Category:

Grain Belt Express Wants MO PSC to Toll its Application

6/13/2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 Comments

Citizens' Groups Accuse Puget Sound Energy of Violating FERC Order 1000

6/10/2015

2 Comments

Yesterday, The Coalition of Eastside Neighborhoods for Sensible Energy and Citizens for a Sane Eastside Energy, et al, filed a complaint at FERC against Washington State utilities Puget Sound Energy, Seattle City Light, Bonneville Power Administration and ColumbiaGrid. The complaint alleges that the utilities violated the Federal Power Act, FERC Orders No. 1000, 890 and 2000, and contractual obligations that the respondents made with the Commission that incorporate the referenced Orders, as well as the terms of their respective Open Access Transmission Tariffs.

Whew! That's a mouthful, huh? In plain English, it looks like the complainants are accusing Puget Sound Energy of trying to permit and build a transmission project that was not developed in a plan by an independent grid operator (or a reasonable facsimile, since the Northwest doesn't have a traditional RTO/ISO).

ColumbiaGrid is supposed to be taking the place of a RTO for all the named respondent utilities, and according to the complaint, the utilities promised FERC that ColumbiaGrid would serve in a role to make the area Order 1000-compliant.

The complaint alleges that Puget Sound Energy developed its "Energize Eastside" project without proper load flow studies, no study of alternatives, no RFP to evaluate alternate proposals, and that ColumbiaGrid is an entity controlled by its member utilities, including Puget Sound Energy, and does not meet independence requirements for RTOs.

The complaint also alleges that the project is not the "local load flow" project it claims to be (to escape FERC jurisdiction) but also includes a new 1500MW transmission path to Canada that fulfills a decades-old agreement about shared hydro resources. The addition of the Canadian firm capacity also elevates the project to one that should be regionally allocated, and not charged 100% to local load in the Eastside neighborhoods, as Puget Sound Energy is attempting to do.

Sounds complicated, but the affidavit of J. Richard Lauckhart is a great read to get an easy handle on the problem here. These guys really did their homework on FERC process and policies, and provided evidence in the form of expert testimony. Well done!

Looking forward to seeing where this leads...

2 Comments

Why Do They Always Act So Surprised?

6/10/2015

0 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We happened, you dolts!

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

0 Comments

Dollars and Sense

6/3/2015

1 Comment

Has Clean Line finally reached its financial tipping point?

I'm sure the initial estimate of development costs for the company's first three transmission line projects (Plains & Eastern, Rock Island and Grain Belt Express) has long since fallen to the wayside. So far though, Clean Line has been able to sweet talk its investors into injecting more cash when the company runs into trouble and out of money. But, at some point, these investors are going to have to slap the checkbook shut, cut their losses and move on. It's not like they're stupid or something, is it?

Clean Line's projects just keep running into more and more trouble. Instead of moving forward, they're moving in reverse.

For example, take yesterday's indication from the Missouri Public Service Commission that it will deny GBE's application. How much money was spent on that application process in Missouri? Millions were wasted. GBE's angry response was to threaten to revive their parked application for federal eminent domain under Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act.

How much is that going to cost? Many millions more! Another 1222 application is going to very costly, in both time and money. It's going to add several years to the permitting process and Clean Line is going to pay every penny of the federal government's cost to process the application, including a multi-million dollar NEPA environmental impact statement process. And still, there's no guarantee. In fact Clean Line could get several million into this process with Grain Belt Express, only to receive a denial of its other Section 1222 application currently in process on its Plains & Eastern project. Such a denial would make continuing with Grain Belt's 1222 application a moot point, but the money will have already been spent.

And then what's Clean Line going to do? Spend millions lobbying Congress to try to pass legislation giving the federal government the authority to usurp state authority to site and permit transmission? It's not that easy. It's been tried again and again over the years and has been nothing but an expensive failure. Another dead end.

Meanwhile, Clean Line has begun the application process for its Grain Belt project at the Illinois Commerce Commission. Silly Grain Belt has applied under the "expedited" review rule. This means that the multi-million dollar Illinois permitting process is all going to come due and payable in the next several months (unless GBE gets lucky and the ICC dismisses their application because they're not a public utility). And what good is an Illinois certificate without a Missouri certificate? Illinois certificates expire two years from the date of issue. There's just no way Grain Belt will have completed the Section 1222 process to overrule Missouri's denial before the Illinois certificate expires.

None of the other Clean Line projects are in any better shape. Rock Island does not have eminent domain authority in Illinois, and the Iowa portion is slogging along the slow track. New legislation in Iowa could completely derail the project before the IUB even acts.

Plains & Eastern is getting its clock cleaned in the Section 1222 process. The U.S. DOE has completely mucked up the entire process by failing to perform its review in a legal and transparent manner.

It's becoming more and more obvious that these projects are NEVER going to happen. It's time to quit giving money to these clowns and collapse the big top they've been performing under.

Clean Line no longer makes financial sense.

1 Comment

Grain Belt Express DENIED by MO PSC

6/2/2015

6 Comments

If Clean Line was a game of poker, the players would have found out today that a "signaled" denial from the PSC trumps a "pocket" approval from the legislature in Missouri.

In a 3-2 discussion and vote, the Missouri Public Service Commission DENIED Clean Line's application for its Grain Belt Express project this morning!

Some commissioners expressed concern Tuesday that it would be a more expensive form of energy. Commissioner Bill Kenney, who said he plans to vote against construction, cast doubts on the economic impact it would have in the state.

“I do not see the benefit to Missourians,” Kenney said.

A tremendous outpouring of citizen opposition, and coordinated, smart public pressure wins this one for Missouri! Based on the Commissioner's comments at the agenda session this morning, the thousands of people who submitted comments to the PSC's website, and testified at the public hearings, definitely played a part in the outcome. The opposition was richly rewarded for their hard work.

“We’re thrilled,” said Jennifer Gatrel, who heads the group Block Grain Belt Express. “We think this is a great win for representative democracy, grass-roots activism and landowner rights.”

And what did Clean Line do? It threatened Missouri with Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act. Clean Line has already tried to deploy Section 1222 on its Plains & Eastern project. Section 1222 requires a multi-year environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will be wildly expensive for the company. Do you suppose the investors have an appetite for that while the company is currently getting fierce opposition from business interests, congressmen, state legislatures, Southwestern Power Authority customers, the Cherokee Nation, and the Oklahoma Attorney General? Nobody likes this project unless it stands to profit from it in some way, or has been duped to think that Section 1222 is about "clean energy," instead of eminent domain. The Section 1222 review isn't going so well. Maybe the investors should close the checkbook until after they see what happens with Plains & Eastern before investing in a 1222 process for Grain Belt? Why put all your investment eggs in the same flimsy basket? It's time to put Grain Belt on a shelf for now, right next to the Rock Island project.

If the PSC does reject the project, Lawlor said Clean Line won’t give up. It could pursue federal eminent domain authority through the Energy Department, an approach it is pursuing in Arkansas after the state declined to approve another of its routes.

And then Lawlor starts whining like a little boy whose lollipop just got stolen:

The issue is bigger than Missouri or the Grain Belt project in particular, said Mark Lawlor, Clean Line’s director of development. The country is trying to figure out how to reduce carbon pollution linked to climate change under new federal regulations, which many say will require a large buildout of transmission infrastructure.

“How do we get stuff built?” Lawlor said. “If the ‘no’ was because people didn’t like it, landowners didn’t like it, then how are we going to build transmission? It kind of goes beyond this one project.”

“These projects are too valuable and too much in demand (to walk away from),” Lawlor said. “We remain confident in their value and we’ll look at everything we can.”

Oh for goodness sake, dry your eyes and get over yourself! Clean Line is not the only, and certainly not the smartest or quickest, way to reduce carbon pollution. Energy efficiency costs nothing and requires no new rights of way. Try it, Waldo!

"We" don't get stuff built.... Clean Line is not part of the "we" of real transmission developers. Clean Line wanted no part of the regional planning process the rest of the industry participates in, remember? You're not going to be building anything, Mark Lawlor... because the landowners said "no." It's just that simple! I guess you should have spent more time trying to develop relationships with landowners, and less time schmoozing it up with the legislature, right?

But it does go "beyond this one project." Clean Line has awoken the sleeping giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve. Grassroots opposition has perfected the art of stopping useless transmission projects like Clean Line, and as we move forward more transmission projects are going to fail.

There's no demand for Clean Line's projects. No utilities have expressed interest in buying imported wind (because that 50mw from the Texas co-op can only be considered a joke).

Clean Line isn't very valuable though. I wouldn't give a tinker's damn for it. Unfortunately, Clean Line has pissed away around $140M of its super-rich investors' money on it. No wonder Lawlor can't walk away. He's tied to this wheel-less wagon and being whipped like a rented mule.

CONGRATULATIONS, MISSOURI!

Job well done!

6 Comments

Clean Line Prepares to Pull Congressional Pork

5/27/2015

10 Comments

Looks like Clean Line Energy Partners has given up hope of getting the state utility commission approvals it needs to build its Rock Island Clean Line, Grain Belt Express Clean Line and Plains & Eastern Clean Line.

And why do you suppose Clean Line no longer cares whether or not your state utility commissions find that the Clean Line projects are "needed" and beneficial to the citizens of each state?

Because Clean Line has now decided that it MUST have federal eminent domain authority to site its projects. No more making nice with the states, Clean Line wants the federal government to condemn your property so that Clean Line can commandeer it to host its massive transmission line.

Just last week, Clean Line Energy Partners Vice President Hans Detweiler submitted a Congressional lobbying registration form to lobby on behalf of Clean Line.

Detweiler's specific lobbying issues, according to the registration:

Federal legislation related to the use of federal eminent domain for energy delivery

Hans, you really are an

Nice touch about the "foreign entity" that owns more than 20% of the registrant, you know, National Grid. How can they pretend that Clean Line is about increasing America's energy independence? It's actually about sending America's energy dollars overseas to foreign investors!

Seems like our widdle Hansy-poo hasn't heard that S1017 is much too controversial to stand a chance of being included in Murkowski's omnibus energy bill. But maybe he can pull some pork, along with a couple Senatorial legs, at the next Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee meeting? Maybe a bouncy house? Pony rides? Balloon animals?

However, sandwiches and cheap amusements are going to be quickly forgotten in the face of the combined outrage of voters and state officials if the feds show up to take private property for a foreign corporation's profit. Bundy Ranch, on steroids.

Proceed to your battle stations, Mayberry!

10 Comments

CFRA Wants To Revolutionize Transmission Land Acquisition

5/21/2015

3 Comments

Some people will do anything for a little grant money!

Despite being soundly (and loudly!) rejected by groups representing the interests of thousands of landowners impacted by proposed transmission projects across the Midwest last year, the Center for Rural Affairs is back with another report that it claims will "creat[e] procedural and cost efficiencies, as well as promot[e] due process rights."

CFRA does not represent landowners, and has made absolutely no attempt to involve landowners in any of its reports. There are plenty of active transmission opposition landowner groups, however CFRA created another report recommending what it sees as "good" for landowners in complete isolation. It's silly, it's uninformed, it's not good for landowners. It's simply the environmental 1% telling the rest of America what to do and how to sacrifice their property to the Gods of Big Green.

The newest report was written by a young law student on a fellowship who has probably never owned property and recommends that landowners be subject to a new form of forced pooling, the "Transmission Corridor District." Under the concept of forced pooling, landowners can be forced to give up certain rights to their land if their neighbors want to sell. That's right... under the TCD, you can be forced into a group of landowners whose only purpose is to sell transmission rights of way across their land (and yours). You may not "opt out" of this forced pool -- either cooperate or you're getting their version of "fair market value" for your property. It's a fait accompli that you will sell your land for a proposed transmission project.

It also suggests that state PSCs take on the responsibility of assembling and administrating these districts. Tell me, who is going to pay for that? And what changes need to be made to the laws of each state to make it happen? And then there's this:

Landowners, a developer, or a governmental entity could initiate a TCD proceeding. The initiating party approaches the planning agency to determine if the transmission line promotes reliability, economic development, or public policy (e.g., a renewable energy portfolio standard). In this initial discussion with the planning agency, the initiating entity proposes a study area for the transmission corridor to the planning agency. Alternatively, the planning agency could determine that there is a need for a transmission project and initiate the TCD proceeding on its own.
For TCD proceedings, the planning agency would likely be a public utility commission (PUC). This is necessary because the placement and construction of power lines is almost always under the purview of the states, which then designate siting and approval responsibilities to the PUC or state equivalent. Alternatively, the planning agency could be a federal or regional entity to promote interstate development.
Upon approval from the planning agency, the initiating party and planning agency work together to educate the potentially affected
members of the public about the benefits and negative effects of the proposed project.

Planning agency, eh? Who do you think "plans" transmission projects? It's not the state PUCs. It's a regional transmission organization, or other utility-run group. What do a group of landowners know about planning transmission? Where are they supposed to get the "plan" they initially bring to "the planning agency?" Transmission projects are born at "the planning agency," not from landowners who want to make some money selling transmission rights-of-way that don't coincide with a project that "the planning agency" determines is needed for reliability, economic or public policy purposes. Alternatively, CFRA thinks "the planning agency" could initiate and administer the TCD proceeding. Again... who's going to pay for this, and what authority does "the planning agency" have to force landowners into groups, or pools? There's no logic here.

Each transmission project is geographically unique. Who does CFRA think is going to bid on these constructed land corridors when only one transmission developer is interested in the area for a specific project? One bidder does not create a fair market.

Further demonstration of the author's complete misunderstanding of transmission planning:

Additionally, FERC Orders 890 and 1000 encourage robust public participation. The orders accomplish this by requiring transmission planners to seek comment from customers and stakeholders in regional planning. Though the orders are silent in the context of assembling land for specific transmission lines, the wisdom of the orders should be applied to individual projects.

What? CFRA thinks that regional planning "stakeholders" include the public? While "the public" is certainly welcome at any planning meeting, "the public" doesn't have a vote when it comes to selecting plans. That's not what FERC meant, silly! Like FERC is going to issue orders based on the mistaken interpretation of its policies by some law student? Get real, CFRA!

He also makes the accusation that "the current eminent domain framework seems to violate Order 1000." Hahahahaaa!

CFRA's report also recommends that interstate cooperation create uniform state siting and condemnation laws... and herd cats. It also contends that forced pooling of landowners ameliorates opposition, and saves time and money. If CFRA thinks there's a problem with transmission opposition from landowners now, it ain't seen nothing yet! The surest way to delay something is to add additional layers of administrative process and a new legal framework that hasn't been tested in the courts. The report also recommends a robust public participation process just like the one transmission developers have been using for years, like it's some novel idea. Maybe the author needs to step inside a real transmission project, instead of an artificial, self-aggrandizing, media version of "public participation." Landowners are not satisfied with this model and it does not ameliorate opposition. It actually creates opposition by helping landowners to meet and organize.

In conclusion, CFRA's latest "report" is a worthless piece of busy work that does nothing to help get transmission built. You can't quell opposition unless you talk to them, sweet cheeks! (I can call you sweet cheeks, right Brandon? I mean I've probably got condiments in the back of the fridge that are older than you.)

3 Comments

WTF is "Pocket Approval" of a Transmission Line?

5/19/2015

4 Comments

Journalists are trained to be independent reporters of the facts. The readers are supposed to take those facts and form their own opinion. But what happens when a "journalist" tries to spin her opinion as "news?"

"Clean Line receives pocket approval from legislature."

On the heels of lawmakers voting to reject a House bill designed to stop the Grain Belt Express Clean Line project, Michael Skelly, President of Clean Line Energy, visited a Ralls County site of a Grain Belt Express Clean Line’s delivery station, a $100 million facility that proponents say will allow Missourians to receive low-cost, clean power from the Grain Belt Express Clean Line.

The Grain Belt Express Clean Line is a proposed electric power line that will deliver competitively-priced renewable energy to Missouri. The House Energy and Environment Committee voted down House Bill 1027, which would modify provisions relating to eminent domain powers of utilities, on April 28. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Frankford, who represents Monroe, Lincoln, Pike, and Ralls Counties.
“With the vote this morning, Missouri lawmakers have demonstrated that they stand behind market based solutions to bring low-cost, renewable energy to the state,” said Mark Lawlor, Director of Development for Clean Line Energy. “The Grain Belt Express Clean Line will deliver enough low-cost clean power to Missouri through a direct connection to the electric grid to power 200,000 Missouri homes. We look forward to continuing to work with landowners and community members to develop the project in Missouri in a collaborative way. This project is very important to Missouri’s energy future.”

At the hearing on the bill, supporters spoke of the benefits that the Grain Belt Express Clean Line project would bring to the state and asked legislators to block HB 1027.

According to the Legislative Drafter's Deskbook: A Practical Guide, a "pocket approval" happens when the President does not sign a bill, but fails to return it to the legislature within 10 days. In that case, it becomes law through "pocket approval."

Is that what this reporter meant? That HB 1027 became law because the President failed to return it to the House? Or is this reporter just desperate to include the words "approval" and "Grain Belt Express" in a headline?

There was no "approval" for Grain Belt Express in Missouri. The legislature does not have authority to "approve" a transmission project. "Approval" can only come from the Missouri Public Service Commission, and the Staff of the MO PSC just last week reaffirmed their recommendation that the PSC DENY APPROVAL for Grain Belt Express.

This headline is simply the reporter's opinionated fantasy. The only thing that actually happened at the legislature is that Clean Line's expensive lobbyists managed to twist enough arms to prevent legislation supported by the people from passing. Big deal... there's always next year!

The reporter conveniently skips over the fact that GBE won't provide ANY energy to Missouri that is not purchased by an actual utility that serves electric load in the state. Evidence at the PSC indicates that there are no utilities stepping up to purchase electricity from GBE's Missouri converter station.

The article also claims: "Grain Belt Express project moves process forward, receiving public support."

Moves forward? Forward to where? GBE is still stuck in the Molasses Swamp waiting for a decision on its application from the MO PSC. It's not going anywhere.

And where's the proof that GBE has any "public support?" The evidence at hand indicates that GBE is receiving record public opposition. This is backed up by the fact that when "Mike" Skelly called a recent press conference at a field in Ralls County, the only "supporters" who showed up were brought in by GBE from many miles away. On the same day, the Ralls County Commission re-iterated its opposition to GBE, no matter how much of a company man their assessor wants to be in the media.

Here's Block GBE MO's press release that reflects what REALLY happened:

Two Counties Clarify Opposition to Grain Belt: Chariton and Ralls Legalize Letters of Rescission
Texas based Clean Line Energy, that hopes to build a 750 mile high voltage-transmission line across the state, just hit another snag. Five out of eight counties crossed have now officially rescinded permission for Grain Belt Express to access their county. In Missouri, each county and the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC) must grant permission to erect any towers.
The staff of the Missouri PSC recommended denying Grain Belt last fall. They stated “Grain Belt Express has not shown it is needed, economically feasible, or promotes the public interest in Missouri”. They also stated, “Section 229.100 RS Mo precludes Grain Belt from building its proposed line without first obtaining the consent of the County Commission in each of the eight counties in northern Missouri where the line would be located.”
Grain Belt questioned the validity of the rescission letters from two counties that were written in the summer of 2014. They stated that Chariton County’s letter had not specifically withdrawn section 229.100 authority or permission to build.
They also stated that Ralls County had said they would consider granting franchise only after the commission approved Grain Belt. Because the county must give permission for the PSC to grant a certificate it created a chicken and egg situation. Grain Belt asked for the Certificate of Convenience and Necessity first and promises to get the consent of each of the counties afterwards.
In response, both Chariton and Ralls County submitted new letters to the PSC to reiterate that Grain Belt does not have permission to build transmission lines in their county.
Ralls County’s new letter reads, in part, “Accordingly, if our grant of authority of August 23rd, 2012 to Grain Belt Express was valid, the County Commission does hereby rescind and revoke any authority granted that date to Grain Belt Express."
Wiley Hibbard, Presiding Commissioner of Ralls County stated, “I, as well as the other two Commissioners in Ralls County, felt it was important that we should restate our opposition to GBE's application to the PSC.
"By pure coincidence, we chose to send our letter to the PSC on the same day GBE held a press conference in Ralls County. It is my understanding that no landowners from Ralls County attended. GBE had to bring a person in from a county many miles away to speak to the press. This will show Grain Belt and the PSC that landowner's rights are very important to the citizens of Ralls County.”
Jennifer Gatrel of Block Grain Belt Express Missouri stated, “We are delighted that five out of eight counties have withdrawn their permission. We are very hopeful that the Missouri PSC will quickly deny Grain Belt and allow landowners to resume our lives."

A reporter who purposely misstates the facts to promote a corporate agenda does so at the peril of her own reputation.

What crap!

4 Comments

Mommy, Will You Sign My Petition?

5/18/2015

4 Comments

Remember when Change.org was all about the "little people" effecting change for the better? Yeah, scratch that. Now its being used as just another corporate toy where those with lots of money can promote their own corporate petitions to push products that stand to make the rich even richer.

So, now Change.org allows corporate accounts to create corporate petitions intended to influence the decisions of public officials from which the corporation can profit? That sounds suspiciously like LOBBYING to me... What do you call it when a corporation asks its employees, and their mommies, and little sisters, to pretend they're some sort of "grassroots" supporter in favor of the corporation's for-profit proposal?

I think I shall call it... stupidity.

Clean Line is not an advocacy "organization" allowed to create and promote petitions under Change.org's rules. It's a for-profit limited liability corporation. Shame on you, Clean Line!

How desperate is Clean Line, anyhow? How much trouble are they in on their Plains & Eastern transmission line's request to use the authority of the federal government to condemn and take land from thousands of "little people" across Oklahoma, Arkansas and Tennessee?

Do you think the decision of Secretary of Energy, Ernest Moniz, will hinge on Clean Line's petition signatures? I certainly hope not. That would be absurd.

4 Comments

S. 1017 Wants to "Improve" Interstate Electric Transmission Facilities

5/16/2015

6 Comments

Brace yourselves, Americans, Congress is tinkering with energy policy again! No good can come of this. And some idiot has introduced a whole new Sec. 216 (16 U.S.C. 824p) aka Section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that's even worse than its first iteration.

The original, Section 1221, designated the Secretary of Energy to conduct an electric transmission "congestion study" and designate "National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors" (NIETCs) every three years. Transmission proposed in these designated corridors was subject to "backstop" permitting by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the event a state withheld approval of an application for a permit for more than one year, or lacked the authority to permit the project.

Section 1221 was promptly deconstructed in two federal courts. When FERC proposed that "withholding approval" included a denial, and that meant it could override a state's denial of an application, the 4th Circuit determined that "withheld approval" excludes a state's denial of an application, preserving state authority. In addition, the 9th Circuit determined that DOE did not properly "consult with states" before designating NIETCs, and therefore it vacated the corridors DOE had set in 2009.

Last year, DOE made a half-hearted attempt to produce the 2012 "congestion study," but was resoundingly smacked down by a whole bunch of comments, and hasn't done a thing since.

In practice, Section 1221 has been an abject failure.

However, the new Section 216, carried to Congress by Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), attempts to fix all that by giving FERC authority to overrule a state denial of a transmission permit and use federal eminent domain authority to take private property. It also tosses NIETCs out the window as a means to identify worthy transmission projects and replaces them with an RTO/ISO finding that the project is "needed."

Good news: The new Sec. 216 does not apply to Clean Line in its current form.

Bad news: The new Sec. 216 will encourage a whole bunch of new transmission projects of questionable necessity, and landowners along existing corridors and/or those owning "open farmland" are always the first targets identified on the ol' transmission routing Etch-A-Sketch.

So, let's look at what the new Sec. 216 says:

(B) FEDERAL AUTHORITY.—The Commission may authorize, in accordance with subsection (d), construction of a high-priority regional transmission project that the Commission finds to be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity and in accordance with this section if--

“(i) a State--

“(I) fails to approve construction and authorize routing of a high-priority regional transmission project not later than 1 year after the date the applicant submits a completed application for authorization to the State;

“(II) rejects or denies the application for a high-priority regional transmission project;

“(III) authorizes the high-priority regional transmission project subject to conditions that unreasonably interfere with the development of a high-priority regional transmission project contrary to the purposes of this section; or

“(IV) does not have authority to approve the siting of the high-priority regional transmission project; or

“(ii) the developer seeking a certificate for construction under subsection (d) does not qualify to apply for State authorization to construct a high-priority regional transmission project because the developer does not serve end-users in the State.

So, FERC can "authorize" a transmission project if a state denies an application or conditions approval in a way the transmission developer doesn't like. That's not "backstop" or secondary authority, it's usurping state authority in its entirety. A state must approve, or else. So, why even bother with the fan dance of state applications at all? That's just a big waste of time and money.

Tell ya what... if FERC ends up with authority to overrule state transmission permitting decisions, there's going to be a lot more "turn-offs" for Commissioner Norman Bay, because the protestors will have moved "from pipelines to Order 1000." *Insert laughter here*

Second problem - how these "special" high-priority regional transmission projects are determined:

(1) HIGH-PRIORITY REGIONAL TRANSMISSION PROJECT.—The term ‘high-priority regional transmission project’ means an overhead, submarine, or underground transmission facility, including conductors or cables, towers, manhole duct systems, reactors, capacitors, circuit breakers, static VAR compensators, static synchronous compensators, power converters, transformers, synchronous condensers, braking resistors, and any ancillary facilities and equipment necessary for the proper operation of the facility, that is selected in a regional transmission plan for the purposes of cost allocation under Order Number 1000 of the Commission (or any successor order), including an interregional project selected under that plan.

That's it -- mere selection of and inclusion in a regional transmission plan makes a project "high-priority." Ummm... does Heinrich know that RTOs include hundreds of projects in their regional plans each year? "High-priority" over what? Transmission projects that aren't in a regional plan? Those are few and far between because they're nearly impossible to build (ain't that right, Clean Line?) So, every project is going to be a "high-priority" project in this brave, new world?

It's quite obvious that S.1017 intends to "fix" everything that went wrong with the original Sec. 216, including the flawed NIETCs and the ability of a state to deny an application for a transmission project that did not serve its citizens. But, let's ask ourselves, does it really need fixing? State approvals aren't the problem with new transmission, it's federal approvals and studies that muck up and delay transmission plans. In addition, Congress has resolutely refused to make electric transmission siting and permitting a federal responsibility, and will most likely continue to do so.

There seemed to be little love for controversial legislation like S.1017 at Thursday's Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing. But, you know how Congress is... they get up to all sorts of hijinks if you don't keep your eye on them, so this bears a bit of babysitting.

One more thing before I wrap this up... where did this legislation come from?

The original Sec. 216 got its purpose from:

(4) In determining whether to designate a national interest electric transmission corridor under paragraph (2), the Secretary may consider whether--
(A) the economic vitality and development of the corridor, or the end markets served by the corridor, may be constrained by lack of adequate or reasonably priced electricity;
(B)
(i) economic growth in the corridor, or the end markets served by the corridor, may be jeopardized by reliance on limited sources of energy; and
(ii) a diversification of supply is warranted;
(C) the energy independence of the United States would be served by the designation;
(D) the designation would be in the interest of national energy policy; and
(E) the designation would enhance national defense and homeland security.

Nothing in there about renewable energy, right?

Now take a look at the purpose of the new Sec. 216:

(a) Policy.—It is the policy of the United States that the national interstate transmission system should be guided by the goal of maximizing the net benefits of the electricity system, taking into consideration--

“(1) support for the development of new, cleaner power generation capacity, including renewable energy generation located distant from load centers;

“(2) opportunities for reduced emissions from regional power production;

“(3) transmission needs driven by public policy requirements established by State or Federal laws (including regulations);

“(4) cost savings resulting from--

“(A) reduced transmission congestion;

“(B) enhanced opportunities for intraregional and interregional electricity trades;

“(C) reduced line losses;

“(D) generation resource-sharing; and

“(E) enhanced fuel diversity;

“(5) reliability benefits, including satisfying reliability standards and guidelines for resource adequacy and system security;

“(6) diversification of risk relating to events affecting fuel supply or generating resources in a particular region;

“(7) the enhancement of competition in electricity markets and mitigation of market power;

“(8) the ability to collocate facilities on existing rights-of-way;

“(9) competing land use priorities, including land protected under Federal or State law;

“(10) the requirements of section 217(b)(4); and

“(11) the contribution of demand side management (including energy efficiency and demand response), energy storage, distributed generation resources, and smart grid investments.

Oh well, lookie there, big wind is reason #1, 2 & 3 for this new legislation. This isn't about what's good for the people or the environment. True democratic energy is relegated to reason #11, just an afterthought. This legislation is designed to line the pockets of big wind and their big transmission developers, and appears to have been written by the funders of their big front group, "Americans for a Clean Energy Grid." There are no real "Americans" participating in this farce -- it's nothing but a trade group masquerading as a grassroots movement. Tawdry and unconvincing, but it appears Heinrich was eager to be their legislative minion. ALEC ain't got nothing on these big green shysters.

6 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

Grain Belt Express Wants MO PSC to Toll its Application

Citizens' Groups Accuse Puget Sound Energy of Violating FERC Order 1000

Why Do They Always Act So Surprised?

Dollars and Sense

Grain Belt Express DENIED by MO PSC

Clean Line Prepares to Pull Congressional Pork

CFRA Wants To Revolutionize Transmission Land Acquisition

WTF is "Pocket Approval" of a Transmission Line?

Mommy, Will You Sign My Petition?

S. 1017 Wants to "Improve" Interstate Electric Transmission Facilities

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