Awwww.... FirstEnergy had a bad year in 2016.

And I'm sure Chatty Chuck took a huge pay cut and stopped wasting the company's profits on football stadium signage, too.  Wait!  What?  That didn't happen?

Well, there always selling another antique coal-fired electric generating station to captive customers in West Virginia!  I'm pretty sure they're going to try that next as a way to position themselves properly with the credit rating agencies.  Because even though FirstEnergy's money problems were of their own making, they want West Virginians to bail them out.  Again.

And so that's what they did, issuing a narrow and completely opague Request for Proposals that could only be fulfilled by the sale of Pleasants to West Virginia regulated FirstEnergy subsidiaries Mon Power and Potomac Edison.  Once the transaction is completed, electric customers of the two local utilities will pay all the operational costs of the plant, along with a guaranteed profit.  That ought to cheer up the credit rating agencies, right?

Well, only if it happens.  Only if you allow it to happen.  What can you do?  Stay educated.  Stay tuned... 

The collapse of Clean Line Energy Partners has begun.  Although a long, screaming, fantastic flameout would tickle everyone's schadenfreude in a most delightful way, the death of Clean Line is more likely to look like this:

Now you see it, now you don't.  You simply wake up one morning and it's gone.  Snuck out of town in the middle of the night with its tail between its legs.

So, it looks like the company doesn't have enough "development" funds from its investors to continue running "full steam ahead" in Iowa.  The company was faced with filing very expensive exhibit material at the Iowa Utility Board, while its Illinois permit for the same project has been ordered void by a court.  It ended up being cheaper to withdraw its applications in Iowa.  If the company chooses to refile at a future date, it will  have to go through all the IUB requirements for a new application, such as landowner meetings in each county.  Although time consuming, and disastrous from a public relations standpoint, withdrawing was the cheaper of the two options in Iowa.

Cheaper.  Now all of a sudden Clean Line is concerned about costs?  Have they burned through $200M in "development funds" already?  Is the treasure chest getting a little low with no replenishment in sight?  Maybe that's because Clean Line has been using its "development" funds to pay for parts of its projects that should be financed.  Things like final engineering, environmental studies, purchase of rights of way, procurement of parts and labor, are all project costs, not development costs.  Development costs are the costs of obtaining a permit to build.  Once a permit is received, project costs begin.  Except Clean Line still has its cart before its horse and is funding project costs with development money.  Because it has no project financing.  Because it has no customers.

Wow!  How panicked are they in Houston right now?  Yesterday's press release on the Iowa withdrawal screams false bravado.

No, Clean Line will NOT be breaking ground on Plains & Eastern any time soon.  Landowners in Arkansas and Oklahoma have refused to grant Clean Line right of way across their property.  Clean Line does NOT have eminent domain authority.  The most it can do is to run crying to the U.S. Department of Energy and ask that DOE begin condemnation proceedings against landowners who refuse.  And guess what?  The DOE has already written in stone that it will only begin condemnation proceedings against any landowners AFTER Clean Line reaches certain milestones with its project.  First and foremost, Clean Line must have customers for its transmission capacity.  Clean Line must have a contracted revenue stream sufficient to support financing to build its project.  Clean Line has no customers.  Therefore, Clean Line won't be breaking any ground until it has customers.

And on top of that, there is a lawsuit against DOE pending in federal court that claims DOE exceeded its statutory authority and trampled on the due process rights of Arkansas citizens.  DOE is unlikely to move forward with this project until the matter is settled.

Clean Line is going nowhere fast.  There is no "need" to build thousands of miles of "clean" lines.  No transmission planner has determined a "need" for these lines, and the lines have no customers.  No customers, no need!

No "clean" line!

After a year of telling investment wonks that it was planning to sell another one of its unprofitable coal-fired power plants to one of its regulated affiliates, while telling everyone else it didn't need any new generation capacity, FirstEnergy gifted itself with a big ol' sack of serendipity last Friday.

FirstEnergy's Mon Power subsidiary issued a Request for Proposals to acquire 1,300 MW of generation capacity, and 100 MW of demand respone.

Serendipity!  The Pleasants power station that FirstEnergy's competitive generation affiliate wants to "sell" to Mon Power is exactly 1,300 MW!  It's like some divine power has spoken!

I'm not sure whose gift that 100 MW of demand response is supposed to be, but maybe it was designed to placate someone?  Demand response is an aggregated group of power customers who agree to cut their usage during periods of high demand in exchange for payments.  So, why not 1,300 MW of demand response and 100 MW of generation?  Why not 100 MW of demand response and a 1,300 MW power purchase agreement from an economical regional generation source?  Why must we buy the cow, when the milk is available cheaply at the market?

Anyhow, Mon Power also limited its RFP to resources in a small geographic area.  Serendipity!  Pleasants is located in that geographic area!

And after talking about this "sale" and the issuance of an RFP for months, Mon Power issues its RFP on December 16 and allows one week for eligible resources to "pre-qualify" to submit a bid later?  Be sure to get your pack of pre-qualifying paperwork in by close of business on December 23, or you won't be able to bid later and there will be no Merry Christmas for you!  Bah!  Humbug!

Seriously?  They expect everyone to believe they didn't issue this RFP so close to the holidays, with a ridiculously short lead time, in order to limit any competition with the company's own resources?  I'm sure FirstEnergy's Allegheny Energy Supply Company has its paperwork all ready to be submitted... the rest of you?  Yeah, you need to start from scratch.  Right now.

So, why should you care?  Because the last coal-fired power station that FirstEnergy "sold" to Mon Power has cost you more than $130 so far.  Each.  You've gifted FirstEnergy more than $160M, but they still want more.

FirstEnergy is in big financial trouble, and they want you to bail them out of their bad business decisions.

And they arrogantly thumb their nose at customers, competitors, and regulators alike with their serendipitous RFP.  They must think this is a funny game, but uncompetitive RFPs can get companies in lots and lots of trouble.

What can you do in the mean time?  Why don't you ask Mon Power a question, such as why their RFP is so ridiculously unfair?  Or ask if Scrooge helped them with their response dates?

FirstEnergy doesn't even care how bad they look.  I guess they think they have this in the bag.  Stay tuned, pitckfork wielders...

The Missouri Public Service Commission held four public hearings this week on Grain Belt Express' second application to build an enormous electric transmission line across Missouri that is intended to serve eastern states.  Four more hearings are scheduled for next week.

Dec. 13, 2016: Cameron, 12:00 p.m.*
Cameron Community Center, 915 Ashland Avenue
Dec. 13, 2016: Faucett, 6:00 p.m.
Mid-Buchanan High School, Multipurpose Room, 3221 SE Route H
Dec. 14, 2016: Polo, 12:00 p.m.*
Community Center at Stagecoach Park, 1010 Main Street
Dec. 14, 2016: Carrollton, 6:00 p.m.
Rupe Community Center, 710 Harvest Hills Drive

Landowners have filled the public venues, like they did during GBE's first run at the PSC.  Some have spoken quite eloquently about the detrimental effect the project will have on their land, their business, their heritage, and their life.  It doesn't have to be fancy, just heartfelt.  I encourage everyone to get up and let the Commissioners present know how this project will affect them.

Read many more landowner comments in news articles here and here.

In the second article, the pictures tell a story that the reporter failed to mention.  Notice the sea of Amish hats in the foreground?  That's right, these public hearings were well attended by the local Amish communities.  Several Amish folks spoke against the power line.  You might be thinking, "big deal," but it actually is a VERY big deal!  The Amish rarely involve themselves in what they consider "resistance" and "worldly things."  It is uncharacteristic for the Amish to participate in social protest, or to do anything other than "turn the other cheek" when they are threatened.  The fact that they came, and spoke, should take the PSC's breath away.

As expected, Grain Belt Express stepped up their game to deliver even more clueless advocates for their project than before.  The first day, they presented a bunch of students from St. Louis University.  FREE FOOD AND DRINK, and at a popular St. Louis brewery no less!  Do you all need me to buy you a drink in exchange for showing up and speaking your mind?  (Or really, my mind, because that's more apt.)  Pathetic!

So, what did these students, and their Sierra Club counterparts have to say for themselves?  They told the PSC that Grain Belt Express would shut down existing coal-fired power plants in Missouri and clean up the air.  Nothing could be further from the truth!!  I'm betting they didn't get a copy of Grain Belt's "contract" with Missouri municipalities to go with their free beer.  The "contract" also includes up to 50MW of transmission service from Missouri to Indiana, where the line is proposed to connect with PJM Interconnection, the regional grid that serves the mid-Atlantic states.  What are Missouri municipalities planning to ship to Indiana?  Will they be re-selling their "clean" electricity to eastern cities?  Of course not!  They are creating an arbitrage opportunity whereby they may sell their own dirty, stinking generation (such as Prairie State) into PJM markets when price differentials are favorable.  This will create new markets for dirty Missouri generation and prolong the life of the coal-fired power plants that currently foul Missouri's air.  Without a "clean" line to open new markets for them, these plants would be forced to close when competing with regional renewables.  With a "clean" line, however, they can continue to belch their dirty exhaust into Missouri's air, and sell their output into expensive eastern markets for many years to come.  Silly beer-powered advocates!  If you'd spent more time actually researching the project, instead of simply repeating Clean Line's glitering generalities, you might actually take some action to clean up the air you breathe.

The same goes for the GBE advocates who simply accept and repeat the falsehood that GBE will save consumers money on electric rates, instead of spending just a moment to research the facts.  Where did this magical "savings" come from?  Did you ask?  It came from here:

That's right... it came from Clean Line's guesstimate of savings that it used to promote its transmission line to Missouri municipalities.  No cost study was ever performed!  There are no firm generation costs included in pricing, because Clean Line does not own or sell generation, and the wind farms in its guesstimate have not yet been built.  What's wrong with that?  Clean Line's guesstimate includes hypothetical pricing from wind farms that are eligible for the full production tax credit.  Those farms have not been built, and the tax credit begins phase out after December 31 of this year.  Even if the wind farms are eventually built, they will receive a reduced credit, and that means that their cost of generation will be increased by an amount at least equal to the foregone credit.  Any actual "savings" will be much less than the quoted $10M, and then split between more than 30 cities, and millions of customers.  How much could ratepayers save?  Pennies, perhaps, but it could also end up costing them even more in the long run.  It's so hypothetical, nobody knows!

And those Clean Line advocates from economic development and chamber of commerce offices?  They believe they will be showered with tax payments and jobs.  Reality will be far different, and not equal to the cost of hosting the line and a few temporary, low-wage jobs.  They're in it because they think they smell a big payday.

Which leads us to the another kind of advocate -- companies who think they will be awarded contracts for supplies and labor.  They support the project simply to fill their own pockets.

A landowner at one of the hearings observed that many of the Clean Line advocates left the hearing as soon as they had spoken.  They have no skin in the game.  Those sincerely interested in the project stayed through the entire hearing... those were the landowners.

And as far as the handful of landowners who have popped up to support GBE, isn't it funny that they all touted the same fictional "$10M savings"?  It's almost as if their comments and Letters to the Editor were heavily edited by Clean Line.  I wonder if that cost extra, aside from any easement payments made to date?  Greed can make some folks do despicable things.  At any rate, they are soundly outnumbered, hundreds to one.

So, week one of public hearings have come and gone.  Score one for the landowners, who won the moment by simply showing up and being genuine!  Bravo!

Numerous agricultural associations and business groups across the state have recently expressed strong opposition to Grain Belt Express, a high-voltage electric line proposed to plow through northern Missouri on its way to the east coast.
 
In a recent editorial, Missouri Farm Bureau president Blake Hurst said, “Grain Belt Express has promised a series of steps it says will protect landowners, bragging that landowners will receive 32 million dollars in total compensation.   However, the landowner compensation anticipated from Clean Line is predicated on the use of eminent domain, which means that individual landowners will have absolutely no bargaining power.   Also the idea of promising energy savings to a few, but politically-influential, municipalities so Clean Line can then trample on the rights of others, is a precedent that is distasteful if not downright frightening.”
 
Mike Deering of the Missouri Cattlemen's Association (MCA) said his organization stands firmly behind the protection of private property rights.  “The actions to-date of Clean Line Energy are best characterized as a pervasive invasion of private property rights. MCA fully supports the efforts of Block Grain Belt Express-Missouri to protect landowner rights and opposes Grain Belt Express Clean Line's application to the MO PSC,” Deering stated. 
 
Other agricultural groups opposed to the project include Missouri Corn Growers, Missouri Sheep Producers, and Sydenstricker Implement, one of the largest John Deere businesses in the state.
 
Owner Eddie Sydenstricker, whose business has been serving the Missouri agricultural community for more than 70 years, supports agriculture and landowner rights, and opposes a private-for-profit company obtaining the power of eminent domain.
 
“I believe Grain Belt Express' massive high-voltage DC transmission line will not only violate property rights, but will reduce property value far beyond any token compensation, spoil our rural landscape, create obstacles in fields for our agricultural producers resulting in reduced productivity and increased costs, and it will also limit future options for farms and cause the potential for adverse health risks for residents and their livestock,” said Sydenstricker.
 
Also expressing opposition to the project were several Missouri lawmakers, including 40th District Representative Jim Hansen.
 
"I hope the Public Service Commission can continue to stand with Missouri citizens and their property rights. They voted in support of Missourians the first time around and I hope they will the second time. As a strong supporter of agriculture, which is the key industry in my district, I oppose the efforts of Clean Line Energy, the Grain Belt Express project, and their efforts to obtain eminent domain. I feel it is not right to put the interests of an out-of-state company ahead of Missourians' private property rights. Going forward, I will continue to do all that I can to preserve landowner rights and ensure that the Public Service Commission does not grant Clean Line a certificate of convenience," said Hansen.
 
Eight Missouri county governments have formally withdrawn support of Grain Belt Express, including Caldwell, Clinton, Chariton, Monroe, Audrain, Pike, Marion and Ralls Counties.
 
Ralls County Commissioner Wiley Hibbard said, “The citizens of Ralls County oppose this mega power line.  It is, in my opinion, just an attempt by a small group of investors to make profits from the clean energy movement.  Please know that this is not the only way to get wind-generated power to Missouri or Ralls County.  We are receiving wind energy now. I think that anyone who wants to take our land by force to provide wind energy to the East Coast is just providing another example of the East Coast elitists telling us we do not matter!”
 
The Missouri Public Service Commission has scheduled public hearings in eight counties across the state beginning next week.
 
Jennifer Gatrel, spokeswoman for Block GBE-Missouri urged citizens concerned about this and other attacks on private property rights to attend.  “The PSC listened carefully to our concerns last time they denied this project,” she said, “It is very important that they hear our voices again.”
 
The public hearing schedule:
 
Dec. 7, 2016: Monroe City, Knights of Columbus Hall, 12:00 p.m.*
424 South Locust
Dec. 7, 2016: Hannibal, Theater Auditorium, 6:00 p.m.
Hannibal-LaGrange University, 2800 Palmyra Road
Dec. 8, 2016: Marceline, 12:00 p.m.*
Walsworth Community Center, 124 East Ritchie
Dec. 8, 2016: Moberly, 6:00 p.m.
Moberly Municipal Auditorium, 201 West Rollins
Dec. 13, 2016: Cameron, 12:00 p.m.*
Cameron Community Center, 915 Ashland Avenue
Dec. 13, 2016: Faucett, 6:00 p.m.
Mid-Buchanan High School, Multipurpose Room, 3221 SE Route H
Dec. 14, 2016: Polo, 12:00 p.m.*
Community Center at Stagecoach Park, 1010 Main Street
Dec. 14, 2016: Carrollton, 6:00 p.m.
Rupe Community Center, 710 Harvest Hills Drive
 
*In order to be able to move equipment to the next local public hearing that same day, 12:00 p.m. local public hearings will end no later than 4:00 p.m.
 
For more very important info please visit: http://blockgbemo.com/

Public hearings on Grain Belt Express' most recent application (its third) to the Missouri Public Service Commission are set to begin next week.  Another huge public turnout to oppose the plan is expected. 

None of Clean Line's smoke and mirrors about project "benefits" has any basis in fact or logic.

Clean Line's proposed "income" for landowners is a huge fabrication.  Any payments to landowners are a lame attempt at compensation for property taken from landowners through the courts.  In exchange for payments, landowners would be trading rights-of-way across their property.  Eminent domain law requires the taking entity to compensate landowners for the market value of property taken from them.  It is not additional "income."  Income would allow a landowner to gain something valuable while losing nothing.  The truth of the matter is that Grain Belt Express is proposing to make landowners whole for property taken from them.  It's a wash, not a gain.  It's no different than Walmart showing up at your house and cleaning out your pantry and freezer and then giving you "market value" for the goods it has confiscated.  Meanwhile, Walmart has your food and can sell it to others for a profit.  There are no benefits to landowners from construction of Grain Belt Express.

Clean Line's claims of increased tax revenue for counties crossed is another disingenuous glittering generality.  In essence, it is a proposal that economic development opportunity trumps your right to own and enjoy property.  Everyone's house would generate more tax revenue if it was a Walmart.  Economic development alone is not reason enough to trample on private property rights.  This is even more true when looked at through the public utility lens that Clean Line hides behind.  Public utilities have enjoyed eminent domain authority when a project is necessary to serve the public.  It's a high burden that a utility must carry to demonstrate that its project is necessary to serve the public.  Simply stating that if property is taken and a project built that a public need will develop, is not enough to carry this burden to take property in the first place.  Especially when the "utility" is Clean Line, who has no firm customers for its transmission line.  It's all based on future speculation, and that's not good enough.

Clean Line's claims of increased tax revenue also fail to calculate any detriments Grain Belt Express will bring to affected counties.  Properties crossed by electric transmission lines lose value.  This lowers the assessed value of affected properties and decreases property tax revenue to the county.  In addition, the burden of hosting the transmission line will cost the county in increased public safety expenses, both during the invasive construction of the project and for years afterwards when the counties must purchase equipment and supplies to prepare for any transmission line disaster that may happen in the future.  For example, substation fires require different types of equipment and special chemicals to fight.  Counties could spend their entire "windfalls" supporting Clean Line's infrastructure in their locality.

Clean Line's claims that its Grain Belt Express project will save Missourians $10M a year in energy costs is not based on fact.  Although Clean Line witnesses make this claim in testimony to the PSC, there is nothing to back it up.  No analysis, no numbers.  Based on documents made public months ago, the $10M claim was concocted by Clean Line when it attempted to sell its capacity to Missouri municipalities.

Preliminary calculations?  Clean Line's calculations, which have yet to be revealed to the public.  "Assuming existing production tax credits" assumes too much.  At the end of this year, the production tax credit will begin phase out and the subsidy for wind energy will be cut 20%.  The following year it will be cut 40%.  The next year it will be cut 60%, eventually disappearing altogether within 5 years.  Couple this with our friend Bob from the Hannibal BPW's recent statements that he has yet to contract for any wind energy to serve the City of Hannibal.  That's because the generators Clean Line says will develop to use its project haven't been constructed yet.  The only thing Missouri municipal utilities have tentatively contracted for with Clean Line is transmission capacity, not energy.  Energy must be purchased separately, and come from the specific geographic area close to Clean Line's proposed converter station in southwest Kansas.  It's not about purchasing the cheapest wind energy available in today's market, it's about speculation with unbuilt generators to supply energy via an unbuilt transmission line.  Too many variables to accurately calculate any cost savings to Missouri, since Clean Line cannot and does not sell any energy proposed to be transmitted to Missouri via its project.  How was this $10M "savings" calculated when there are no energy prices to work with?  Sort of looks like Clean Line simply made it up out of hypothetical numbers presented in a light most favorable to Clean Line.  But, hey, at least the Missouri municipalities have the option to back out of their "contract" with Clean Line at any time in the future and purchase nothing.  If cities sit around waiting for Clean Line to ship them energy from generators that don't exist, at prices that have no basis in reality, then the cities may get stuck paying much higher prices to procure energy down the road if nothing develops and they're left without enough resources to serve customers.  Coulda, woulda, shoulda... by law, utilities are required to have adequate resources under contract, not base their future service on hypotheticals.

And simply parading a collection of politicians and business interests who stand to personally profit from the construction of the project isn't support based on fact and logic.  It's based on money, pure and simple.

True grassroots opinion based on fact and logic cannot be bought.  True grassroots opposition will drown out expensive, manufactured "support" and will carry the day at the upcoming public hearings.  Won't you lend your voice?

The public hearing schedule:
 
Dec. 7, 2016: Monroe City
Knights of Columbus Hall, 424 South Locust
The local public hearing will begin at 12:00 p.m.*

Dec. 7, 2016: Hannibal
Theater Auditorium, Hannibal-LaGrange University, 2800 Palmyra Road
The local public hearing will begin at 6:00 p.m

Dec. 8, 2016: Marceline
Walsworth Community Center, 124 East Ritchie
The local public hearing will begin at 12:00 p.m.*

Dec. 8, 2016: Moberly
Moberly Municipal Auditorium, 201 West Rollins
The local public hearing will begin at 6:00 p.m.

Dec. 13, 2016: Cameron
Cameron Community Center, 915 Ashland Avenue
The local public hearing will begin at 12:00 p.m.*

Dec. 13, 2016: Faucett
Mid-Buchanan High School, Multipurpose Room, 3221 SE Route H
The local public hearing will begin at 6:00 p.m.

Dec. 14, 2016: Polo
Community Center at Stagecoach Park, 1010 Main Street
The local public hearing will begin at 12:00 p.m.*

Dec. 14, 2016: Carrollton
Rupe Community Center, 710 Harvest Hills Drive
The local public hearing will begin at 6:00 p.m.
 
*In order to be able to move equipment to the next local public hearing that same day, 12:00 p.m. local public hearings will end no later than 4:00 p.m.
 
For more very important info. please visit Block GBE-MO.

Arkansas Business reports this morning that Clean Line "preferred vendor" General Cable is likely to shut its doors before it actually manufactures any cable for the long-delayed project.

Being a "preferred vendor" didn't help General Cable.  Being a "preferred vendor" isn't useful on a project proposed by a company with no financing, no revenue, and no customers.  It's pie in the sky empty promises, and any company whose financial success depends on "contracts" with Clean Line is probably in big trouble.  This may be just the tip of the iceberg.

Clean Line got a huge kick in the jimmies last week when wind turbine-hating Donald Trump was elected President.  The company's business plan depended on eastern utilities being forced to add huge amounts of renewables to their portfolios that could only be supplied by big Midwestern wind and new transmission lines.  First it was a federal carbon tax, which never came to fruition.  Then it was state renewable portfolio standards, which ended up favoring local resources, instead of long-distance imports.  Then it was the EPA's Clean Power Plan, currently tied up in the courts and not expected to survive.  There's no incentive for eastern utilities to buy huge amounts of new transmission capacity to import hypothetical renewables thousands of miles, and it's not looking like customer interest in a "Clean Line" is going to rebound during a Trump administration.  If you think Clean Line struggled to find customers over the past 8 years, its future is even more grim now.

Despite the initial threat of mass public temper tantrums, which has now morphed into false bravado, big wind is in serious trouble.  Do they think that just saying they're already too committed to their grandiose plan to stop now is going to make a difference?  And, hey, how about those current claims that big wind is so economic that they don't even need the subsidies they think they have locked down for the next 4 years?  If big wind is so economic, I challenge them to stop taking the handouts they obviously don't need, which is estimated to cost the U.S. taxpayers $14.5B through 2025.  To add insult to injury, most of this taxpayer largesse is funneled out of the country to foreign wind companies.  On a state level, wind incentives cost state taxpayers millions to lower the cost of power that is shipped out of  state and provides absolutely no benefit to state residents.  In fact, shipping more power out of an export state causes power prices in the state to rise.  It's simple supply and demand.  Oklahoma seems to be on the brink of cutting this huge drain on its taxpayers.  Other states may soon follow suit, and add repeal or reform of renewable portfolio standards to legislative goals.  The Trump phenomenon caused plenty of Republican trickle down into state legislatures and change is pretty much guaranteed.

Policy moves with the speed of a glacier in Washington, DC.  It's taken 8 years for the present administration to greenwash big wind into existence.  Over the next 4 years, the new administration is going to systematically dismantle and cripple it because it can't perform without subsidies and favorably biased policy.  Big wind probably won't survive because economics and better ideas will remake our energy future in the short term.  The void must be filled, and progress waits for no man.  Midwest wind powering the entire country was never a good idea and it's doubtful it can sustain itself during this period of uncertainty.  Right now, we're all in a holding pattern, waiting to see what happens, and utilities are no different.  But they will adapt and quickly find new ways to tweak policy to complement their bottom lines, without big wind.

Adaptation probably won't include paying a premium for new transmission lines.  Factually baseless, bogus claims of big wind front groups and their sycophants cannot stop the inevitable.

These big city sycophants are only kidding themselves if they think that "recommendation" insures Clean Line will survive.  Clean Line is the antithesis of the stated goal.  It's not economic and it is not efficient new technology.  The U.S. Department of Energy's goals will change considerably under new leadership, putting its Sec. 1222 ad hoc "program" in jeopardy. What has been a corrupt process under the current administration is not "virtually irreversible." I hope lying to themselves about where Clean Line is headed provides the safe space they need for their cry-in.  The reality of Clean Line is that it is also "enjoying" strong opposition from Republican policymakers in "red" states, such as Arkansas.  Even in Oklahoma, where the Governor has previously been supportive, continued financial support for wind exports is on the chopping block. 

The globalization of America has come to a screeching halt.  Only one company in the mentioned "Partnership" is an American company, and it only supports big wind if it can make some big bucks building and owning its own little cash cow wind projects.  There's no room in there for Clean Line Energy Partners.  Maybe they should start courting the other foreign "partners" and move their operations overseas?

They're dead here.  Middle America is tired of having its fate dictated by greedy foreign corporations and their elite policy wonks in Washington, DC.

Damn right.

Building new transmission is hard.  Building new transmission in urban areas is really hard.  Building new transmission will always foment opposition of some kind.  When the proposal affects urban areas, opposition will be loud, widespread, and fierce simply due to the number of people affected and the lack of space to construct new infrastructure in an already crowded landscape.

I came across an article recently that provides an opportunity to compare and contrast the actions of two different utilities attempting to build new transmission capacity for short distances in urban areas.

Dominion needs to build new capacity in the City of Alexandria, Virginia.  In preparation, it convened a "resident-led work group" and involved city officials in coming up with a plan that was least objectionable to the city and residents.  By doing this, the affected individuals were allowed to "buy in" to a solution that they felt they had some control over.  By giving the affected community a (real or imagined) voice in selecting a solution, opposition was ameliorated.

It probably bears mentioning that the Dominion proposals included underground options.

Underground proposals rarely gather the same kind of fierce opposition as overhead proposals.  So, good for you, Dominion, for being flexible enough to compromise in order to realize the goals of the project, and not stubbornly insisting on a configuration the community would reject.

Now, let's compare this to FirstEnergy's current kerfuffle in New Jersey.  FE affiliate Jersey Central Power & Light (JCP&L) wants to build a 10-mile transmission upgrade in urban Monmouth County, NJ.  And they want to do it overhead, along a commuter train right-of-way.  FirstEnergy has not consulted with the community, but is insisting on building the project to its own specifications.  Opposition has been huge, swift, and fierce.  Community opponents number in the thousands.  Legislators have gotten involved.  And opposition to this particular transmission proposal has leaked over into FirstEnergy's proposal for a transmission only utility spin-off in the state.  What a mess FirstEnergy has made of this project and its community goodwill.  There's no going back from this.

By refusing to take community suggestion, and insisting that it cannot bury the project along the train right-of-way (although Dominion seems to be able to do just that in Virginia), FirstEnergy has done nothing but encourage opposition to dig in its heels and spread like wildfire.  The MCRP will never be built as currently envisioned by JCP&L.  FirstEnergy cannot bully or buy its way to community support for MCRP.

It's time for some new thinking at FirstEnergy's transmission headquarters.  In days gone by, it was accepted practice for a transmission utility to simply buy enough community support to get a project approved despite community opposition.  A utility never had to compromise when it could buy enough support to fool regulators and provide "political cover" for elected officials to claim that the community at large supported the proposal.  A utility simply presented its planned project as a fait accompli and ignored any community opposition.  The times, they are a changing.

Dominion has accepted that there is a better way to get transmission built without widespread community opposition that delays projects and increases their cost unnecessarily.  FirstEnergy is still banging its corporate head against a brick wall, refusing to change, and causing delays and unnecessary costs for projects it does manage to get approved through third-party advocacy.

There is a better way.  And it works.  If FirstEnergy wasn't so mismanaged, it would clean house in its transmission department and restock it with folks from Dominion.

That's according to a recent report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA).

Back in 2013, FirstEnergy, parent company of West Virginia distribution electric utilities Mon Power and Potomac Edison, came up with a bright idea to sell the Harrison Power Station to itself in order to raise cash to shore up its sagging balance sheet.  The plant was originally owned by FirstEnergy's competitive electricity supply company, Allegheny Energy Supply.  When owned by Allegheny Energy Supply, the plant was required to cover its own operating costs and make any profits by selling electricity into regional markets at a cost higher than its costs to produce the power.  However, market prices for electricity began falling due to the glut of cheaper gas-fired generators, making it harder and harder for Harrison to compete and turn a profit.  FirstEnergy proposed that Allegheny Energy Supply "sell" the plant to its West Virginia distribution affiliates at a jacked up price.  Once Mon Power and Potomac Edison owned the plant, their ratepayers would cover the cost of operating the plant, with electricity sold to the power market at going rates.  Except the going rate for power not only didn't produce any profit for the company's ratepayers, it didn't even cover its own operating costs.  Therefore, ratepayers of Mon Power and Potomac Edison have been subsidizing the cost of operating the plant at a loss since 2013.  The IEEFA estimates that the bill for ratepayers has climbed to $164 million.  That equals roughly $130 in extra electric bill charges for every customer of Mon Power and Potomac Edison, paid to cover the losses of operating the Harrison Power Station.

The IEEFA calculated the costs by using monthly reports of operating costs and market prices submitted to the Public Service Commission since 2013.  The IEEFA report reveals that the plant has produced a net cost (not benefit) to ratepayers for 28 out of 33 months.  And future prospects for the plant turning a profit remain dim.

FirstEnergy "still believes the plant is still a good deal for customers in West Virginia."

No word on whether Meyers still believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy as well, but I recently bumped into a leprechaun riding a unicorn and he told me that he does.

What are customers of Mon Power and Potomac Edison paying for?  Are they paying for the electricity they use, or are they paying to subsidize the coal industry?  Or are they instead simply subsidizing FirstEnergy's quarterly dividends paid to shareholders?

And guess what?  FirstEnergy has recently proposed selling ANOTHER of its competitive coal plants to Mon Power and Potomac Edison, citing the "model" of Harrison as the basis for another "good deal for customers in West Virginia."  We can't afford another one of FirstEnergy's "good deals!"

Heads up, West Virginians, we're going to need all hands on deck to stop this one!

So, this happened yesterday.

In response, Clean Line says:

Full steam ahead?  Did you call up Ernie on your special "Coordination Committee" Hotline last night to get that comment approved, Mario?  Because Clean Line can't drive this train all by itself.

But Mario made a comment anyhow, so let's see what desperation looks like.

"...a Clean Line executive reiterated the company’s ongoing refrain that the Houston-based venture group has already invested nearly $100 million of private capital to develop the project..."

Since the complaint specifically states that DOE "violated Plaintiffs' and the public's due process rights," are you saying that your investors $100 million is more important than due process rights?  It sure sounds like it.  In fact, it sounds like you think rich people are more entitled to get a return on their investment than regular people are to the right to due process under the law.  That's pretty disgusting.  And un-American.

Your blather about jobs and taxes also doesn't dispense with the people's right to due process.  Are you saying that you can break the law as long as you create a few jobs and pay some taxes?  And another thing... jobs and taxes are not a basis for eminent domain.  If that were the case, I'm sure YOUR house would provide more jobs and pay more taxes if it were a Walmart.  How would you like that, Mario?

“It’s no secret that the United States suffers from an infrastructure deficit..."  What?  What infrastructure deficit?  I haven't seen any identified infrastructure deficit that requires thousands of miles of HVDC transmission to be solved.  Sounds like you're making crap up.  In fact, plenty of infrastructure is being built.  It's just not infrastructure that puts a buck in Mario's pocket.  Clean Line is not the be all and end all for keeping the lights on.  It's not part of any grid plan.

"...it is not uncommon to see legal complaints filed against the most important infrastructure projects..."  No, it's just common to see them filed against destructive and unnecessary projects.  A legal complaint does not make an infrastructure project "important" any more than being charged with a crime makes the crime "important."  I guess Mario thinks this legal complaint makes him and his project "important."  *sigh*

“In order to modernize the grid, enable the delivery of low-cost energy, create new jobs and enhance our energy security, the private and public sectors must come together to bring new infrastructure projects to fruition.”  Clean Line isn't "modernizing the grid."  Clean Line is creating a separate grid operated solely for corporate profit  that only serves people who can afford to pay for it.  As well, Clean Line cannot guarantee "low cost energy."  Clean Line has no role in the price of energy that could be transmitted over its line, and none of the proposed generators currently exist.  You cannot price a commodity that doesn't exist and that you do not control.  Enhance our energy security?  What kind of jargon is that?  Did Mario think that sounded good?  How would a 700 mile transmission line "enhance energy security?"  The most secure energy system is one where generation and load are located at the same place.  A transmission line adds insecurity to that system because it's just one more piece that may fail.

"The Plains & Eastern Clean Line is a pro-jobs, pro-consumer, pro-environment public energy infrastructure project..."  Oh, puhleeze.  If you say that enough times, will you start to believe it?  Jobs, consumer prices, and the environment is not an excuse to do away with due process.

It's not a political or policy argument at this point.  Judges don't make policy.  They interpret the law.

So, do enjoy your ride on the crazy train, Mario.  While it lasts.