Category:

Clean Line Gets Desperate

4/26/2014

Things are not going well for our friends at Clean Line Energy Partners.

Opposition to its Rock Island Clean Line, Grain Belt Express, and Plains & Eastern Clean Line projects continues to grow at explosive rates. This isn't just a handful of NIMBYs in an isolated tool shed, but an active, educated, cohesive, movement numbering in the thousands and stretching across eight states (and beyond!)

Clean Line's biggest problem is its desire to wield the power granted to entities acting in the public interest by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

See where it says "public use?" Clean Line is not a "public use." It is a privately held investment vehicle that desires to build a for-profit project that has not been found necessary by any transmission planning entity acting under the auspices of our government. Any yahoo can wake up in the morning and decide to build a transmission line, but the idea does not make it "needed." Clean Line is a private entity who intends to sell transmission capacity to other private entities through privately negotiated contracts.

Whether granted by a state, or by the federal government through Sec. 1222 of the Energy Policy Act, giving eminent domain authority to Clean Line is just wrong. And the people will continue to loudly protest until the threat is removed.

Clean Line is failing in the all-important court of public opinion, which powers the legislative stance that drives approval or rejection of Clean Line's state regulatory applications. Clean Line hates it when the voters connect with their elected representatives because Clean Line has spent lots of time and money wooing your legislators to support its project with inflated claims about jobs and economic development. Clean Line has also been busy trying to slant the news coverage of its projects by meeting privately with editors and reporters in order to present them with a one-sided set of "facts" that support the project. News sources practicing ethical journalism seem to be immune, but every once in a while Clean Line hits the mark with an editor motivated by politics or good ol' boy business glad handing.

Yesterday, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch posted one such editorial, so full of political pandering that it probably didn't require the additional lies that it printed. The Editorial Board went wandering off about repeal of state renewable portfolio standards, the Koch brothers, foreign oil, commercial hog farms, Keystone XL, and oil subsidies. None of these topics have anything to do with Clean Line, but the paper tried to use these political topics to paint the opposition it knows nothing about as unacceptable and therefore not worthy of being heard. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch also quotes Grain Belt Express project manager Mark Lawlor as claiming he has purchased all the land he needs in Kansas:

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.

This is an outright lie. Did Lawlor really say that? Or was that the editor's creation? Clean Line better clear this up before it comes back to bite them in a future eminent domain condemnation proceeding.... because that's the only way Lawlor is going to get his hands on some of the land he needs in Kansas.

The editorial was so bad that it has inspired more than 80 comments, almost all of them from real people knowledgeable about transmission and opposed to Clean Line. Go ahead, read the comments, and see the people educate Clean Line's sparse supporters in Missouri.

And if you think that editorial is bad, check out this article in the Cherokee Chronicle Times where reporter Loren G. Flaugh tosses journalistic ethics out the window to openly insult one of Clean Line's opponents in Iowa. The reporter inserts personal opinion into the story, calling Preservation of Rural Iowa Alliance board member Jerry Crew "befuddled," "mistaken," and says his group "doesn't understand" the project's business model. And the reporter bases his inexpert understanding on talking points from Clean Line. I wonder, would that hold up in court?

Crew wanted elected officials to tell him what was on the line when the wind doesn't blow. No one could give him a correct or logical answer. The reporter concludes that when the wind doesn't blow, the line will be de-energized. I think the reporter is the one "befuddled" by Clean Line's bullsh*t. If wind farms are contracted to purchase a certain amount of capacity on the line, and they aren't producing anything, they will most likely re-sell their capacity in the secondary market to try to recover some of their cost. Who would buy it? Any generator who wants to connect into the series of regional feeder lines supplying Rock Island Clean Line's starting point converter station, that's who. And it could be ANY kind of generator -- coal, oil, gas, solar, wind. Clean Line cannot guarantee that its line will be... "clean."

Jerry Crew is absolutely correct, and the reporter is misinformed.

My, my, my, how desperate Clean Line has become as it stoops to new lows in the media. A viable project wouldn't require tossing journalistic ethics out the window. Clean Line is more closely imitating the death throes of a bad project. Surrender, Clean Line.

6 Comments

Introducing Halt The Powerlines

4/23/2014

3 Comments

When will the utilities learn that springing a transmission fait accompli on a community dooms their project to failure?

Xcel has decided that it wants to build a new 345kV transmission line adjacent to an old 230kV line on existing right of way. Xcel purports that this new line is necessary to transport wind (and other) power from northern Colorado to the southeast Denver metro area.

The problem? The project snakes through numerous dense housing and commercial developments that have been built right up to the edge of the existing right of way in the towns of Parker and Aurora. Watch Xcel's route flyover video to understand the full madness of the plan. What were you thinking, Xcel? How did you expect the people who live in all those houses would react?

Introducing Halt the Powerlines. The affected residents have attempted to work with Xcel to find acceptable alternatives, but they have been met with stubborn resistance to change and spurious claims about property values and health issues in an attempt to convince them to accept the project as proposed and that there is no problem.

Apparently Xcel believes that getting into an entrenched public relations battle with the citizens' group is going to be less costly than working with the community to alter the design to be more acceptable, or bury sections of the line. I think they're wrong.

So does this guy, who has developed the concept of social ecology to get infrastructure sited and approved without costly community battles. Gary Severson proposes that a company actually get to know the community before dumping a project on it. I would take that one farther and suggest that a company get to know the communities BEFORE designing the project in the first place! Trying to get a community to accept a project that was not designed to be acceptable is like trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.

If Xcel truly knew the towns affected by its Pawnee-Daniels Park project, it would realize that its project is never going to happen as designed. It's too close to too many people. Educated opposition has developed that cannot be ameliorated by tossing defensive studies at the crowd. Xcel has already become the self-interested entity that is not to be trusted. The only way this project will ever get built is for Xcel to go back to the drawing board with the community members and an open mind to find an acceptable alternative.

As Severson concludes:

Project managers and regulators are well
aware of the effects of community issues on
project schedules, costs, and eventual success
or failure. Traditional public relations efforts
employed by project proponents and citizen
participation requirements of regulatory
agencies are often interpreted by communities
as what the proponent is planning to “do to
us.” There is a better way. Social ecology
includes the impacted communities into the
project so that citizens interpret proposed
actions as what the proponent is trying to “do
with us” to improve our quality of life.

When will the utilities learn?

3 Comments

Rock Island Clean Line Could Lock Chicago Area Residents into Paying More for Dirty Energy

4/21/2014

4 Comments

That's the headline the Chicago Sun Times should have used on its recent article about Clean Line's Rock Island project. Instead, the Sun Times reporter took the lazy way out by printing the unverified and grandiose claims of RICL developer Hans Detweiler as if they were facts.

The correct information was right there for the reporter's perusal on the Illinois Commerce Commission docket, or she could have looked at some of the testimony quotes on BlockRICL's website. BlockRICL doesn't have to rely on spurious sound bites to spin the media, only the truth of the testimony at the ICC.

So, let's take a look at where the Sun Times reporter resorted to lazy "journalism":

Within three years, some Chicago area residents could be saving money on their electric bills, thanks to power generated 500 miles away.

Adding wind energy to the grid should push wholesale electricity prices down, Detweiler said. He thinks Illinois consumers could save about $320 million after the line’s first year.

“Wind is stranded because of a lack of transmission lines,” said David Kolata, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, which represents the interests of utility customers in Illinois.

The Clean Line, he added, “has the potential to bring in a lot of low-cost power.”

The savings suggested by Detweiler are an estimate, but “there’s no question that it would reduce prices in Illinois,” Kolata said.

Rock Island Clean Line has no generators and no contracts. There's absolutely nothing to back up all these statements about "low-cost power." None of the people quoted have any idea how much the electricity RICL proposes to import to Chicago will cost. The only thing that's certain is that the power will have the cost of building the transmission line added to its price. RICL has estimated that its line will add $25 MWh to the delivered generation cost at its proposed injection point south of Chicago. Additional transmission charges will be added from that point to ultimate end users. RICL doesn't care if its delivered price is higher than other available sources in the Chicago market because that market isn't RICL's real target. RICL is aiming to be competitive in east coast electricity markets, where electricity is much more expensive than in either Illinois or Iowa.

When there is a glut of power in a constrained market, prices remain low because generators must compete with each other to serve a smaller load. However, when new pipelines are opened from the cheap, constrained market for power to flow to higher priced markets, it has the effect of levelizing prices between the two markets. While the recipients of RICL's load on the east coast could see a reduction (and even that is doubtful), the markets on the source side of the transmission lines will see their energy prices go up as local load must now compete with the higher priced markets to the east. RICL will absolutely increase electricity prices that would exist in Iowa without the project, and since Chicago is not RICL's intended market, but only a pit stop to inject power into the PJM grid, RICL will also raise prices in Illinois.

Note also that the Citizens Utility Board guy isn't even a party to the RICL case at the ICC. His "unquestionable" claims about prices aren't based on evidence. The actual ICC evidence shredded Detweiler's cost savings claims.

The $2 billion Rock Island Clean Line would take 3,500 megawatts of power created by thousands of wind turbines in Iowa and deliver it to Illinois. The project could be completed by 2017.

“As a nation [we] are moving toward renewable energy resources. We need a grid that reflects where those energy sources are found,” said Hans Detweiler, director of development for the project.

Wind-generated electricity could help Illinois meet renewable energy standards. By law, one-fourth of the energy used in Illinois must come from renewable sources by 2025.

And there is demand for renewable energy sources. Some Chicago suburbs seek out green energy through a process called “aggregation,” in which the suburb buys green energy in bulk for the community and passes along the savings, if any.

In Evanston, aggregation saved the average household $264 in its first year, said Jonathan Nieuwsma, vice president of Citizens for Greener Evanston.

There is no guarantee that RICL will deliver even one electron of renewable power. Under federal open access transmission rules, RICL must offer capacity on its transmission line to all generators. RICL is assuming that wind generation will be built in the resource area, and in such quantities that wind generation can supply a constant 3500 MW of energy. RICL plans to sell capacity on its line to wind generators, who may only use a fraction of their purchased capacity due to the variable output of wind generators. This will create a secondary market for transmission capacity that may be purchased by steadier, base load fossil fuel-generated electricity, even if RICL sells all available capacity to these as yet unbuilt wind farms. Will these wind farms actually get built? Without government subsidies, who knows? Every time the PTC expires, so does the desire to build a wind farm.

Clean Line's claims that its project will deliver renewable electricity are just as spurious as their claims that the project will lower prices. In fact, Clean Line's renewable power fan dance is under protest at FERC.

The reporter did no analysis on whether or not RICL is needed to meet Illinois renewable portfolio standards, nor whether it is the cheapest renewable resource available. In fact, Clean Line is looking hungrily at RPS in east coast states, where it believes its product may be cost competitive. While Clean Line may have played with the numbers to make it look like this was true several years ago, the reality is that more renewables are coming online in the east, and renewable prices are falling. And what happens if RICL is no longer economic when it comes time to sign power purchase agreements? The company won't build it. But yet, the company is asking Illinois regulators to ORDER it to build the project so that it may take land from the people of Illinois at cheap prices. The cheaper RICL's land purchases, the lower its delivered price will be. RICL is asking the state to take from its citizens in order to make a private investment company profitable. That's not the intent of eminent domain authority for utilities.

Aggregation is just a fancy word for deregulated electricity markets, where political subdivisions can use their collective buying power to negotiate lower prices from competitive suppliers. Aggregation may have saved consumers money overall, but more expensive renewable energy had nothing to do with that.

The Sun Times article also contrasts the opinions of two landowners who will be affected by the project... without ever using the words "eminent domain." And that's the biggest sticking point of this proposed project. It intends to keep its development cost low by taking land through eminent domain at ultra-low prices. One landowner "thinks" he will be treated fairly, but he hasn't seen "the numbers" yet. While visions of dollar bills dance in that landowner's head, hundreds of others have instead become educated and have fully participated in opposing the project at the ICC, such as landowner Paul Marshall.

Marshall and the Illinois Landowners Alliance have chosen to make their case in the proper legal venue, while RICL seems to prefer to try its case in the court of public opinion, hoping against hope that its misinformation will be enough to fool the ICC into approving its project. The Sun Times ought to be embarrassed at how they were used by fast-talking wind lobbyists.

4 Comments

Clean Line Media Tour Fails in Missouri

4/17/2014

1 Comment

A "media tour" is a public relations tactic used to control the way the media frames a certain story so that only one point of view is presented, and differing viewpoints are not mentioned. A media tour can take many forms, but one involves schlepping an executive or "expert" around to different reporters in a city or region for face-to-face meetings with news reporters/editors. The idea is that a reporter will connect with the executive, and more sympathetic press will be created.

Media tours rely on the card stacking propaganda technique whereby only one side of an issue is presented to the audience. Opposing viewpoints, or facts that don't support the proponent's argument, are omitted from the discussion. Because the media tour provides a one-sided rendition of fact, the stories produced can often take the form of "puff pieces." A puff piece is a distorted story that only presents a glowing review of the proponent's product. In contrast, a balanced article examines both sides of an issue and the reporter talks with leaders on both sides to present their views.

Because it was getting absolutely pummeled in the Missouri media by a fresh-faced amateur, Clean Line's Grain Belt Express project has concocted a new media plan. The first item appears to be a media tour starring Clean Line president Michael Skelly. This guy rarely shows up in the localities affected by his planned projects, and when he does he's always described as incredibly arrogant and out-of-touch with local sentiment, priorities and values. Therefore, to drag him through a media tour in Mayberry, Missouri, informs that Clean Line is in real trouble in the all-so-important court of public opinion.

So, how did it go? I think this reporter was wise to him.

Mr. Skelly’s visit comes amid an upsurge in opposition to the project.

And the true nature of that opposition is reported:

Opponents recently have banded together in a bid to thwart Grain Belt Express, with some sessions held in Buchanan and Clinton counties. They contend landowners are being coerced into signing easement agreements.

So Skelly starts telling some unbelievable whoppers:

However, Clean Line believes it is gaining more supporters rather than detractors and say the process in Kansas already has erased doubts.

“We’re having those conversations in Missouri,” Mr. Skelly said. “We’re out there having negotiations with landowners ... We find out that people get more comfortable with it.”

Check out the comment from an actual Kansas landowner at the bottom of the article:

I can tell you how negotiations with landowners in eastern Kansas is going. They're telling Skelly where he can put his power line, to put it mildly. The vast majority of landowners in eastern Kansas have resolved to not even negotiate with Clean Line until they get regulatory approval in Missouri and Illinois. The routing approval handed down by the KCC last fall was contingent upon them gaining regulatory approval in these two states. Why would anyone want to sign an easement agreement with a company that will more than likely sell the easement pre-construction to a foreign interest like National Grid, and not even be around when and if construction ever begins.

Erasing doubts. Right, Mikey.

But Mikey's media tour to "defend his project" got completely upstaged by the opposition when the Missouri Farm Bureau put out a release about its intention to intervene in the Grain Belt Express case at the Missouri PSC at the same time. The Farm Bureau opposes the use of eminent domain for this project.

In addition, the university that Clean Line schmoozed with promises of pizza parties in exchange for signatures on a petition supporting the project has taken the initiative to exercise their journalistic muscles with some balanced reporting.

And another opposition op-ed got published.

What was that you said, Mikey? I can't hear youuuuuuu... and neither can anyone else you were trying to convince with that lame media tour.

I guess he will just have to concentrate on the other tactic Clean Line has recently re-deployed, the "community roundtable" and "governmental and environmental organization" private meetings that attempt to inspire advocacy in unaffected and uninterested populations.

But, don't worry, citizens of Missouri, there are some public meetings where your participation and opinion are valued.

Meanwhile, another Grain Belt Express spokesman recently buggered things up further by cluelessly insulting Missouri lawmakers by stating that they are merely "dabbling in legislation" that affects his project and he's "paying attention" to their interference with his plans in their state. What an idiot!!!

It's not going to work. Give up, Clean Line. You've been bested in Missouri and there is no recovery from public knowledge of your true intentions.

1 Comment

The People Have Had Enough

4/15/2014

1 Comment

Eminent domain. Two ugly little words.

Here's two more: Clean Line.

Mary Mauch of BlockRICL was on the radio this afternoon talking about Clean Line's proposals to take 3,000 miles of new transmission line right of way through eminent domain in numerous states across the Midwest.

Historically, we haven't spent too much time worrying about the right of public utilities to take private property using eminent domain. It was a necessary evil to bringing electric service to every citizen in the last century.

But, let's take a look at where we are now in order to understand that transmission line eminent domain has reached the tipping point, where revolution is imminent.

It's no longer about bringing electricity to Mr. Smith's remote farmstead so he can read seed catalogs after the sun sets. It's about trading electricity as a commodity, as new transmission lines get bigger and costlier. It's no longer about providing a necessary service, it's about supporting markets and investor profits.

Transmission lines "ordered" by regional grid planners for reliability, economic or environmental reasons are bad enough, but one could argue that they are still ostensibly serving a "public" purpose by stabilizing the grid, the market, or saving the planet. These projects are paid for by all users of the electric grid, therefore there is some justification for the use of eminent domain in order to keep ratepayer cost in check.

And then we have the merchant transmission projects, like Clean Line. This company is proposing transmission that has not been vetted or approved by regional grid planners. They simply want to build a transmission line because it would be profitable. Merchant projects are paid for entirely by their owners. The merchant recovers its costs by selling capacity on the line to generators or load serving utilities (who then pass it on to the users of the project). The merchant enterprise depends on the cost of building the line being less than the amount of profit to be derived from selling capacity. If the cost of the line is greater than the profits, then it isn't an economic endeavor and it won't be built.

A merchant transmission developer has an interest in keeping its costs low to increase profit and make the project economic. But a merchant transmission project isn't a public necessity. It's a profit center, plain and simple. That a successful merchant project would transmit electric power for purchase by utilities if the price is right does not a "public purpose" make.

Clean Line proposes that state regulators anoint it with public utility status and its attendant power of eminent domain so that it may take whatever property it needs for its project at a low price. This would keep the costs low for Clean Line, so that it could increase the amount of profit it may derive from operation of its line.

This is where the disconnect starts. A merchant project that depends purely on economics for its purpose should be required to operate completely on an economic basis. If Landowner A requires 150% market value for property, then that is the cost of the transmission line. An economic project absolutely cannot rely on the power of the state to make itself profitable.

Landowners across Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Indiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Tennessee have taken a stand. No eminent domain for privately financed economic projects. The landowners are becoming highly educated about electric transmission, property rights and civic engagement. And it's spreading like wildfire.

As a result, we are reaching the tipping point where absolutely NO transmission is going to be built, even that which may be needed.

The urban decision-makers with their quarter acre plots maintained by hired landscapers and gardeners simply cannot understand a farmer's or rancher's connection to his land. Or why they are prepared to fight for their livelihood.

1 Comment

New England's Transmission Feeding Frenzy

4/8/2014

0 Comments

Remember that ambiguous "energy agreement" that New England states signed back in December? Its meaning is now beginning to take shape, not as a true energy plan, but as a ratepayer-funded transmission developer feeding frenzy.

Instead of "making investments in local renewable generation, combined heat and power, and renewable and competitively-priced heating for buildings that will support local markets and result in additional cost savings, new jobs and economic opportunities, and
environmental gains," it looks like some of the states are depending on this "agreement" to satisfy their energy appetites at the expense of the other states.

Here's how the states plan to implement their agreement:

In the next few months, the governors are expected to issue requests for proposals for 1,200 to 3,600 megawatts of transmission capacity that could carry wind and hydroelectric power from the northern reaches and Canada.

Massachusetts is plowing ahead with legislation ordering utilities to solicit bids for up to 2400 MW of "clean" energy.

Instead of fostering the development of renewable energy within their own borders, or tapping the incredible resource right off their own shores, the energy hog southern New England states plan to import renewables from another country and run transmission lines through the northern New England states to deliver it.

What's in it for the northern states? Part of the bill!

Massachusetts and Connecticut are driving the push to bring clean hydropower from Canada to help the states meet their clean-energy goals. But the other four states — Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Maine — agreed through the New England States Committee on Electricity, made up of state utility officials from the six states. They have agreed to share the costs because they would benefit from the overall reduction in energy costs, although the details of how that would be done remain to be worked out.

Northern state landowners will also be required to sacrifice privately owned land or be subject to eminent domain condemnation and takings. They will also have to live with these 200-foot tall extension cords zig-zagging through their communities and unspoiled vistas.

Because Massachusetts and Connecticut don't want any of that nastiness mucking up their views.

This "agreement" was never about true diversification of generation. It's about increasing centralized generation and reliance on imported energy. And it's about corporate schemes to make money by smoothing the way to build more long distance transmission.

"Many of the proposals have been talked about in utility circles for some time..."

Of course they have, but the transmission developers needed cover to spring their plans on a wary public, and a way to broadly socialize the costs so that the burden on any one customer would be overlooked as minor.

The transmission developers and their pet Governors are even rewriting history, putting the egg before the chicken by pretending that the past winter's delivery issues were the impetus for the "agreement" that was signed before the problems occurred.

Adding to the charlie foxtrot are Big Green, who sanctimoniously oppose this new transmission plan, worrying that it "could crash the regional power market and kill off other needed energy-generating resources." Funny... these are the same green hypocrites who are cheering Clean Line Energy's plan to cover the Midwest with wind turbines and HVDC transmission lines. No worries about that crashing the regional power market and killing off other needed energy-generating resources. Right.

So, a whole stable of eager transmission developers are chomping at the bit to have their project selected as the winner of the ratepayer-guaranteed profits. Several proposals have been made. In addition to stupid overhead projects like the parasitic Northern Pass, Anbaric has proposed a project that it says will be buried, both on land and offshore.

A 300-mile power cable would be buried on land in Maine and then run across the Atlantic Ocean floor to greater Boston under a proposal to tap Canada’s plentiful hydropower to meet the needs of power-hungry southern New England.

Maybe Anbaric thinks that battling the opposition that is sure to develop against an overhead project isn't worth the time, money and headaches, preferring to spend a little more to bury its project for fast approval, while the competition languishes for years on the regulatory battlefield. Anbaric could teach some other "clean" energy developers a lesson. But then again, Anbaric is counting on ratepayers to finance its project, including the extra cost to bury the cable.

Other "clean" energy companies operating under a merchant model are caught in a desperate cost control game in order to keep their projects cost competitive. Merchant transmission projects depend on energy markets for their existence. If a merchant transmission owner can cover its own expenses to ship energy long distance and make a profit, then it is economic to build. However, if a merchant transmission company's cost of service increases because it has to spend more to bury cable to make landowners happy, then it is no longer economic and will not be built. Sounds fair, right? But, what if the merchant developer wanted the power of eminent domain to take land cheaply for an overhead route, instead of having to please landowners during a fair, open market right of way negotiation process that could include the requirement to spend more money burying the line? That would be the best of both worlds for the transmission developer -- depending on the artificial influence of eminent domain to keep its project costs in check to ensure market competitiveness. This is perhaps the single biggest flaw in Clean Line Energy's plan. Merchant projects should NEVER be granted a utility's eminent domain authority because they are not needed for reliability or economic purposes and depend completely on the economics of the market for existence, therefore they should also be forced to compete in unfettered real estate markets to bring their projects to reality. If it costs too much to obtain right of way in a free market, then the project is not economic.

But, I digress.

New England has a lot of work to do to craft a real, sustainable energy plan that does not depend on inflicting social and environmental injustice on people in other states or other countries.

the states will hold public meetings to present the region's plan in preparation for bidding process. The meetings will include stakeholders, including environmental groups and developers.

It is unclear whether these "meetings" will include citizens, landowners and ratepayers, the most important "stakeholders" of all.

0 Comments

Landowner Accuses Grain Belt Express Clean Line Land Agents of Violating Code of Conduct

4/3/2014

1 Comment

Just saw the following message on facebook with the request to share it. So, I shall:

URGENT!!!!!!!!
We have just been told by an elderly landowner that they had been contacted by Clean Line and were told that the project was a done deal and that he has to come in and sign an easement. This could not be farther from the TRUTH!!!! If they ever get Public Utility Status, and they are a LONG way from getting that, then it would be crucial to consult with an attorney! PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE share this with elderly landowners especially those in nursing homes. Please share, if we had not talked with this landowner, he would have signed with Clean Line!!!!!

Remember Grain Belt Express Clean Line's "Code of Conduct?" We were discussing it just the other day. Serendipity!

The "Code of Conduct" was plagiarized from the former Allegheny Energy (now multi-state energy holding company FirstEnergy), who used it for their TrAIL and PATH projects as a placebo to deny responsibility for shady land agent conduct.

The company hides behind its "Code," pretending that its contract land agents are supposed to follow it. When a land agent is caught in a violation, the company acts all shocked and "fires" the land agent. Responsibility for the violation is pinned on the land agent, not the company. Therefore, the company is free to continue to violate its own "Code" as many times as necessary.

Land Agents are trained in psy ops. Landowners usually resist utility overtures to purchase land or right of way. It's all a psychological game by the land agent to trick the unwilling or unwitting into signing on the dotted line. Land Agents attend continuing education sessions where they learn:

Understanding Behavioral and Personality Styles for Negotiation Success

Using practical and personal exercises, this session will provide attendees with a framework for understanding the behavioral and personality styles used for negotiation. Attendees will develop a better understanding of behavioral styles and how they can recognize and relate to the diverse styles of people they deal with.

The conference sessions have instructors like Dr. Mazie Leftwich, Psy.D.

With 20 years of experience in the right of way and land management consulting business, Dr. Mazie Leftwich is a nationally known presenter and corporate trainer in the energy industry. Dr. Leftwich serves as Director of the CLS Professional Development Institute and has been the catalyst behind CLS's extensive employee training, project training, and team-excellence programs for supervisors and managers. In addition to her work at CLS, Mazie maintained a limited private counseling practice for over 30 years, specializing in organizational and personal relationships and executive coaching. Her education includes a Bachelor in Psychology, a Master's in Administrative and Clinical Social Work and a Doctorate in Applied Psychology.

Dr. Mazie works for Contract Land Staff, the company Clean Line has been using for right of way acquisition.

Land agents will say or do anything necessary to get their job done. The story from Missouri tells us that perhaps they will even lie and violate the "Code" of the company that contracts them. Perhaps the land agents even troll nursing homes, preying on the elderly. Nothing more despicable than that.

Remember, the "Code" was developed as part of a legal settlement between Allegheny Energy's TrAIL transmission company and the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate. The settlement was the end result of a vicious court battle over the reprehensible way landowners in Pennsylvania were lied to and manipulated by land agents.

The "Code" is not enforceable by any authority. It's a worthless piece of paper designed to give a false sense of security to landowners and regulators. However, please do document and report any violations to your state consumer protection authorities, such as your Attorney General, because any despicable tactics perpetrated will most likely be a violation of your state's consumer protection laws.

Just don't talk to land agents. There's no rush to enter agreements before a project has all its permits. If you sign early, the company will still have a right to your property, even if the transmission line is never approved or built. Do you really want that encumbering your property forever and making future sales or use difficult for you and your heirs?

There's plenty of time to negotiate a deal, with the recommended help of your own attorney, AFTER a project has all permits to begin construction. In fact, if you wait to negotiate, chances are that the price you will receive may be greater than folding early in the process. The longer you hold out, the more powerful your bargaining position becomes.

Don't be victimized by any possible Clean Line Grain Belt Express strong arm tactics that may be used. Get educated, and more importantly, educate your friends and neighbors!

1 Comment

David Crane's Manifesto

3/27/2014

1 Comment

Have you read NRG CEO David Crane's manifesto of consumer empowerment in the electricity sector?

You should.

Crane envisions a sustainable future where energy consumers become energy producers. His "manifesto" provides the road map for how he intends to get there. Here's one of his ambitious thoughts:

Just a few years ago, the prevailing wisdom was that the path to a clean energy economy depended on our collective willingness to build a nationwide high-voltage transmission system in order to transport electricity in vast quantities from the relentlessly windy and brutally sunny parts of the country, where people generally don't live, to the more temperate places where Americans tend to congregate.

The folly of that idea thankfully was realized before anyone actually began to build such an expensive and pointless white elephant. Now we are headed for the same goal, but in the opposite direction: down the path toward a distributed-generation-centric clean energy future featuring individual choice and the empowerment of the American energy consumer.

While I fully share his enthusiasm, a whole bunch of transmission developers don't seem to have gotten Crane's memo on this. They persist in attempts to cover the Midwest with wind turbines and transmission lines.

But, the biggest monsters always do seem to go out with a final, terrible roar. Hang on, transmission opponents, the monster is weakening and the future is coming!

We expect to be soon to market with a robust platform offering rooftop solar to homes and businesses and other forms of sustainable and clean generation that will offer our customers the ability to dramatically reduce their dependence on system power from the centralized grid.

I bet Michael Skelly wishes he'd thought of this back in 2009...

1 Comment

Transmission Siting Fatigue

3/24/2014

7 Comments

"Transmission siting fatigue." I ran across this rather apt phrase recently while poking through a FERC docket.

FERC defines "transmission siting fatigue" as:

Transmission siting fatigue is the idea that, after a transmission line is sited and permitted in an area, it will be significantly more difficult to get an additional transmission line sited and permitted in that same area.

Reasons for this were noted as:

Regulatory concerns - A state public utility commission will begin to look skeptically at multiple projects vying for permission to accomplish very similar goals.
Environmental concerns - Multiple new rights of way through environmentally sensitive areas are going to cause trouble with Big Green.
Urban areas - There's only so much open land available in urban areas. Having it all clogged up with multiple transmission lines means there may not be room for more!

Let's add to that list, shall we?

PEOPLE

Once an attempt is made to site a line through a community, the people get informed and organized and will oppose the transmission project. Siting a second project in the same community would likely rekindle this knowledge base and organization.

In the past, opposition groups would rise up when transmission was proposed. But after the immediate, personal threat to each individual was ameliorated, interest would fall away, and the momentum and assembled knowledge would be lost. This is why routing changes were often effective tools for transmission developers, because with each new route, new opponents would have to start all over again with the education and organization process. With each new route, the time available for the opposition becomes shorter, and, like a game of hot potato, someone finally ends up with the transmission line on their land.

But that was then, this is now.

Because of "transmission siting fatigue" and today's quick and easy sharing of information via the internet, transmission opposition no longer has to re-invent the wheel each time a transmission route threatens. "NIMBY" is no longer part of the game and opponents from many different projects have joined forces against their common enemy.

The growing transmission opposition knowledge base can easily be accessed to jump start new opposition groups, and effective opposition strategies can be quickly passed from one group to the next. Nothing draws kindred souls together like the threat of eminent domain and new transmission rights of way. Opposition is a brotherhood, a private club, a state of mind that outsiders don't understand. We are one cohesive unit.

Transmission siting fatigue is everywhere and can no longer be avoided. It's here to stay!

7 Comments

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Hears FERC Order No. 1000 Arguments

3/22/2014

1 Comment

Opponents of FERC's Order No. 1000 made oral arguments before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last Thursday.

Order No. 1000 requires interregional transmission planning and broad cost allocation, introduces competition to build transmission, and mandates "consideration" of state renewable energy goals to allow regional planning authorities to interpret and decide how such goals may be accomplished with long distance transmission, instead of in-state resources. And they wonder why there's been a run on repeal of state RPS laws this year?

A few oral argument summaries have popped up online that seem to agree that the Court pretty much gave the authority and ROFR arguments the hand. Reporters also agreed that opponents' cost allocation arguments fared better.

Read the RTO Insider summary.

Read an E&E summary.

Cost arguments drone on about eliminating "free ridership" whereby some electric consumers may receive benefit from an interregional transmission project but not have to pay for it.

That same argument could be used for the "free ridership" of some electric consumers who receive benefit from new transmission lines but don't have to sacrifice their land, homes, businesses, and health for the "good" of others. There are a multitude of unrecognized "costs" of transmission that aren't monetary and cannot be sufficiently compensated by one-time right of way payments. But I don't think anyone bothered to stick up for sacrificial landowners at the D.C. Circuit.

Unless the Court reins in FERC's heavy-handed transmission exuberance, the arguments will continue. This will tie the matter up in the courts forever and result in nothing of substance getting built.

Utilities and groups also contend that FERC is infringing on states’ rights because several states already regulate transmission planning. FERC countered that the order would not interfere with state authority, and if the state vetoed a project, it wouldn’t be built.

States will continue to exercise their authority over siting and permitting, denying projects that provide no local benefits. And the feds will continue trying to usurp state authority through Secs. 1221 and 1222 of the Energy Policy Act. Isn't this where we've been stuck for years now?

When are the needs of consumers going to be considered? Consumers aren't buying the specious arguments that billions of dollars of new transmission provide benefit to them. In fact, more and more consumers are taking steps to check out of the grid and invest in their own onsite generators. Only then will these ridiculous and expensive arguments end. Meanwhile, fight on fellas.

You can listen to a recording of the 3-hour oral argument here, if someone's paying you gobs of money to stay awake and pretend you care (or if they're not, you can do it anyhow if you have a 3-hour supply of tasty alcohol on hand, and a twisted sense of humor).

1 Comment

<<Previous

Forward>>

Clean Line Gets Desperate

Introducing Halt The Powerlines

Rock Island Clean Line Could Lock Chicago Area Residents into Paying More for Dirty Energy

Clean Line Media Tour Fails in Missouri

The People Have Had Enough

New England's Transmission Feeding Frenzy

Landowner Accuses Grain Belt Express Clean Line Land Agents of Violating Code of Conduct

David Crane's Manifesto

Transmission Siting Fatigue

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Hears FERC Order No. 1000 Arguments

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