No, really.
Read more about it on Carol's blog here.
StopPATH WV |
|
Carol Overland, transmission slayer of the great north, brings us the story of an apparent transmission line routing goof that has transmission opponents all over wiping away tears of laughter. It seems that American Transmission Company's Badger Coulee 345kV transmission project got routed through the "back yard" of the CEO of Alliant Energy. The spouse of the CEO has intervened in the Wisconsin Public Service Commission case to try to save his million dollar property from having transmission nasties constructed on it.
No, really. Read more about it on Carol's blog here.
0 Comments
Congratulations, Mayberry! Your entrenched opposition to Clean Line Energy Partners' transmission projects across the Midwest has pushed the company into the untenable position of having to perform massive eminent domain condemnations and takings. Of course, this would never be allowed to happen in reality. The political and public opinion costs would simply be too high. As well, Clean Line has not been successful in convincing all state regulators to grant it the ability to effect eminent domain takings.
Check mate! Clean Line Energy's only hope at this point is to try to trick you into supporting a new scheme to steal your land. Last year, Clean Line sycophants at the Center for Rural Affairs and the Natural Resources Defense Council, along with other "big green" and "big wind" players, published a self-aggrandizing "report" they arrogantly dubbed "America's Power Plan" (although no actual "Americans" were involved in its creation). In Clean Line's sponsored "plan," the important folks discussed several new ways to steal your land using eminent domain so that they wouldn't be forced to commit massive eminent domain takings. One of the ways Clean Line wants to steal your land is called a "Special Purpose Development Corporation" ("SPDC"). A SPDC is a government-sponsored legal entity created especially to become the "bad guy" in an eminent domain situation. Instead of Clean Line stealing your land, a government-blessed SPDC will steal your land and sell it to Clean Line. The SPDC and the government that operates it will also profit in the transaction, paying itself a portion of the proceeds from the sale of your land. Here's how it works: 1. State or local government, or even a private corporation with government-granted eminent domain power, forms a SPDC for a particular purpose, such as securing new transmission line rights of way across private property. 2. Landowners in the target area are given a choice: a. Voluntarily deed their land over to the SPDC in return for "shares" in the corporation. b. Refuse to voluntarily turn over your land and have it taken by the SPDC via eminent domain. You will not receive any "shares" in the corporation. This allows your friends and neighbors who choose to join the SPDC to force you to sell your land for their personal profit. 3. Once all land is acquired, the SPDC sells it to Clean Line and distributes the proceeds to the "shareholders" of the corporation, after first paying all sorts of legal, financial and management fees for the corporation and the costs of its employees. There is no guarantee that a landowner's "shares" in the SPDC would be worth more at the end of this game than the landowner could expect to receive through traditional eminent domain processes. It's all just a scam to encourage communities and local governments to take the fall for Clean Line's unconscionable land grab. It pits neighbors against neighbors in local communities and causes local strife. It absolves Clean Line from the consequences of its greedy action. Don't be fooled by legal gibberish, fantastic promises of incredible riches, or empty claims of "better deals." Just say "no" to Special Purpose Development Corporations. The coordinated and knowledgeable opposition to Clean Line across eight states CAN stop these projects. Hold on to your land -- you will be glad you did when Clean Line folds its tent and slinks back to Texas with its tail between its legs. Clean Line Energy Partners is making a big deal out of FERC's conditional authorization of its proposal to negotiate rates for its Grain Belt Express project. Of course, this isn't surprising -- Clean Line has shown great expertise in "miscommunicating" the actual meaning of its regulatory activities in an effort to make it appear that regulators and other entities "approve" of its project, or require it to be built. What is surprising is that Clean Line has chosen to further its "miscommunication" that its project capacity is only available for transmission of wind energy. You'd think they might be thankful to have dodged the discrimination bullet for the time being and show more decorum, but no, not Clean Line. It appears that the company has interpreted FERC's action of kicking the discrimination can down the road to mean that FERC won't enforce its own regulations later, or simply doesn't care. Clean Line's press release claimed: The Grain Belt Express Clean Line (Grain Belt Express) is an approximately 750-mile, overhead direct current transmission line that will connect wind energy from western Kansas with utilities and customers in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana and states farther east. So, what are you saying here, Clean Line? That "clean" wind energy will fill your project over three times before you allow any competition from other generators? Naughty, naughty! Back in March, when GBE's FERC application was still pending, the Missouri Landowners Alliance filed a protest, informing the Commission that GBE had been soliciting interest in its project exclusively from wind generators in contravention of FERC's open access policies. FERC requires transmission owners to provide non-discriminatory transmission access to prevent gaming of electricity markets. A transmission owner is like the highway toll collector, and may not pick and choose which cars can use its road as that would allow the toll collector to give preference to the cars that increase its market share, profits, or any other criteria it values. Therefore, GBE must offer its capacity to ALL generators equally, not just those producing electricity at wind farms. In response to the protest, FERC said: We find that Landowners’ concerns are based on speculation as to Grain Belt Express’ solicitation efforts, which Grain Belt Express has not fully implemented. Grain Belt Express has not proposed in its application, and we do not approve, selection or ranking criteria based upon the type of generation that a potential transmission customer might seek to interconnect. That Grain Belt Express has posted an inquiry about potential wind development in Kansas does not prove that Grain Belt Express intends to exclude other resources, and it is premature to judge now the totality of its solicitation efforts. As Landowners have recognized, the Commission has previously disapproved of a proposal that would include a preference for renewable resources as part of a transmission owner’s open season criteria where the transmission owner did not justify such preference. [Rock Island Clean Line] As discussed elsewhere in this order, Grain Belt Express is required to make a filing after the conclusion of its solicitation process that demonstrates compliance with the commitments made in its application, and any concerns that Grain Belt Express has unduly discriminated against non-wind resources can be addressed in that proceeding. FERC has merely kicked that can down the road for the time being. FERC's Order is only a conditional authorization for GBE to negotiate to sell capacity, contingent upon the company making the required compliance filing after it sells its capacity. In that filing GBE bears the burden of proving that it complied with its own plan to publish broad notice of its project to ALL generators, and that its selection of customers was non-discriminatory. FERC's "approval" ain't no big thing. Any legal monkey could have concocted a "plan" to negotiate transmission rates using prior FERC orders. As more than one lawyer has told me, creating legal filings is mere mimicry of prior filings that were successful. The real "approval" from FERC may only come after GBE has properly conducted its negotiations as per the plan and made its compliance filing without attracting protests or complaints that GBE discriminated against certain customers. Good luck there, Clean Line ;-) Of course, authorization to negotiate rates does not equate to the ability to do so. GBE still needs approval from every state in which it intends to build its project, including Missouri and Illinois. It needs to put a real price tag on the cost of its project so that the fantastical business plan can generate profits by selling its service. It needs some customers, either generators (that don't exist), or utilities wanting to buy power from the non-existent generators. It has none, and is not actively seeking any at this time. “FERC’s jurisdiction is pretty much limited to making sure that the process of selling transmission rights is open and transparent and non-discriminatory,” said Mark Lawlor, director of development for Clean Line Energy. “To make sure we aren’t building lines to give some competitors an advantage that others don’t have access to.” This is not a "federal approval" for GBE's project. Words on paper need to be followed through with actual deeds. Do you think Grain Belt Express will be able to deliver on its promise to FERC?
It looks like the cat is out of the Clean Line Plains & Eastern bag. Now these Texas snake oil salesmen and their filthy rich foreign investors will no longer be able to operate their scheme under the public radar without scrutiny. A U.S. Senator and Representative from Tennessee have examined Clean Line's business plan and don't seem to like it. The elected representatives are taking their responsibilities to provide oversight of federal action seriously. The congressmen believe they should have a say in the matter because Clean Line's preferred customer for its Plains & Eastern line is federal power marketer Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Senator Alexander said, “It’s up to the TVA board to decide what kinds of electricity to generate and purchase. But it is the responsibility of members of Congress to provide oversight to TVA policies, and these questions are part of that oversight.” The TVA recently extended a "Memorandum of Understanding" with Clean Line. The MOU simply states that the TVA will study a possible interconnection with its system and consider Clean Line's idea in its integrated resource plan, due later this year. It does not obligate TVA to buy power. It's really a pretty worthless document -- lots of fluff and bluster about "clean" energy and absolutely no substance. But, that was probably Clean Line's intent in the first place -- to give the impression that TVA was an eager customer, even though that's just not true. It doesn't matter what the actual document does or says, it's all about appearances. Clean Line has used it as something to drop into regulatory applications, public meetings and press releases.... "Clean Line's MOU with the TVA." Oooooh! Lots of acronyms, must be important... not. It's exactly what it appears to be, there is no mystery. It appears that no one has bothered to inform the representatives that Clean Line is also attempting to utilize Sec. 1222 of the federal 2005 Energy Policy Act to grant the company federal eminent domain power to condemn land for its 750-mile transmission line through Oklahoma, Arkansas and Tennessee. I think the representatives could be even more effective asking the U.S. Department of Energy questions about this federal process. This is certainly within their jurisdiction. But, for now, the reps have set their sights on asking the TVA the hard questions, such as: 1) Does purchasing electricity from this distance increase security threats to the TVA’s power supply? Former U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz has said we should pay attention to generating more energy where we use it because of national security risks. In response, Clean Line's spit-tastic president, Michael Skelly, tried some of his best arrogance to insist that his project was the best option for the TVA. He even included some prices that are pure speculation. Senator Alexander wasn't impressed. "TVA should and will make a decision that is in its best interests, but we believe this would provide a clean, reliable and cost-competitive source of power that would not increase in price over the next 25 to 30 years," said Mike Skelly, founder and president of Clean Line Energy. It's about time someone with authority lets a little sunshine into Clean Line's uneconomic business plan. There's been entirely too much secrecy and too many closed door meetings with the federal government over the past 5 years. The representatives deserve the thanks of all affected landowners across three states who have been threatened by this company. Please let them know what you think:
Senator Alexander Representative Fincher And be sure to connect with the grassroots group organizing against Clean Line in Arkansas -- Arkansas Citizens Against Clean Line Energy. Remember, little ratepayer and property owner, you're a PJM "stakeholder," too, and you should be participating in the planning process that at some point in the future may require you to sacrifice a right of way through your private property, or pay for big, new transmission lines of questionable benefit to you. It's another hot time at the expensive, luxury hotel for our "stakeholders," where market power players and their toadies will be turning out in their best "resort casual" wear to partake in free leisure activities sponsored by the corporations that make big profits from the cartel. You are cordially invited to attend the 2014 PJM Annual Meeting of Members to be held at the Hyatt Regency Chesapeake Bay. Please note that the dress code is “Resort Casual”. The program will be similar to last year's event starting on Tuesday, May 13 with registration and an Opening Reception and ending on Thursday, May 15 with the Members Committee meeting and buffet luncheon. They forgot to add extracting obscene profits from consumer pockets, but maybe that's not a leisure activity; instead it's one that requires hard work. So, what do the PJM aristocracy do at these meetings, when they're not participating in leisure activities, receptions and luncheons? They review the past year of incumbent electricity conglomerate rule. They "train" your Consumer Advocates. They eat dinner and hand out golf awards. Then they have entertainment night with desserts.* I think it would be pretty entertaining to give a couple of sponsor CEOs a pie in the face, but that's probably not what PJM has in mind. They also allow the well-funded environmental elite to perform a song and dance for the assembled dignitaries, but no one really pays any attention to it, although that never stops the "public interest group" PIGs from believing that this year's production will be the one that convinces everyone to pay even more for "clean" electricity. So much glib self-congratulation at your expense, so little time. If your electric supplier is one of PJM's meeting sponsors, run (don't walk!) to sign up for one of the free leisure activities. You're probably paying for it in your electric bill anyhow, might as well enjoy. And what are the worker bees doing at PJM while the lords and ladies play on Maryland's Eastern Shore? They're holding PJM's annual capacity market auction, where the prices consumers will pay to have generation resources available in 2017-2018 will be determined. Where prices may end up seems to be a matter of opinion. Incumbent generators have been plagued by low prices in previous auctions. PJM's market monitor says the capacity market is broken and has championed several changes that have been recently approved by FERC to raise prices. PJM has instituted a limit on imported capacity that is supposed to stop the flood of bids from generators in other regions that have been gaming the market by receiving revenue for resources they can't deliver, or resources controlled by other regional operators (yes, big wind, they're talking about y-o-u). Oh, go ahead, read more about it here, but first a little mood music to help you prepare. Sorry about that, but it was actually a pretty concise explanation of PJM's reasoning for the CIL. The other change is supposed to "result in the more efficient and flexible use of demand response," but will probably just drive some resources from the market altogether. Because demand response lowers overall demand at times of peak use by paying participants to reduce their load, this means that more actual generation capacity will be needed. But some generators aren't optimistic that the changes will do much to raise prices enough to satisfy their greed and save their bacon. Some generators seem to want more. And if you think all this capacity auction stuff is about as exciting as watching paint dry, you're not alone. This blogger so thoughtfully compares PJM's capacity markets to steroids in baseball so that we can understand it: PJM admits that steroids are endemic to the game but then recalculates the final score of the game based on what they believe the outcome would have been if the players were not on steroids. Maybe PJM should just be doing more of this, and less of this. *Update! PJM has changed its agenda today. It no longer says "Entertainment night with desserts." Now it says "Dessert Reception and Lawn Games." I guess FirstEnergy showed up with the ![]() Have you been perturbed by Clean Line's violation of its own "Code of Conduct" for land agents? Are you gasping for breath in clouds of land agent smoke? Are you unsure how to respond to the outrageous lies and pushy behavior of Clean Line land agents? Like a lot of Mayberry denizens, you were probably raised to be polite and to take others at their word. What is a person with morals to do when faced with outrageous land agent schemes?
Scott at RidiculousRICL has got your back. He has so helpfully put together a Code of Conduct for Landowners to guide you. We're pretty sure this Code doesn't cover everything, so feel free to make additional suggestions. Scott's Landowners' Code is just as official and just as enforceable as Clean Line's Land Agent Code. As recently admitted by Clean Line, and as I've been telling you for the last year, Clean Line's Code is nothing but a "feel good" piece of paper. Clean Line's "Code" was copied from another transmission line fight that occurred in Pennsylvania in 2008. In its original form, it was part of settlement of a case where the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate sought an injunction against transmission owner TrAILCo to end abusive practices. Read the OCA's Motion for Injunctive Relief for a detailed description of harassing and coercive land agent behavior that sounds hauntingly familiar to stories of Clean Line's current tactics. In the Pennsylvania case, the Code was enforceable by the court. In Clean Line's case, nobody is enforcing it, not even Clean Line! So, landowners should feel free to invent their own "code" and share it freely! Clean Line's latest public relations mantra is to accuse its opposition of spreading "misinformation." It's a desperate, failed attempt to group its forthright and knowledgeable adversaries as unacceptable and to characterize them as liars, a propaganda technique known as "name calling." But who is really spreading "misinformation?" Two of Clean Line's most recent one-sided media excursions contained information and quotes from company executives that were outright lies. First, the "miscommunication" in Arkansas Business about the Plains and Eastern Clean Line: It has been in the works for the past half-decade and will build two lines intended to connect the Midwest’s wind resources to surrounding areas with less potential to generate wind, such as Missouri and southern Indiana. About 7,000 megawatts of power in Oklahoma would become available to surrounding states. Clean Line quickly fell on its sword here, and the publication corrected its article to remove this reference. Supposedly there is only ONE line on this project, with a capacity of 3500MW. But then the company turned right around and signed a certain legal document with the same error in it! How many lines does Clean Line intend to build, exactly? "Misinformed" minds want to know! The second lie was apparently just a "miscommunication" in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial. Matthew Stallbaumer from Kansas has been chasing that one around all week. What he found was a shocking lack of honesty. In Matthew's own words: "Mr. Lawlor has been through this before, in Kansas, where he says the company has completed buying the land it needs for that portion of the line." Miscommunication is defined as "failure to communicate adequately." For instance, giving your instructions in French to an employee who only speaks English. "Miscommunication" is also a weasely synonym for not being truthful. For instance, politicians and bureaucrats are never dishonest, they simply "miscommunicate."
In Mayberry, we just call that "lying." Another citizens' opposition group to Clean Line Energy's plan to strike it rich transmitting wind energy from the Midwest to "states farther east" has stepped into the ring swinging.
Introducing Arkansas Citizens Against Clean Line Energy and its companion social media group. The citizens of Arkansas are banding together to block Clean Line Energy from using their land as a pass-through zone for its Plains & Eastern Clean Line project. The group held its first, wildly successful public meeting on April 29, with many more to come. The group's enthusiasm has also attracted the attention of affected landowners in Oklahoma, some of whom were still unaware that this Houston-based company is planning to acquire a right of way through their property using the eminent domain process. How could this be possible? Because Clean Line attempts to bifurcate its permitting process to receive utility status and eminent domain authority and a determination that its project is "needed" long before any affected landowner stakeholders find out about it. After that, Clean Line files a separate routing application to determine where to put the project, hoping to pit neighbors and communities against each other, intending that they will waste their time and energy fighting each other over placement, instead of the REAL enemy -- Clean Line Energy Partners. Clean Line will fail when communities come together as one. Here we go again with the Clean Line news articles full of misinformation. This time, the lies are about the company's Plains & Eastern Clean Line project in Oklahoma, Arkansas and Tennessee. Hiding amid the lies and half-truths is one nugget of news, however. Clean Line is now purporting that it will build a $100M HVDC converter station in Arkansas in an attempt to provide some "benefit" for the state. In 2011, the Arkansas PSC denied Clean Line's application to become a public utility in the state so that it could use eminent domain to take land for its project against the owners' will. The APSC based its denial on the lack of benefits to the state from the transmission line, that Clean Line proposed would begin and end in other states like a highway with no on or off ramps for local use. Claims that the company will build a converter station for local use seem to be sprouting like weeds. But, what guarantee does any state have that Clean Line would actually build one? If it receives a permit, Clean Line could once again change its plans, taking the local converter station off the table, laughing all the way to the bank. The midpoint converter stations are very expensive and only plan to make available a miniscule portion of the project's capacity. For the 3500 MW Grain Belt Express, the converter station is being touted as making "up to" 500 MW available. For the Plains & Eastern project, this article says the converter station will make available "up to" 250 MW of the project's 3500 MW capacity. The rest of the capacity is slated to be made available to eastern states where electricity commands a higher price. And that's how Clean Line intends to make its money -- selling electricity in richer markets that have certain minimal renewable energy purchase requirements. These "public policy" renewable portfolio standards require load serving entities in eastern states to generate or purchase a certain percentage of renewable energy, no matter the cost. This is the market Clean Line is desperately trying to reach. So, let's think about that. Clean Line is pretending it will "make available" miniscule amounts of its capacity in pass-through states in exchange for the ability to take private property from the state's citizens. "Make available" means exactly that -- make available for purchase by load serving entities in states like Arkansas or Missouri. However, if local LSEs can purchase lower cost power, they must do so. Clean Line is priced for the east coast, not Missouri or Arkansas. While the wind power generated in the Midwest may be "cheap" by east coast standards, building a "Clean" Line to transport it more than doubles the delivered price of the electricity. Chances are no local load serving entities will contract to purchase ANY of this power, obviating the need for any mid-point converter stations after permits are granted. Don't be fooled! Don't be fooled by the article's misinformation either. Here's where the reporter (or the president of Clean Line) got the information wrong: The project, called the Plains & Eastern Clean Line, won’t break ground until 2016, but the company behind it — Clean Line Energy Partners — announced this month that it would build a $100 million convertor station along the line’s route, somewhere in central Arkansas. This project won't "break ground" until it is fully permitted, and obtaining permits is still highly speculative. Just because Clean Line has tried to create a smokescreen of "benefit" for Arkansas does not automatically buy them a permit. A spokesman for the company said the station “was a significant change in the scope of the project” that was “not initially intended” for it, noting that it was expressly requested by the PSC and by landowners. WTF, Clean Line? No landowner ever requested a converter station in Arkansas. The few landowners who knew about your project rejected it in totality. Clean Line is a private transmission company in Houston. It develops projects that connect renewable generation points between states. Clean Line only exists on paper. This start-up has never built anything and probably never will. It has no customers... at all. The company has signed an agreement to allow its biggest investor, European transmission giant National Grid, to purchase the entire collection of projects in the pre-construction phase. If Clean Line can spin enough lies to get a handful of permits, it absconds with a bundle of cash and a new company takes over ownership of any projects. Research on Clean Line's principals reveals a history of exactly this kind of behavior. Many of Clean Line's management, who have personally invested in the company, have a history of building wind energy companies and then flipping them for huge profit. They probably should have stayed in their own area of expertise because they're in way over their heads playing transmission company. It has been in the works for the past half-decade and will build two lines intended to connect the Midwest’s wind resources to surrounding areas with less potential to generate wind, such as Missouri and southern Indiana. About 7,000 megawatts of power in Oklahoma would become available to surrounding states. Actually, that 7,000 MW plan for two lines got scrapped several years ago as overly ambitious. Or, did it? “Because this is an interstate project, it has to go through the federal permitting process,” Skelly said. “We’re in the middle of that [process]. What it basically does is look at a series of routes, and we take all that information which our different stakeholders use to come up with a route.” There is no requirement for federal permitting just because a project is "interstate." Transmission permitting is state jurisdictional. A project must receive a permit from every state through which it passes. Except when a state denies a permit... then a transmission owner can attempt to preempt local authority to take advantage of a couple of arcane loopholes in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. It is only then that federal permitting becomes necessary. And still, the federal authority Clean Line is attempting to acquire only gives it the power of eminent domain. It does not anoint Clean Line with state utility status to build a project. We'll just assume that the U.S. Department of Energy is going to take on the role of transmission builder for this project and then re-sell it back to Clean Line after it's constructed, right? A lot of the job, he said, is getting the word out about the job to county officials, state agencies and environmental groups to determine the route of the line. So, when is Clean Line planning to consult the landowners about the route of its line? Because landowners, in Clean Line's world, aren't stakeholders. They're just the folks who have to sacrifice their properties for Clean Line's profit. No matter. The landowners aren't waiting to be invited. As my friend Joel says in the article's comments: "Clean" Line is intent upon getting eminent domain authority. That's why their plan has changed to include the central Arkansas converter station. The company wants to force Arkansas landowners and homeowners to allow huge transmission towers on their property. This is a private venture, backed by a few out-of-state billionaires. They refuse to acknowledge that these towers will lower the property value of the landowners and homeowners. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would know that property values will plummet where a 200' steel lattice tower is constructed. So the out-of-state billionaires make huge profits while Arkansas landowners and homeowners lose real estate equity. It can't happen without state or federal eminent domain authority. I think of it like armed robbery, but in this case the robbers don't have to hold the guns. They will have state or federal law enforcement holding the gun to the heads of Arkansas landowners and homeowners. 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. ![]() |
About the Author Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.
In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history. About
|