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

Where's Waldo?

5/24/2014

2 Comments

 
Would you trust this guy ?
Me neither. 

Where's Waldo?  He seems to have dropped out of the public eye, lately replaced by this other guy who smirks when he tells the people of Missouri that there are no health effects, no property devaluation, no impediments to farming.

Clean Line has a public relations problem.  They're running out of project managers and executives.

Waldo (aka Mark Lawlor
) has been thoroughly trounced in the Missouri media by the forthright and personable Block GBE spokeswoman, Jennifer Gatrel.  People like Jenny.  They trust her.  Can't say the same for the Clean Line representatives.

Because Grain Belt Express is in so much trouble in Missouri, Waldo has been replaced by Clean Line president Michael Skelly.  Oh, brother!  That's like putting out a fire with a bucket of gasoline!  Where Waldo was awkward, uncaring and shifty, Skelly is arrogant, arrogant and arrogant
.  This man simply doesn't care what you think.  He gets an attitude when questioned, and provides flippant answers.  Was "the President of Clean Line answering questions in Missouri" supposed to help or hurt the project?

Send this guy back to Skellyville, and bring on the next personality.  Or maybe Clean Line could try some more costumes to cheer everyone up?


Whither goest thou, Waldo?
2 Comments

Clean Line Opposition Groups Reject CFRA Report

5/24/2014

0 Comments

 
Block Grain Belt Express Missouri, Block RICL, Block Grain Belt Express Illinois, and Arkansas Citizens Against Clean Line Energy are urging all landowners to approach a newly introduced proposal for transmission line land acquisition with caution.  Today's release of a report by the Center for Rural Affairs, "Landowner Compensation in Transmission Siting for Renewable Energy Facilities," has not been vetted or approved by the Block organizations.

Touted by its authors as a "better deal" for landowners, the report urges formation of Special Purpose Development Corporations (SPDCs) to assemble land for transmission corridors.  The report claims SPDCs will provide faster, cheaper land acquisition for developers.  However, Block leaders are putting the brakes on this approach to land acquisition that presumes landowners will sell if the price is right, and leaves no options for landowners who do not wish to sell.
 
"I will not be on board to support the high voltage transmission line at any price.  My property rights and the ideology of my farm are priceless to me. No amount of money is going to buy me into alliance with Clean Line. I am even more repulsed by this company now. This is just another avenue to deceive people. They are not going to entice me with shares of a company I want nothing to do with," said Shan Christopher, impacted Missouri landowner.
 
The report calls for state public utility commissions to form the SPDCs, after first receiving the power of eminent domain from their respective legislatures, and to get into the business of condemning private property and managing its sale to transmission developers.  Other report suggestions for SPDC formation and management include state agencies with eminent domain authority, local governments, or even the transmission developers themselves.

"We have constitutional rights, existing laws, and procedures that merchant transmission projects are already attempting to slide by which is the real reason that there are epic eminent domain cases looming.  This report advocates a drastically different approach that circumvents the protections we have in place protecting ratepayers from unnecessary transmission and homeowners/landowners from the abuse of eminent domain. This new, corporation approach raises major issues about whose best interests would really be served.  Truly ‘voluntary' land acquisition is being able to say 'No, go away,' without the threat of coercion. Whether it's by eminent domain or some corporation, the facts don't change that our private property rights are under attack," remarked Mary Mauch, co-founder of Block RICL, Illinois.
 
The Block groups, who collectively represent the interests of thousands of landowners across the Midwest currently being courted to sell rights of way to transmission developer Clean Line Energy Partners LLC, were not consulted in the creation of the report, and are unaware of any landowner groups who might have participated in its development.
 
"This attempt to align the financial interests of transmission developers and landowners will not decrease opposition to transmission projects," said Jennifer Gatrel of Missouri.

Joel Dyer, a member of Arkansas Citizens Against Clean Line Energy, remarked, “This SPDC idea seems to be an added layer that is intended to insulate the Clean Line investors and executives from the consequences of their actions.  My father, a World War II combat vet, Pacific theater, never asked for or expected any kind of recognition or special treatment because of his service, but Clean Line has shown their gratitude for his service by threatening him with the eminent domain authority of the federal government.  Where is our sense of moral decency when private investors can ruin a veteran's life work, his farm, and distance themselves from his pain with the help of SPDCs?”

The Preservation of Rural Iowa Alliance Board President Carolyn Sheridan stated, "We advocate for the right to control the use of our land. PRIA is a powerful grassroots resource that researches latest trends, public policies and documented impacts related to the RICL project. Our mission is simple: to empower communities and all landowners so that educated decisions, and not fear, can drive action to protect the land they rightly own. Extensive research and discussion with qualified legal counsel is necessary to determine the impact that SPDCs would have on landowners."

 
Landowners are confused by and wary of the Center for Rural Affairs recent support for transmission development, and some believe CFRA has lost its focus on representing the interests of small, family-owned farm businesses.

"The Center for Rural Affairs continues to champion corporate interests to the detriment of struggling farmers.  I don't believe they are representing my interests anymore," said impacted Kansas farm owner John Broxterman.
 
The idea of SPDCs shifts political responsibility for massive eminent domain takings from transmission developers to state and local governments, making them the "bad guys," and pitting neighbor against neighbor.
 
"I don't think Grain Belt is good for Clinton County or any Missouri resident. I don't want them to take my land and give me shares of a company I don't believe in or trust. Clinton County is supporting Block GBE one hundred percent. Two of the commissioners have promised residents we will invoke section 229.100 to prevent Grain Belt from coming across Clinton County," said Larry King Clinton County Missouri Commissioner.
 
The Block leaders view the report as just one more attempt by corporate interests to dictate landowner and agricultural priorities in order to further their own pocketbooks.
 
Link to CFRA report
 
For more information please visit:
 
Block RICL
Block Grain Belt Express MO
Arkansas Citizens Against Clean Line Energy
0 Comments

Better Idea:  Bury It!

5/21/2014

0 Comments

 
The tenacious, but doomed, Northern Pass transmission project now has another nail in its coffin.
TDI New England said it has filed a presidential permit application with the Energy Department for a $1.2 billion project it is calling the Clean Power Link. The company hopes to complete the project in 2019.

If approved by regulators, the power line’s route will run from the Canadian border near Alburgh, 3 to 4 feet under Lake Champlain for nearly the entire length of the lake – about 97 miles – and then turn southeasterly at Benson, crossing Rutland County to Ludlow in western Windsor County.

“It’s an all-buried project, which is important to us from a community perspective,” Jessome said. “It’s important to be respectful of the communities we traverse.”
Imagine that... respect for the communities traversed by a transmission line!

Environmentalists seem to like it, and Northern Pass opponents seem to like it.  What if it sailed through permitting with community support, instead of expensive and time consuming opposition?

Transmission developers who whine about the cost of burying transmission need to take a lesson.  What's the true cost of opposition?
0 Comments

Special Purpose Development Corporations Are Just Another Way to Steal Your Land

5/19/2014

3 Comments

 
Congratulations, Mayberry!  Your entrenched opposition to Clean Line Energy Partners' transmission projects across the Midwest has pushed the company into the untenable position of having to perform massive eminent domain condemnations and takings.  Of course, this would never be allowed to happen in reality.  The political and public opinion costs would simply be too high.  As well, Clean Line has not been successful in convincing all state regulators to grant it the ability to effect eminent domain takings.

Check mate!

Clean Line Energy's only hope at this point is to try to trick you into supporting a new scheme to steal your land.

Last year, Clean Line sycophants at the Center for Rural Affairs and the Natural Resources Defense Council, along with other "big green" and "big wind" players, published a self-aggrandizing "report" they arrogantly dubbed "America's Power Plan" (although no actual "Americans" were involved in its creation).  In Clean Line's sponsored "plan," the important folks discussed several new ways to steal your land using eminent domain so that they wouldn't be forced to commit massive eminent domain takings.

One of the ways Clean Line wants to steal your land is called a "Special Purpose Development Corporation" ("SPDC").  A SPDC is a government-sponsored legal entity created especially to become the "bad guy" in an eminent domain situation.  Instead of Clean Line stealing your land, a government-blessed SPDC will steal your land and sell it to Clean Line.  The SPDC and the government that operates it will also profit in the transaction, paying itself a portion of the proceeds from the sale of your land.

Here's how it works:

1.    State or local government, or even a private corporation with government-granted eminent domain power, forms a SPDC for a particular purpose, such as securing new transmission line rights of way across private property.

2.    Landowners in the target area are given a choice:

        a.  Voluntarily deed their land over to the SPDC in return for "shares" in the corporation.
        b.  Refuse to voluntarily turn over your land and have it taken by the SPDC via eminent domain.  You will not receive any "shares" in the corporation.

       This allows your friends and neighbors who choose to join the SPDC to force you to sell your land for their personal profit.

3.    Once all land is acquired, the SPDC sells it to Clean Line and distributes the proceeds to the "shareholders" of the corporation, after first paying all sorts of legal, financial and management fees for the corporation and the costs of its employees.  There is no guarantee that a landowner's "shares" in the SPDC would be worth more at the end of this game than the landowner could expect to receive through traditional eminent domain processes.

It's all just a scam to encourage communities and local governments to take the fall for Clean Line's unconscionable land grab.  It pits neighbors against neighbors in local communities and causes local strife.  It absolves Clean Line from the consequences of its greedy action.

Don't be fooled by legal gibberish, fantastic promises of incredible riches, or empty claims of "better deals."  Just say "no" to Special Purpose Development Corporations.

The coordinated and knowledgeable opposition to Clean Line across eight states CAN stop these projects.  Hold on to your land -- you will be glad you did when Clean Line folds its tent and slinks back to Texas with its tail between its legs.
3 Comments

Can Grain Belt Express Keep its Big Promises to FERC?

5/14/2014

2 Comments

 
Clean Line Energy Partners is making a big deal out of FERC's conditional authorization of its proposal to negotiate rates for its Grain Belt Express project.  Of course, this isn't surprising -- Clean Line has shown great expertise in "miscommunicating" the actual meaning of its regulatory activities in an effort to make it appear that regulators and other entities "approve" of its project, or require it to be built.

What is surprising is that Clean Line has chosen to further its "miscommunication" that its project capacity is only available for transmission of wind energy.  You'd think they might be thankful to have dodged the discrimination bullet for the time being and show more decorum, but no, not Clean Line.  It appears that the company has interpreted FERC's action of kicking the discrimination can down the road to mean that FERC won't enforce its own regulations later, or simply doesn't care.

Clean Line's press release claimed:
The Grain Belt Express Clean Line (Grain Belt Express) is an approximately 750-mile, overhead direct current transmission line that will connect wind energy from western Kansas with utilities and customers in Missouri,  Illinois, Indiana and states farther east.

Receiving this authority will allow Clean Line to sell transmission capacity to potential customers of the project, including utilities and other load serving entities or clean energy generators.

The Grain Belt Express is estimated to enable more than $7 billion of investment in new wind farms.  Clean Line recently issued a Request for Information (RFI) to wind generators in the western Kansas
region, and results confirmed the need for transmission to access larger markets for renewable energy.  Developers of wind projects totaling over 13,500 MW of potential capacity shared information on high
capacity factors and cost-competitive wind energy prices. The combined capacity of these wind projects under development could fill the Grain Belt Express line over three times.
So, what are you saying here, Clean Line?  That "clean" wind energy will fill your project over three times before you allow any competition from other generators?  Naughty, naughty!

Back in March, when GBE's FERC application was still pending, the Missouri Landowners Alliance filed a protest, informing the Commission that GBE had been soliciting interest in its project exclusively from wind generators in contravention of FERC's open access policies.  FERC requires transmission owners to provide non-discriminatory transmission access to prevent gaming of electricity markets.  A transmission owner is like the highway toll collector, and may not pick and choose which cars can use its road as that would allow the toll collector to give preference to the cars that increase its market share, profits, or any other criteria it values.  Therefore, GBE must offer its capacity to ALL generators equally, not just those producing electricity at wind farms.

In response to the protest, FERC said:
We find that Landowners’ concerns are based on speculation as to Grain Belt Express’ solicitation efforts, which Grain Belt Express  has not fully implemented. Grain Belt Express has not proposed in its application, and we do not approve, selection or ranking criteria based upon the type of generation that a potential transmission customer might seek to interconnect. That Grain Belt Express has posted an inquiry about potential wind development in Kansas does not prove that Grain Belt Express intends to exclude other resources, and it is premature to judge now the totality of its solicitation efforts. As Landowners have recognized, the Commission has previously disapproved of a proposal that would include a preference for renewable resources as part of a transmission owner’s open season criteria where the transmission owner did not justify such preference. [Rock Island Clean Line] As discussed elsewhere in this order, Grain Belt Express is required to make a filing after the conclusion of its solicitation process that demonstrates compliance with the commitments made in its application, and any concerns that Grain Belt Express has unduly discriminated against non-wind resources can be addressed in that proceeding.
FERC has merely kicked that can down the road for the time being.  FERC's Order is only a conditional authorization for GBE to negotiate to sell capacity, contingent upon the company making the required compliance filing after it sells its capacity.  In that filing GBE bears the burden of proving that it complied with its own plan to publish broad notice of its project to ALL generators, and that its selection of customers was non-discriminatory.

FERC's "approval" ain't no big thing.  Any legal monkey could have concocted a "plan" to negotiate transmission rates using prior FERC orders.  As more than one lawyer has told me, creating legal filings is mere mimicry of prior filings that were successful.  The real "approval" from FERC may only come after GBE has properly conducted its negotiations as per the plan and made its compliance filing without attracting protests or complaints that GBE discriminated against certain customers.  Good luck there, Clean Line ;-)

Of course, authorization to negotiate rates does not equate to the ability to do so.  GBE still needs approval from every state in which it intends to build its project, including Missouri and Illinois.  It needs to put a real price tag on the cost of its project so that the fantastical business plan can generate profits by selling its service.  It needs some customers, either generators (that don't exist), or utilities wanting to buy power from the non-existent generators.  It has none, and is not actively seeking any at this time.
“FERC’s jurisdiction is pretty much limited to making sure that the process of selling transmission rights is open and transparent and non-discriminatory,” said Mark Lawlor, director of development for Clean Line Energy. “To make sure we aren’t building lines to give some competitors an advantage that others don’t have access to.”
Company officials don’t expect the line to go into commercial operation until 2018, but with FERC approval the company can begin talks with potential customers, Lawlor said.
The exact method for selling capacity on the line or how it will be priced hasn’t been determined, he said.
In the meantime, the company continues to work its way through state regulatory processes, he said.
This is not a "federal approval" for GBE's project.  Words on paper need to be followed through with actual deeds.  Do you think Grain Belt Express will be able to deliver on its promise to FERC?
2 Comments

Tennessee Congressional Delegation Gives Clean Line the Stinkeye

5/14/2014

14 Comments

 
It looks like the cat is out of the Clean Line Plains & Eastern bag.  Now these Texas snake oil salesmen and their filthy rich foreign investors will no longer be able to operate their scheme under the public radar without scrutiny.  A U.S. Senator and Representative from Tennessee have examined Clean Line's business plan and don't seem to like it.

The elected representatives are taking their responsibilities to provide oversight of federal action seriously.  The congressmen believe they should have a say in the matter because Clean Line's preferred customer for its Plains & Eastern line is federal power marketer Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 
Senator Alexander said, “It’s up to the TVA board to decide what kinds of electricity to generate and purchase. But it is the responsibility of members of Congress to provide oversight to TVA policies, and these questions are part of that oversight.”
The TVA recently extended a "Memorandum of Understanding" with Clean Line.  The MOU simply states that the TVA will study a possible interconnection with its system and consider Clean Line's idea in its integrated resource plan, due later this year.  It does not obligate TVA to buy power.  It's really a pretty worthless document -- lots of fluff and bluster about "clean" energy and absolutely no substance.  But, that was probably Clean Line's intent in the first place -- to give the impression that TVA was an eager customer, even though that's just not true.  It doesn't matter what the actual document does or says, it's all about appearances.  Clean Line has used it as something to drop into regulatory applications, public meetings and press releases.... "Clean Line's MOU with the TVA."  Oooooh!  Lots of acronyms, must be important... not.  It's exactly what it appears to be, there is no mystery.

It appears that no one has bothered to inform the representatives that Clean Line is also attempting to utilize Sec. 1222 of the federal 2005 Energy Policy Act to grant the company federal eminent domain power to condemn land for its 750-mile transmission line through Oklahoma, Arkansas and Tennessee.  I think the representatives could be even more effective asking the U.S. Department of Energy questions about this federal process.  This is certainly within their jurisdiction.

But, for now, the reps have set their sights on asking the TVA the hard questions, such as:
1)      Does purchasing electricity from this distance increase security threats to the TVA’s power supply? Former U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz has said we should pay attention to generating more energy where we use it because of national security risks.

2)      What is the cost of purchasing wind electricity compared to TVA generating or purchasing other types of electricity generation?

3)      There is substantial opposition in Congress to the wind production tax credit. Will TVA ratepayers be at risk of increased rates if the wind production tax credit is not renewed?

4)      What is the reliability of purchasing wind power as compared to other types of electricity generated by natural gas, nuclear, coal, or hydropower?

5)      TVA’s peak power demands tend to be between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. and wind tends to mostly blow at night. How does wind power fit into TVA’s overall demand structure if the electricity isn’t being produced when TVA needs it the most?

6)      At a roundtable in September 2013, hosted by Senators Corker and Alexander, you said that TVA didn’t need additional electricity generation capacity as the result of reduced electricity demand. Has this projection changed?

7)      If the projection for TVA’s electricity demand has changed since September 2013, does it make more sense to purchase this wind power from Clean Line Energy Partners, to build additional nuclear capacity, or to build additional natural gas or coal capacity?

8)      Does Clean Line Energy Partners’ proposal require the use of eminent domain in order to acquire any right-of-way for this project? How many land owners or homeowners will be impacted by the use of eminent domain, what specific lands will be acquired and where are they located?

9)      Can you explain how Clean Line Energy Partners plans to compensate any landowners or homeowners who are affected by eminent domain?

10)  How will the price of compensation be determined? Does Clean Line Energy Partners have a specific formula when compensating for land purchased under the use of eminent domain?

11)  What funding stream will Clean Line Energy Partners use to compensate landowners and homeowners for the land purchased under eminent domain?
In response, Clean Line's spit-tastic president, Michael Skelly, tried some of his best arrogance to insist that his project was the best option for the TVA.  He even included some prices that are pure speculation.  Senator Alexander wasn't impressed.
"TVA should and will make a decision that is in its best interests, but we believe this would provide a clean, reliable and cost-competitive source of power that would not increase in price over the next 25 to 30 years," said Mike Skelly, founder and president of Clean Line Energy.

Clean Line estimates the wind power could be delivered to TVA for 4 cents to 6 cents per kilowatthour, which would make it generally competitive to other new sources of energy for TVA.

But Alexander questioned whether TVA needs more power with the slowdown in the growth of electricity demand. He also questioned whether wind would become more expensive if federal production credits given for new windmills are not extended.
It's about time someone with authority lets a little sunshine into Clean Line's uneconomic business plan.  There's been entirely too much secrecy and too many closed door meetings with the federal government over the past 5 years.  The representatives deserve the thanks of all affected landowners across three states who have been threatened by this company.  Please let them know what you think:

Senator Alexander


Representative Fincher


And be sure to connect with the grassroots group organizing against Clean Line in Arkansas -- Arkansas Citizens Against Clean Line Energy.
14 Comments

Code of Conduct for Landowners

5/5/2014

2 Comments

 
Have you been perturbed by Clean Line's violation of its own "Code of Conduct" for land agents?  Are you gasping for breath in clouds of land agent smoke?  Are you unsure how to respond to the outrageous lies and pushy behavior of Clean Line land agents?  Like a lot of Mayberry denizens, you were probably raised to be polite and to take others at their word.  What is a person with morals to do when faced with outrageous land agent schemes?

Scott at RidiculousRICL has got your back.  He has so helpfully put together a Code of Conduct for Landowners to guide you.  We're pretty sure this Code doesn't cover everything, so feel free to make additional suggestions.

Scott's Landowners' Code is just as official and just as enforceable as Clean Line's Land Agent Code.  As recently admitted by Clean Line, and as I've been telling you for the last year, Clean Line's Code is nothing but a "feel good" piece of paper.

Clean Line's "Code" was copied from another transmission line fight that occurred in Pennsylvania in 2008.  In its original form, it was part of settlement of a case where the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate sought an injunction against transmission owner TrAILCo to end abusive practices.  Read the OCA's Motion for Injunctive Relief for a detailed description of harassing and coercive land agent behavior that sounds hauntingly familiar to stories of Clean Line's current tactics.  In the Pennsylvania case, the Code was enforceable by the court.  In Clean Line's case, nobody is enforcing it, not even Clean Line!

So, landowners should feel free to invent their own "code" and share it freely!
2 Comments

Befuddled Clean Line Executives Spreading "Miscommunication"

5/2/2014

2 Comments

 
Clean Line's latest public relations mantra is to accuse its opposition of spreading "misinformation."  It's a desperate, failed attempt to group its forthright and knowledgeable adversaries as unacceptable and to characterize them as liars, a propaganda technique known as "name calling."

But who is really spreading "misinformation?"  Two of Clean Line's most recent one-sided media excursions contained information and quotes from company executives that were outright lies.

First, the "miscommunication" in Arkansas Business about the Plains and Eastern Clean Line:

It has been in the works for the past half-decade and will build two lines intended to connect the Midwest’s wind resources to surrounding areas with less potential to generate wind, such as Missouri and southern Indiana. About 7,000 megawatts of power in Oklahoma would become available to surrounding states.
Clean Line quickly fell on its sword here, and the publication corrected its article to remove this reference.  Supposedly there is only ONE line on this project, with a capacity of 3500MW.  But then the company turned right around and signed a certain legal document with the same error in it!  How many lines does Clean Line intend to build, exactly?  "Misinformed" minds want to know!

The second lie was apparently just a "miscommunication" in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial.  Matthew Stallbaumer from Kansas has been chasing that one around all week.  What he found was a shocking lack of honesty.  In Matthew's own words:
"Mr. Lawlor has been through this before, in Kansas, where he says the company has completed buying the land it needs for that portion of the line."

The landowners know this isn't true. But there was some hope on my end that our land would no longer be impacted, so I called the St. Louis Dispatch and spoke with Deborah Peterson, Editorial Writer, who told me she was involved with writing the editorial. She assured me that what was printed was what Mr. Lawlor communicated to her.

So I tried to call Mr. Lawlor, his reputation for not answering his phone or responding to messages is accurate, so I called Clean Line's office and waited on hold rather than leave a message. I spoke with Grain Belt Express representative Ally Smith. She admitted they are still negotiating easements in Kansas, which conflicts with Mr. Lawlor's statement, and promised to check into the situation and call me back the next day to explain how something so wrong could be communicated/printed.

Three days go by, no call back. I called Ms. Smith again, but had to leave a message, no call back. Finally, this afternoon, Ms. Smith answers her phone, she claims to have tried to call me earlier in the day (I had no missed calls on my phone) but let bygones be.

Turns out there was a "miscommunication" between Mr. Lawlor and the STL Dispatch editorial board. That was the extent of the explanation. No mention of what he really meant or said, but to me it seems pretty hard to confuse anything with owning all the property they need in Kansas. (I wonder if lies count as miscommunication, I guess one could argue they do, I wonder, was Ms. Smith miscommunicating to me?).

I asked Ms. Smith about Clean Line's Code of Conduct found on their website and these lines specifically:

I c. Do not misrepresent any fact.
II h. Do not represent that a relative, neighbor and/or friend have signed a document or reached an agreement with Grain Belt Express Clean Line.
III b. Do not discuss your negotiations or interactions with other property owners or other persons.

It's pretty evident that some if not all of those codes have been ignored by Mr. Lawlor. I asked Ms. Smith who is responsible for enforcing those codes and what the penalty is. I was asked to be put on hold. Then she made efforts to dodge the questions, instead offered that they had contacted the paper to report the error, that it may or may not be corrected, and there is nothing else they can do. I asked again who enforces the code and what the penalty is, doesn't seem like that tough of a question for a company who touts their transparency and integrity and efforts to inform every chance they get, but Ms. Smith couldn't answer the question beyond "it's a managerial process". Perhaps Mr. Lawlor will enforce the code upon himself and penalize himself. I was told I must file a complaint regarding the code and their internal managerial process would determine its merits. I thought I was filing a complaint with my initial call, but it turns out it has to be in writing. I asked whether she could file a complaint on my behalf as she is aware of the situation now, turns out Clean Line employees can't file a complaint, they aren't in a position to hold themselves or each other accountable regarding their own Code of Conduct. So, how can their managerial process result in any penalty if they can't enforce it upon themselves?

Does anyone still think Clean Line will be accountable for any other promises or statements they make to property owners, commissioners, press, politicians or investors?
Miscommunication is defined as "failure to communicate adequately."  For instance, giving your instructions in French to an employee who only speaks English.  "Miscommunication" is also a weasely synonym for not being truthful.  For instance, politicians and bureaucrats are never dishonest, they simply "miscommunicate."

In Mayberry, we just call that "lying."
2 Comments

Arkansas Says "NO" to Clean Line

5/2/2014

1 Comment

 
Another citizens' opposition group to Clean Line Energy's plan to strike it rich transmitting wind energy from the Midwest to "states farther east" has stepped into the ring swinging.

Introducing Arkansas Citizens Against Clean Line Energy and its companion social media group.  The citizens of Arkansas are banding together to block Clean Line Energy from using their land as a pass-through zone for its Plains & Eastern Clean Line project. 

The group held its first, wildly successful public meeting on April 29, with many more to come.  The group's enthusiasm has also attracted the attention of affected landowners in Oklahoma, some of whom were still unaware that this Houston-based company is planning to acquire a right of way through their property using the eminent domain process.

How could this be possible?  Because Clean Line attempts to bifurcate its permitting process to receive utility status and eminent domain authority and a determination that its project is "needed" long before any affected landowner stakeholders find out about it.  After that, Clean Line files a separate routing application to determine where to put the project, hoping to pit neighbors and communities against each other, intending that they will waste their time and energy fighting each other over placement, instead of the REAL enemy -- Clean Line Energy Partners.

Clean Line will fail when communities come together as one.
1 Comment

Landowner Says Clean Line is Armed Robbery

4/29/2014

1 Comment

 
Here we go again with the Clean Line news articles full of misinformation.  This time, the lies are about the company's Plains & Eastern Clean Line project in Oklahoma, Arkansas and Tennessee.

Hiding amid the lies and half-truths is one nugget of news, however.  Clean Line is now purporting that it will build a $100M HVDC converter station in Arkansas in an attempt to provide some "benefit" for the state.  In 2011, the Arkansas PSC denied Clean Line's application to become a public utility in the state so that it could use eminent domain to take land for its project against the owners' will.  The APSC based its denial on the lack of benefits to the state from the transmission line, that Clean Line proposed would begin and end in other states like a highway with no on or off ramps for local use.

Claims that the company will build a converter station for local use seem to be sprouting like weeds.  But, what guarantee does any state have that Clean Line would actually build one?  If it receives a permit, Clean Line could once again change its plans, taking the local converter station off the table, laughing all the way to the bank.

The midpoint converter stations are very expensive and only plan to make available a miniscule portion of the project's capacity.  For the 3500 MW Grain Belt Express, the converter station is being touted as making "up to" 500 MW available.  For the Plains & Eastern project, this article says the converter station will make available "up to" 250 MW of the project's 3500 MW capacity.  The rest of the capacity is slated to be made available to eastern states where electricity commands a higher price.  And that's how Clean Line intends to make its money -- selling electricity in richer markets that have certain minimal renewable energy purchase requirements.  These "public policy" renewable portfolio standards require load serving entities in eastern states to generate or purchase a certain percentage of renewable energy, no matter the cost.  This is the market Clean Line is desperately trying to reach. 

So, let's think about that.  Clean Line is pretending it will "make available" miniscule amounts of its capacity in pass-through states in exchange for the ability to take private property from the state's citizens.  "Make available" means exactly that -- make available for purchase by load serving entities in states like Arkansas or Missouri.  However, if local LSEs can purchase lower cost power, they must do so.  Clean Line is priced for the east coast, not Missouri or Arkansas.  While the wind power generated in the Midwest may be "cheap" by east coast standards, building a "Clean" Line to transport it more than doubles the delivered price of the electricity.  Chances are no local load serving entities will contract to purchase ANY of this power, obviating the need for any mid-point converter stations after permits are granted.  Don't be fooled!

Don't be fooled by the article's misinformation either.  Here's where the reporter (or the president of Clean Line) got the information wrong:
The project, called the Plains & Eastern Clean Line, won’t break ground until 2016, but the company behind it — Clean Line Energy Partners — announced this month that it would build a $100 million convertor station along the line’s route, somewhere in central Arkansas.

But as initially planned, the project would have had little effect on Arkansans beyond creating some jobs through the construction period. The line traveled from Oklahoma east through Arkansas, but Clean Line’s electricity wouldn’t have stopped in Arkansas along the way.

This was the basis of the Arkansas Public Service Commission’s 2011 denial of Clean Line’s attempt to be recognized as a utility in the state. Becoming a utility would have meant the company could have used eminent domain in creating the route for its new lines.


However, that changed when Skelly announced the convertor station at this month’s Little Rock Sustainability Summit at the Clinton Presidential Library.
This project won't "break ground" until it is fully permitted, and obtaining permits is still highly speculative.  Just because Clean Line has tried to create a smokescreen of "benefit" for Arkansas does not automatically buy them a permit.
A spokesman for the company said the station “was a significant change in the scope of the project” that was “not initially intended” for it, noting that it was expressly requested by the PSC and by landowners.
WTF, Clean Line?  No landowner ever requested a converter station in Arkansas.  The few landowners who knew about your project rejected it in totality.
Clean Line is a private transmission company in Houston. It develops projects that connect renewable generation points between states.

The Plains & Eastern project is one of five Clean Line transmission projects underway in the country, and the only one that passes through Arkansas.

The new line would mean many new customers for the company.
Clean Line only exists on paper.  This start-up has never built anything and probably never will.  It has no customers... at all.  The company has signed an agreement to allow its biggest investor, European transmission giant National Grid, to purchase the entire collection of projects in the pre-construction phase.  If Clean Line can spin enough lies to get a handful of permits, it absconds with a bundle of cash and a new company takes over ownership of any projects.  Research on Clean Line's principals reveals a history of exactly this kind of behavior.  Many of Clean Line's management, who have personally invested in the company, have a history of building wind energy companies and then flipping them for huge profit.  They probably should have stayed in their own area of expertise because they're in way over their heads playing transmission company.
It has been in the works for the past half-decade and will build two lines intended to connect the Midwest’s wind resources to surrounding areas with less potential to generate wind, such as Missouri and southern Indiana. About 7,000 megawatts of power in Oklahoma would become available to surrounding states.
Actually, that 7,000 MW plan for two lines got scrapped several years ago as overly ambitious.  Or, did it?
“Because this is an interstate project, it has to go through the federal permitting process,” Skelly said. “We’re in the middle of that [process]. What it basically does is look at a series of routes, and we take all that information which our different stakeholders use to come up with a route.”
There is no requirement for federal permitting just because a project is "interstate."  Transmission permitting is state jurisdictional.  A project must receive a permit from every state through which it passes.  Except when a state denies a permit... then a transmission owner can attempt to preempt local authority to take advantage of a couple of arcane loopholes in the 2005 Energy Policy Act.  It is only then that federal permitting becomes necessary.  And still, the federal authority Clean Line is attempting to acquire only gives it the power of eminent domain.  It does not anoint Clean Line with state utility status to build a project.  We'll just assume that the U.S. Department of Energy is going to take on the role of transmission builder for this project and then re-sell it back to Clean Line after it's constructed, right?
A lot of the job, he said, is getting the word out about the job to county officials, state agencies and environmental groups to determine the route of the line.

“Because this is an interstate project, it has to go through the federal permitting process,” Skelly said. “We’re in the middle of that [process]. What it basically does is look at a series of routes, and we take all that information which our different stakeholders use to come up with a route.”

Currently, the U.S. Department of Energy is working with states and local agencies to gather input on the line’s proposed route.

The permitting process overall, Skelly said, is expected to conclude in spring 2015.

“We hope to break ground in a year after that — at some point in 2016,” he said. “This is like any large infrastructure project. It takes a long time to work through the issues and come up with a proper design and take into account the stakeholders’ interests. These things take a long time. As things go, we’re moving at a reasonable pace.”
So, when is Clean Line planning to consult the landowners about the route of its line?  Because landowners, in Clean Line's world, aren't stakeholders.  They're just the folks who have to sacrifice their properties for Clean Line's profit.

No matter.  The landowners aren't waiting to be invited.  As my friend Joel says in the article's comments:
"Clean" Line is intent upon getting eminent domain authority. That's why their plan has changed to include the central Arkansas converter station. The company wants to force Arkansas landowners and homeowners to allow huge transmission towers on their property. This is a private venture, backed by a few out-of-state billionaires. They refuse to acknowledge that these towers will lower the property value of the landowners and homeowners. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would know that property values will plummet where a 200' steel lattice tower is constructed. So the out-of-state billionaires make huge profits while Arkansas landowners and homeowners lose real estate equity. It can't happen without state or federal eminent domain authority. I think of it like armed robbery, but in this case the robbers don't have to hold the guns. They will have state or federal law enforcement holding the gun to the heads of Arkansas landowners and homeowners.
1 Comment
<<Previous
Forward>>

    About the Author

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

    About
    StopPATH Blog

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

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


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

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

    RSS Feed

    Archives

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

    Categories

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

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.