enriching private investors. This collateral attack on regional transmission planning organizations simply cannot be supported.

But Clean Line's main argument seems to be to hide behind the Commerce Clause to claim that Missouri's denial "...interferes with the flow of interstate commerce, be it through actions that overtly discriminate against interstate commerce through differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests, or through actions that impose a burden upon interstate commerce that is excessive in relation to the putative local benefits."

Commerce Clause? Really? I hope Clean Line wasn't expecting anyone to actually be afraid of this, and is merely wasting time in Missouri while posturing for its lobbyists in Washington, D.C., who could claim that allowing state authority to site and permit transmission is preventing needed transmission from being built.

Clean Line is not THE ONLY way to ship electricity. In fact, it might not even be the most efficient or economic because it has not been vetted as part of any regional planning process. It's not like Missouri has said wind cannot be shipped across the state on existing roads, or new roads that are proven needed by regional planners. It's that Clean Line may not build a new, private, toll road to ship electricity across the state.

Clean Line seems to believe the Commerce Clause protects any private enterprise that wants to damage a state for its own interstate commerce profits. It's really not that simple.

So, here are a couple of things Clean Line says in its brief that demonstrate just how little Clean Line cares about the rights of people impacted by its projects:

1. "...because the narrow local interests that the Report and Order serves do not justify the burden that it imposes upon interstate commerce." In other words, protecting the rights of Missouri property owners and electric ratepayers are less than the "interstate commerce" goals of Clean Line.

2. "The Commission never considered the substantial uncontested evidence on the record of renewable energy demand and RES requirements of other states, and the substantial public benefits the Project delivers to other states. It also cited to the concerns of individual Missouri landowners -- but in the application of the Tartan factors impermissibly weighed those concerns only against the potential benefit to local interest, as opposed to the broader regional and national interest -- in concluding that the evidence shows that any actual benefits to the general public” did not justify approval." Perhaps the Commission gave little weight to Clean Line's conclusory "evidence" of what other states and the broader regional and national interests require. The concerns of individual Missouri landowners are real and came from the landowners themselves. The "needs" of other states or the nation at large were not presented by any of these interests, only Clean Line pretending to speak for them as the voice of the national interest. Clean Line, get over yourself! When the PSC gave Clean Line the opportunity to present evidence that these national interests needed its project, the only thing Clean Line could produce was crickets. Clean Line has no "other state" or "national interest" customers who need its "interstate commerce."

3. "The Commission’s finding that the Project would probably make Missouri-based wind projects less likely to be constructed is exactly the sort of economic protectionism that the dormant Commerce Clause prohibits. So too is the Commission’s criticism of the Company’s witness on economic benefits, who the Commission found did not address the displacement of jobs and energy production in Missouri due to the Project. Courts are highly alert to “the evils of ‘economic isolation’ and protectionism.... " So, Clean Line believes that lost economic opportunities in Missouri are "evil" or should not be considered? Or that they must necessarily be less than the "national interest?" If all local interests take a back seat to "national" ones, that's a pretty slippery slope! I mean, we might as well just surrender ourselves to some world dominating corporation and let them do whatever they want. Speaking of Evil, is the good Dr. in the house?

4. "The Commission’s denial of the Company’s CCN Application runs afoul of this element of Commerce Clause analysis because it unduly burdens the delivery of electricity generated by wind farms in Western Kansas not just to Missouri consumers, but to key markets in Illinois and Indiana. The Commerce Clause violation is as apparent in this instance as it would be if Missouri sought to restrict passage of cattle raised on Western ranches for shipment to stockyards in the East." Again, it's not as though the MO PSC said no electricity (cattle) could pass through the state... it simply denied a permit for Clean Line to burden Missouri residents by building a new toll road to ship only certain electricity (cattle) across the state. Cattle is perfectly free to use existing roads in Missouri to get to other states or anywhere it likes

5. "With the interests only of Missouri utilities and consumers in mind, the Commission made findings whose burden on interstate commerce clearly exceeds the local benefits. For example, the Commission found that Missouri had no need for the Project, and that the Project is not economically feasible, because utilities in the State could build natural gas fired plants and buy renewable energy credits. Neither is a valid reason to deny Kansas wind producers efficient access to the market or to deny utilities and their customers the ability to benefit from the Project. And the putative local interests do not outweigh this burden." So, the ONLY market for Kansas wind power is through Missouri? Clean Line provides a "benefit" to utilities and customers? Did Clean Line prove this? I don't think so! Clean Line doesn't have any customers!

6. "Indeed, any burden to local landowners would be small compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars of savings to Missouri and other states. The evidence shows that Grain Belt Express has agreed to compensate landowners for the fee value of their land, plus an annual payment, plus any economic damages to crops. Even if, as a last resort, Grain Belt Express acquired an easement through a condemnation proceeding, Missouri courts would require that Grain Belt Express pay fair value." Landowner burdens are "small"? That sort of depends on if it's your land, doesn't it? Who is Clean Line to determine the burden on landowners? If the burden was ameliorated by Clean Line's compensation, why are the overwhelming majority of landowners opposing the project? One could conclude it's because Clean Line's compensation doesn't even come close to making landowners whole. Clean Line also failed to prove the "hundreds of millions of dollars of savings to Missouri and other states." The PSC did not find those claims credible. How would Clean Line ever attempt to prove this claim, when it cannot set a price for electricity generated by others? It can't even set a capacity price for its transmission line at this point! There's simply nothing that shows evidence of "savings."

7. “The menace of inconsistent state regulation invites analysis under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, because that clause represented the framers’ reaction to overreaching by the individual states that might jeopardize the growth of the nation— and in particular, the national infrastructure of communications and trade—as a whole.” So, because all states don't have the exact same regulations governing siting and permitting of interstate transmission that somehow violates the Commerce Clause? Or is this just a peek into the rationalizations of Clean Line's Washington DC lobbyists? If every state was required to have identical laws, you might as well make transmission siting and permitting a federal process, right? I don't think that's the intent of the Commerce Clause.

8. "The Commission’s actions here are equally likely to paralyze the development of interstate electric transmission to deliver low-cost renewable wind power from high capacity states to states lack renewable energy resources. The Commission’s stated local interests, confined to protecting Missouri utilities and consumers, do not outweigh (and in no way justify) its demonstrated effort to isolate itself from a growing national concern over the lack of such transmission infrastructure by erecting a barrier against the movement of interstate commerce. Indeed, given the shipper-pays nature of the Project and the evidence regarding the cost impacts of the Project, there can be no detriment to Missouri consumers because they will bear no costs unless a utility determines that the benefits of purchasing energy delivered by the Project outweigh those costs. Similarly, no Missouri utility is compelled to buy power delivered by the Project if it isn’t lower than the cost of other resources." Paralyze the development of interstate electric transmission? Hardly! Plenty of interstate electric transmission is proposed, approved and built through the regional planning process Clean Line chose not to participate in. Clean Line's proposals simply aren't viable, and the fault for that is entirely Clean Line's. What states lack renewable energy resources? I don't think there are any states that have no renewable energy resources. It is not up to Clean Line to determine what kind of renewable energy resources states build and use. That must violate some clause or another somewhere... And where's the "growing national concern over the lack of such transmission infrastructure?" I don't think Clean Line has provided any evidence of that. It's all just a bunch of vocabulary diarrhea. Blah, blah, blah, we're speaking for everyone else here and we are what they want. I don't think the MO PSC was fooled by that, just like the people weren't!

9. "There can be no harm to Missouri from having another option to supply power. Any perceived detriment to landowners is mitigated by the law that provides them fair and reasonable consideration. If there is a detriment to landowners, it is drastically outweighed by the hundreds of millions of dollars of benefits provided by the Project, the thousands of jobs that it creates, and the immeasurable ways in which it would advance the national interest in clean, inexpensive, renewable wind energy." Wow, there they go again, throwing Missourians under the bus for benefit of the "national interest" that Clean Line pretends to speak for. Who says the "national interest" outweighs the interests of Missouri landowners? Clean Line? Not.their.job. Where's the proof of the thousands of jobs and the "immeasurable ways"? Perhaps we could actually measure the ways in which Missouri would be harmed by this project? Actually, I think that's what the PSC did here! Nobody believes Clean Line is their altruistic economic electricity savior. Nobody. Save the drama for your mama (when you ask her to sign your petition supporting your project).

10. "It is clear that the Commission’s decision in this case was not even-handed, and that its exclusive and inaccurate focus on Missouri utilities, consumers, and landowners arbitrarily resulted in an application of the Tartan factors to the Company’s CCN Application that discriminates against the Project merely because of its interstate nature." Actually, it was very even-handed. The Commission listened to both sides of the argument and was not swayed by Clean Line's propaganda and attempts to purchase support for its project. Nobody discriminated against Clean Line merely because of its interstate nature... it's simply a bad idea pushed by a bunch of disrespectful rich people for dubious economic reasons.

Block GBE-MO's Jennifer Gatrel hit the nail on the head when she characterized the company's request for rehearing as disrespectful:

“We continue to be disappointed by the lack of respect shown by Clean Line to landowners and citizens of Missouri,” opposition leader and farmer Jennifer Gatrel said Thursday. “They have been told no in every way possible and yet they persist in attempting to override the will of the people and the decision by our commissioners.”

8 Comments

The Only Thing Clean Line Is Dedicated To Is Its Own Profit

7/30/2015

0 Comments

The only news story to leak out of the Illinois Commerce Commission's three public hearings on Clean Line's Grain Belt Express project presents an opinion that is not factual.

"To bring Illinois forward in clean energy, we need dedicated direct current lines here in our state," said Taylorville's Patty Rykhus.

Wandtv.com, NewsCenter17, StormCenter17, Central Illinois News-

"Dedicated?" Dedicated to what? If Patty thinks Grain Belt Express is "dedicated" to clean energy, she's mistaken. Electric transmission is "open access," and even though Clean Line asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for permission to give preference to wind generators when assigning capacity on its project, the Commission denied their proposal. Clean Line cannot be "dedicated" to any form of energy.

Does Patty think that HVDC lines bypassing Illinois will actually move "clean energy forward" in Illinois? Where might she have gotten that idea?

GBE spokespuppet Mark Lawlor tries to tell the reporter "In the first five years of this line being in operation it will reduce wholesale rates by $750M." Where's the proof of that, and why would he say such a thing?

First of all, the Missouri Public Service Commission recently examined the company's claim that the project would reduce wholesale rates in Missouri and rejected it.

The GBE production modeling studies do not support the GBE allegation that the Project would result in lower retail electric rates for consumers.

Let's hope the ICC does a similar evaluation. Lawlor goes on that way because the promise of lower wholesale rates is the ONLY reason the ICC granted the company a CPCN for their Rock Island Clean Line project last year. But the ICC did not find the project "needed," only that it might "...promote the development of an effectively competitive electricity market that operates efficiently...".

That still doesn't give Clean Line the eminent domain authority they seek in Illinois. Maybe Patty should educate herself before making statements on TV that aren't factual. And Lawlor should know better.

Dumping a whole bunch of "cheap" energy into a local market may have the initial effect of lowering prices through supply and demand, but Clean Line isn't selling electricity at wholesale. Its entire business model is based on power purchase agreements between generators in Kansas and east coast utilities. Lawlor leaves out quite a bit in his quest for the perfect (if not entirely factual) sound bite.

Big win for landowners in the story though. Landowner Clint Richter clearly articulates the problem of using eminent domain for purposes of enriching investors speculating in "clean" energy markets:

Shelby County landowner Clint Richter said that, "it's not that we're not for renewable energy, but we're against a private company coming in and taking land that's ours for their own private gain and I think that's what is really happening here."

WAND-TV's Ed Cross asked, "why is that such a concern?"

"Well it's a concern because I think all of us know what it's like to work hard to save up money to buy land to something that's special and important to you and to have someone come in and basically say 'hey I want that, I'm going to take that land, and I'm going to make some money off it,' I don't think that sits well with a lot of people," added Richter.

That's what the viewers will take away from this story. Way to go, Block-GBE Illinois!

0 Comments

How Much Does It Cost To Bury Transmission Lines?

7/22/2015

6 Comments

Ask a transmission developer proposing a new transmission line and you'll get an answer in the neighborhood of 10 times the cost of an overhead line. (Example: $1B overhead = $10B buried)

Ask an engineer for a company proposing an underground project and you get an estimate that burial would double the cost of a similar overhead line.
(Example: $1B overhead - $2B buried)

I've been told both of these things. So, who to believe? Who might be exaggerating to serve their own purposes?

Apparently it only does "almost double" costs to bury HVDC transmission. That's what the Department of Energy concluded in its recently released draft environmental impact statement on the ill-fated Northern Pass project.

A complete burial of the Northern Pass transmission line would nearly double the project’s cost, but reduce potential negative impacts on the environment, tourism and local property values, according to a draft report released by the U.S. Department of Energy Tuesday.

While the proposed Northern Pass project — made up primarily of overhead lines strung between Pittsburg, N.H., and Deerfield, N.H. — would be the cheapest option at roughly $1.02 billion, it would also pose the greatest environmental and visual impact, the report says.

Four of the alternatives call for a complete burial of the transmission line. Another calls for partial burial beneath Interstate 93 through Franconia Notch, or along Routes 112 and 116 through the White Mountain National Forrest.

Five call for burial along existing roads and highways, options with the least environmental impact, the report says. All of the underground alternatives carry the highest costs, ranging from $1.83 billion to $2.11 billion.

But nowhere near a magnitude of 10 times the cost. Liar, liar, pants on fire!

In addition, a buried line provides significant benefits over its aerial cousin.

The visual impact, which includes “large industrial-appearing lattice structures,” could negatively impact New Hampshire’s tourism and recreation, the report says. And the proposed overhead route likely would cause the largest drop in residential property values and have the least economic tax benefit to host communities.

Putting the line underground, as opposed to overhead, lessens the impact on tourism, recreation, historic resources and the environment, the review says.

Burying the line requires less vegetation removal and has fewer effects on wildlife, including protected species. The buried lines are less susceptible than the overhead lines to damage from extreme weather.

Construction of the overhead line would generate fewer short-term and permanent jobs than an underground alternative, the report says.

But wait...

But, the report says, blasting during construction would generate more noise than putting the lines overhead. And burial of the line would increase the potential for erosion.

Really? That's the only drawback? Noise from blasting? So, how much "blasting" would Clean Line need to do to bury its proposed transmission lines across Midwest farmland? Little to none? What if much of the additional cost of burial was tied to blasting up the "Granite State" to create trenches? And erosion? I think that could probably be handled. Once buried, out of site, out of mind, right?

C'mon, Clean Line, get with the program and re-engineer your projects as underground lines! How much have you spent (and moreover how much will you have to spend in the future) trying to get your lines permitted? It would have been much cheaper (in terms of both money and time) to have done the smart thing and proposed your projects as buried lines in the first damned place!

And don't give me any of that crap about how its technologically impossible to bury long lines. The engineer who gave me the spot on double cost estimate also told me there is no mileage limit. He's got a lot more cred than you do at this point...

How much does opposition cost? How much does buying support cost? How much does lobbying to change laws cost? How much are a whole bunch of contested eminent domain cases going to cost? How much do repeat or additional approval processes cost?

Clean Line says its currently proposed transmission line will only add something like 2.5 cents per kw hour to the 2.5 cent cost of wind energy. So, even doubling the project costs, it's still possible to deliver at 7.5 cents/kwh, right? Well, unless Clean Line has been lying about the delivered price of wind via its projects...

Maybe Clean Line's projects won't be "economic" enough to provide big returns to their investors without foisting some of its costs off onto bypassed landowners by taking land as cheaply as possible through condemnation and eminent domain?

We all know that the public's appetite for "green" energy only stretches so far as their wallet. When faced with increased electric bills for "green" energy, the majority of the public will snap their wallet shut and oppose it. So, why would this same public expect that Midwest landowners should accept economic sacrifice and burden to keep urban electric bills low? It's only appealing when its been greenwashed and politicized, and none of that nasty infrastructure gets planted in THEIR backyard!

And... this question bubbles up... why does the DOE's draft EIS for the Northern Pass include multiple routing options that require underground lines when DOE's draft EIS for the Clean Line Plains & Eastern project proposed NO underground options? Are the people and environment of Oklahoma and Arkansas worth less than those in New Hampshire? Or is it just that Northern Pass has gotten bigger, politically-connected, push back and top-notch legal help?

It's about time to recognize that the public will no longer accept the burden of overhead lines. Anywhere. There's a better way. "Green" energy costs more. Deal with it.

6 Comments

Illinois Commerce Commission Advises Grain Belt Express Public Hearings Are For Directly Affected Citizens

7/20/2015

0 Comments

The ICC's press release about the upcoming Grain Belt Express public hearings makes clear who should attend the hearings:

The hearings are set in communities in the western, central and eastern portions of the state in order to reach out to Illinoisans who would be directly affected by the proposed transmission line. As proposed, the line would run through Pike, Scott, Greene, Macoupin, Montgomery, Christian, Shelby, Cumberland and Clark counties.

Hear that, Clean Line? The hearings are for ILLINOISANS WHO ARE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE TRANSMISSION LINES. They are not for bussed in, hungry, college students (which are at a premium during the summer months anyhow), and they are not for flown in company executives who stand to profit from supplying components for the project. They're probably not even for vans full of out-of-work union guys who have no specialized skills in building HVDC transmission lines.

So, there will be none of this:

And certainly none of this:

So, for those folks who ARE ILLINOISANS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE TRANSMISSION LINES, this hearing "forum" is for you!

The forums will have two parts; the first part of the forum will be an opportunity for the public to provide oral and/or written comments into the record. This portion will last for 90 minutes and each speaker will have a 3-minute time limit. After the public comment portion, ICC staff will conduct an informal question and answer session.
The dates, times and location for the Public Forums are:
Tuesday, July 28 at 5 p.m. at the Pike/Scott County Farm Bureau office at 1301 East Washington in Pittsfield.
Wednesday, July 29 at 9:30 a.m. in the Pana Junior High Auditorium, 203 W. 8th Street in Pana.
Wednesday, July 29 at 4 p.m. at the Gerald R. Forsythe Performing Arts Center, Marshall Junior High School, 806 N. 6th Street in Marshall.

Don't let Clean Line steal YOUR seat at the forum! Arrive early, sign in with the clerk if you wish to speak, and take a seat.

Note to Clean Line: Don't embarrass yourself again. Just.Don't.Do.It.

0 Comments

Clean Line and DOE Crank It Up A Notch

7/16/2015

2 Comments

A little birdie told me that the U.S. Department of Energy is shopping for experienced legal counsel from the world of white shoe, D.C. energy firms to "help" them with their statutory review of Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act and their review of Clean Line's application.

The successful contractor shall:

Provide specialized legal advice and expertise in the following practice areas: corporate;
debt financings, including construction, secured project finance and/or corporate finance; equity finance; project development; public-private partnerships; contracts, including contracts specific to transmission projects such as power purchase agreements
transmission service agreements, and engineering, procurement and construction
contracts; bankruptcy involving energy-related insolvencies; real estate and land use, including multi-state, high-voltage electric transmission infrastructure siting; mortgages
and lending; energy law, focusing on multi-state, high-voltage electric transmission
infrastructure projects; environmental law; procurement, including procurements under the Federal Acquisition Regulations and familiarity with federal-specific contract terms
and concepts (such as “Buy American” provisions, prohibition on binding arbitration,
etc.); federal fiscal law, including the Anti-Deficiency Act; and employment and labor, including the Davis-Bacon Act and project labor agreements.

This work shall be under the supervision of:

Partner – Project Manager. This individual is an expert in project finance and development and related issues with special expertise in multi-state, high voltage electric transmission matters. This individual must have experience representing clients in public private
partnerships.
The Project Manager will have overall responsibility for managing work under the contract and for reporting to the COR. This individual must have the ability to: 1) coordinate and direct work of others
under the contract; 2) efficiently and quickly form and communicate legal opinions and strategies regarding implementation of the Section 1222 program; and 3) represent DOE in negotiations.
This individual must have extensive experience in the practice of law, with at least fifteen years of experience in transmission project finance and development.
This individual should have experience working with organizations within the federal government, and be knowledgeable about the special administrative and public policy responsibilities of such organizations.
Candidate must possess a Juris Doctor Degree from an accredited law school and an active bar membership.

No, you shouldn't all rush to bid. The response date came and went back at the beginning of June. Looks like the DOE had this plan in the works much earlier, perhaps when they announced the statutory review period back in April. How come nobody knew about this?

So, what does this mean? It means that the DOE is intending to smoke any challenges to its authority from country bumpkins and legal counsel from outside the beltway. The DC energy legal community is quite adept at creating any reality that its paying client desires. If you're not one of them, good luck to ya! Does this mean that challengers to DOE's authority need to secure their own seat inside the DC legal fence? Probably. It's going to get complicated.

But what I really want to know is... who's paying for this? Is Clean Line going to get the bill? Or, since it's all about making Section 1222 legally bullet-proof, and any utility can technically apply under the statute, will the U.S. taxpayers end up financing it? How much is this going to cost when these types of lawyers can come with price tags of $1000/hr., not to mention the cost of all their associates and underlings who do the real work.

So, we can probably look forward to some high-level legal buggery, such as use of CITIZENS AND LANDOWNERS AGAINST THE MILES CITY/NEW UNDERWOOD POWERLINE v. DOE, where the 8th Circuit found that the complaint of the landowners and their organization is barred by the doctrine of laches and that, contrary to the contentions of the Commission, the appellees need not obtain a state permit to construct the powerline. The Court also found that "contrary to the contentions of the Commission, the appellees need not obtain a state permit as required by the South Dakota siting law." I'm not going to spend any more time analyzing this, other than to mention it's a case that has yet to rear its ugly head in any legal arguments related to Sec. 1222. Go read it and do your own analysis.

I wonder if DOE's counsel will recognize that under 42 U.S. Code § 7191(b), if the Secretary determines that a substantial issue of fact or law exists or that such rule, regulation, or order is likely to have a substantial impact on the Nation’s economy or large numbers of individuals or businesses, an opportunity for oral presentation of views, data, and arguments shall be provided? Or would it even matter, since nobody has "made a showing pursuant to paragraph 2" i.e. "Any person, who would be adversely affected by the implementation of any proposed rule, regulation, or order who desires an opportunity for oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, may submit material supporting the existence of such substantial issues or such impact." Only those inside the federal fence seem to recognize such things...

It's going to get interesting. Really interesting.

And expensive. Really, really expensive.

And ugly. Really, really, really ugly.

2 Comments

Sprouse Brothers v. Ziff Brothers

7/2/2015

8 Comments

... and this one goes to Sprouse!

We're still living in America, where money apparently can't buy everything. And that's a cheery thought!

The Kansas City Star continues its excellent coverage of the Grain Belt Express debacle in the wake of yesterday's denial of the project by the Missouri Public Service Commission.

The Star focuses on impacted Missouri landowner Loren Sprouse, who, along with his brothers, operates a farm in Caldwell County. Read the article and watch the video here.

A week before the vote, Loren Sprouse — along with two brothers, he farms land in Caldwell County that’s been in the family since 1919 — said of Grain Belt: “This is a giant land grab by a huge company. They (Clean Line) are a private, for-profit company trying to masquerade as a public utility.”

After Wednesday’s vote, Sprouse said: “Now we can get back to the important business of feeding America.”

The Missouri PSC's Order denying Grain Belt's application mentioned:

Clean Line Investor Corp. is a subsidiary of ZAM Ventures, L.P., which is one
of the principal investment vehicles for ZBI Ventures, LLC. ZAM Ventures, L.P. has a consolidated net worth of $500 million based on U.S. GAAP measurements. ZBI Ventures,
LLC is owned by Ziff Brothers, a multi-billion dollar family investment fund.

The Order stopped short of revealing how much of this particular $500M chunk their multi-billion dollar fortune the Ziffs have invested in Clean Line's struggling projects, but Clean Line's recent application to the Illinois Commerce Commission revealed it's in the neighborhood of $70M. That's nearly 1/5 of ZAM's fortune tied up in Clean Line with no hope of recovery if the projects fail. Maybe this will give the Ziffs some empathy for the Sprouse brothers, who stand to lose a huge chunk of their investment if the project is built.

And let's think about that for a second... how much potential profit is in these projects for the Ziffs if they're willing to invest such a huge chunk of their fortune? Will they recoup their entire investment if only one of Clean Line's five projects gets built?

So, who watched the Missouri PSC meeting yesterday? It was lovely of Mike Skelly and Mark Lawlor to choose seats that put them within range of the streaming video camera. Everyone got to watch them lose! Here's what it looked like:

Schadenfreude? You betcha!

Skelly originally took his classic "arms folded" defiant pose while Lawlor awkwardly stood in the doorway with a hang dog expression. I guess someone told them that their body language was unbecoming for the occasion, because Skelly switched to the "hands tightly clasped between his knees" pose and Lawlor sat down to take notes. Although, in this shot, it looks like Lawlor is about to bolt from his seat and run screaming from the room.

So, what did Clean Line have to say afterwards? It took forever for them to issue a press release (because the victory one they probably had prepared ended up in the shredder). Clean Line says:

...there appears to be some confusion at the Missouri Public Service Commission about how the project will benefit Missourians.

Confusion? Hardly. The MO PSC's Order was clear as a bell. It weighed the evidence and made a decision that actual benefits to the general public from the Project are outweighed by the burdens on affected landowners.

Who does that Clean Line? Who calls a state regulatory board "confused" when they don't get their way? This isn't boding well for another application down the road...

The profit-seeking needs of the Ziff Brothers were outweighed by the burden the project proposed to the Sprouse Brothers.

What a great thought as we celebrate America this weekend!

And let's end with a final photo of Mike and Mark, who finally managed to have a word with each other as the meeting was ending. What do you suppose they said?

8 Comments

Clean Line's Skelly Says He's Thinking About Abandoning Grain Belt Express Project

6/28/2015

0 Comments

It's about time!

Clean Line President Michael Skelly told a reporter the other day:

“There’s also a chance we might abandon the project,” he said.

Do it! Do it! Do it! Do it! Do it!

Let's all encourage Skelly to finally do the right thing.

ABANDON GRAIN BELT EXPRESS!

0 Comments

Grain Belt Express Wants MO PSC to Toll its Application

6/13/2015

0 Comments

Holding this proceeding in abeyance and allowing the Company to obtain such additional information and to work with Staff to develop additional production cost models would prejudice no one.

They also claim it would be "in the public interest" to allow the application to languish in limbo until Grain Belt Express can actually provide the information the Commission asked for back in February.

"The public" has been inconvenienced and financially harmed by Grain Belt Express every day of the past 2 years this thing has been an active threat to their lives and livelihood. Targeted landowners have been living in stasis, afraid to invest in their properties, unable to sell their properties without disclosing the possible intrusion of a gigantic power line that will lower its value. Thousands have been spent legally defending their rights. There has been many a sleepless night, an uneaten meal, and way too much family time foregone in favor of meetings, hearings, and other related events. These folks have been put through the wringer, but they have persevered.

Now, when denial of Clean Line's application is imminent, the company suddenly wants the Commission to slow down, after urging it to hurry up all these months it thought it was on the way to victory.

The Commission has given GBE way too many chances already. A full evidentiary hearing was held. The record was closed. But, the Commission gave GBE a second chance to supplement the record months after the record had closed. Clean Line couldn't be bothered to provide the necessary information or evidence. Now GBE wants a third chance to get it right, and for thousands of affected landowners to continue to live in suspended animation for however long it takes GBE to get its act together.

Obviously Lawlor's threats to march right to the U.S. DOE to revive his application for federal eminent domain authority under Sec. 1222 of the U.S. Energy Policy Act was a big, fat bluff. He's not going anywhere, except to drop to his knees right there in Missouri and beg for a third chance.

"Do overs" are best left on the playground. Release the landowners from this corporate game-playing purgatory. Deny the application.

0 Comments

Why Do They Always Act So Surprised?

6/10/2015

0 Comments

The trade press is its own little microcosm in the media world. This special interest, subscription only, business model dares to call itself "media." However, the real bread and butter of trade press is selling outrageously expensive subscriptions to its target industry. And the trade press likes to keep its "trade" happy. Because, like, if you tick off your readers, they might cancel their subscription! So the trade press tells them only what they want to hear... happy, happy, happy... media censorship. If you make your subscribers look like heros in every story, they will keep buying your drivel, even if they don't believe it.

Just below trade press on the "truth in media" scoreboard is the mainstream media. Their survival depends on entertaining the masses with what ever version of news it thinks they want to hear. A lot of the time, mainstream media content is created by corporations.

And then you've got your regional or local news outlets, which is probably the first place you're going to see balanced stories that, well, tell the whole story.

So, I came across this teaser piece by trade press outlet Electricity Policy Today. If you want to read the whole "story," you need to pay for a subscription. But, for illustrative purposes here, we don't need anything more than this teaser.

Electricity Policy Today seems quite surprised that Clean Line's Grain Belt Express is "stalled at the MO PSC." The article gushes over the fact that "hundreds of rural landowners" (and yes, they use those quotes, like it's some kind of distasteful being) have risen in opposition at the Legislature and in PSC hearings. They finally reveal to their readers that the opposition is strong and successful and relied on representative democracy, grass-roots activism and landowner rights to score their victory. But they are quick to bookend that with threats from GBE project manager Mark Lawlor to take his "west-to-eats wind power line" (see, I can do it too, and make fun of your editorial failure at the same time!) to the Feds and beg for them to override Missouri's decision.

That's the way it always happens. Opposition has to work 10 times as hard as corporations to get mainstream media attention. Sometimes they even have to stage a news-worthy event or stunt to get any attention. Of course, that's a very thin line to walk -- attention without making yourself look ridiculous. In the sanitized trade press world, you're pretty much locked out altogether... unless you win. Then they talk about your victory in surprised tones.

And there they are: The "trade" guys, scratching their heads and wondering how it was possible to get their butts kicked so hard by an industrious group of plebeians.

"Wha? What happened? We were supposed to win! How did that happen?"

We happened, you dolts!

Because, you know, you really can't eat wind after all. Thank a farmer at your next meal.

0 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

Your Tax Dollars At Work

Grain Belt Express Has Not Proven It Serves The Broader Public Interest

The Only Thing Clean Line Is Dedicated To Is Its Own Profit

How Much Does It Cost To Bury Transmission Lines?

Illinois Commerce Commission Advises Grain Belt Express Public Hearings Are For Directly Affected Citizens

Clean Line and DOE Crank It Up A Notch

Sprouse Brothers v. Ziff Brothers

Clean Line's Skelly Says He's Thinking About Abandoning Grain Belt Express Project

Grain Belt Express Wants MO PSC to Toll its Application

Why Do They Always Act So Surprised?

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