Yesterday the U.S. Department of Energy released its initiative for Building a Better Grid.

What they apparently mean is building an enormously profitable grid of dubious purpose that puts money in big energy pockets.  It's not about benefiting you.  It never was.

It's the boot on the neck of rural America that I've been warning you about.

It prattles on...

Did she say community stakeholders?  Oh, that's just for show.  If you dig down deep into the guts of this bureaucratic plan, you will find that community stakeholders are not actually mentioned as having a seat at the table.  The role of the community is to play a bit part they have written for you that only comes onstage AFTER a transmission line has been planned for your community.  Until then, you're supposed to remain blissfully unaware.

Many will.  However, there's a huge army of the "transmission woke" that have been affected by previous plans that ended in disaster.  Whether it was disaster for the community when a transmission line was actually permitted and built, or disaster for the transmission company when their transmission line was cancelled, it was still a disaster.  It takes an enormous outpouring of time, energy and funding to beat a transmission line.  When the battle is over, many of the weary may re-engage in their "pre-transmission" lives, but they are still "transmission woke."  Once you see the horror of unneeded, unwanted, invasive transmission in your community, you can never unsee it.  Together, we are a force to be reckoned with.

The folks who have wrestled with unwanted transmission in the past are sitting ducks.  If your community, or property, was targeted by past transmission projects, then you are ground zero for new proposals.  What looked attractive to the last transmission company for siting its project will still look attractive to a new company.  Or perhaps the same old company, acting out of pure spite.  Would they like another chance to engage with you and win because they have been given a bigger sledgehammer by Congress and arrogant bureaucrats?  Perhaps.

WHOOP!  WHOOP!  WHOOP!  RED ALERT!!!  This is not a drill!  I'm sounding the alarm.  We all need to come together now to get a seat at the table and use our combined muscle to shape the implementation of this new law to build sensibly without causing undue impact in our communities.  We have a plan.

Watch this space for a big announcement coming soon!

When our government gets out of control, we can't simply sit back and say, "Someone needs to do something!"  We're all someone.  Even you!

The folks who stand to make a bundle building unprecedented amounts of new electric transmission are busy trying to tell everyone what citizens affected by said new transmission want.  They think they can define you, marginalize you, and take what's yours to serve themselves.

We saw these same arrogant suggestions in comments on FERC's transmission planning rulemaking recently.  But we fought back.  Now they're taking their arrogance to the media.  Well, sort of media... as if we can take biased "Climate News" as any kind of real media.

According to these arrogant shysters, a brand new "investigation" reveals the answer to transmission siting was determined 50 years ago.  They are now promoting a 1970's transmission line siting battle as the answer to contemporary transmission opposition.  Their "investigation" supposedly reveals that the only mistake made in that battle was not notifying affected landowners early enough in the process.  The take away is supposed to be if today's transmission developers engage with landowners early in the process that opposition can be avoided.

Perhaps most objectionable about the article's contentions is that they are taking great liberty with the history.  The First Battle of America's Energy War is a story that has been studied extensively by today's transmission opposition.  It's a lesson in what not to do.  Do not get bogged down in governmental processes designed to distract your attention.  Do not let the transmission company and their governmental lackeys set your agenda.  Do not play the part they have written for you.  That part ends in defeat because it's designed to run you over, take your property, and build a transmission line there whether you object, or not.  Earlier deployment of the highway to hell will not change the outcome.  It will not result in a docile, happy, affected community.  It doesn't change the fact that land use, prosperity, health, heritage and economic impacts will be visited on the few for the benefit of the disconnected and ungrateful many who believe they can use "stupid" rural America to serve their needs.

Transmission opposition to overhead lines on new rights of way is going to happen.  There is no way to avoid it.  Pretending a 50-year old battle holds the key to today's transmission opposition is nothing more than creative fantasy.  Perhaps they should spend more time studying today's opposition.  If they did, perhaps they'd realize that we've come a long way, baby.  What happened with the PATH project?  The Monmouth County Reliability project?  SWEPCO's Kings River project?  AEP's Windcatcher?  Transource's Independence Energy Connection?  New England Clean Energy Connect?  Cardinal Hickory Creek?  All the Clean Line Energy projects?  I'm probably forgetting a few, and for that I apologize.  The cancellations of hotly opposed Big Transmission projects over the past decade have been too numerous to rattle off the top of my head.  (Somewhere I have a list that I prepared several years ago for an event where I was speaking... somewhere I can't put my finger on right now.)  What would happen if someone studied all these cancelled projects to find the common denominator?  I suppose it would depend on who does the study.  But the only ones who can arrive at the right answer are the transmission opposition groups who won the cancellations.  Collectively, I'd say that the common denominator is overhead transmission on new rights of way.  If you poke a stick into the lion's cage, you're going to piss off the lion.

Maybe the solution is not to engage the lion in the first place.  How can transmission developers do this?  Buried transmission on existing rights of way.  As the developers of the SOO Green project have proven, if you don't create new rights of way using eminent domain, the lion simply doesn't care all that much.  SOO Green has found the secret sauce...

When transmission opposition and transmission developers agree on something, maybe it deserves a second look?  Instead, the shysters doggedly insist that it isn't a solution at all.

They're not more complicated.  The technology to bury electric transmission along existing rail corridors exists.  It's probably a lot less complicated that engaging in decades-long battles with affected communities.  Costly?  Yes, it may have a higher upfront cost, but it also saves an enormous amount of money the developer would otherwise spend battling opposition, not to mention the time involved.  Time is money, and the environmental groups clambering for new transmission say we don't have the luxury of time.  Why, then, do they insist on doing things the hard way when SOO Green provides the true "shining example" of how to avoid expensive, time-consuming opposition?

One of the first things a community does when notified of a new transmission proposal is find a way to shift it elsewhere.  Sorry, it's just the knee jerk reaction.  However, in all successful opposition groups realization of the true enemy (transmission company) quickly follows.  Then attention may shift to ways to mitigate the impact upon their collective group.  Burial is a favorite.  Out of sight, out of mind.  However, because transmission projects are always presented as fully formed ideas, the developer will always try to shut that idea down because it's not in their plans.  Excuses are usually cost, with a promise that if the community pays the extra (estimated at 10 times the cost), then the project can be buried.  That's no mitigation offer.  It's a dead end.   And why should a community pay to mitigate the impacts of a project from which they will not benefit?  This also applies to crazy ideas to financially bribe local communities to accept impacts.  When ratepayers are picking up the tab for the project, that community will be paying to bribe themselves!  And why is it that financial bribes should be the responsibility of beneficiaries in other areas, while the cost of burying the project and not incurring the impacts of the project in the first place gets left on the doorstep of the affected community?  This is not logical... at all.  Transmission developers also whine that buried projects are harder to maintain and faults are unable to be seen, leading to longer repair times.  WRONG!  Buried projects are completely unaffected by weather, fire, sabotage, and accident.  They fail less often.  But when they do, modern technology can pinpoint the location of the fault to a very small section of line, which can be accessed for repair via regularly spaced maintenance vaults.  Underground transmission is designed to provide for easy detection and repair of faults.

Oh boy... how did I get so far afield?  I've got things to do today, other than this blog.  Let's cut to the chase here...

These arrogant greedsters will continue to push their narrative that only a boot on the neck of rural America can usher in a renewable energy future.  Instead of working with rural America to find a solution, these folks continue to push for more authority to simply take what they want.  Case in point... I emailed the author of this piece 2 days ago.  No response.  They don't want to find an acceptable solution.  They just want more power to control the lives and land of folks in rural places by pretending they know what you want.

Ultimately, it will fail.  Whether it's quickly, courtesy of  those who thoughtfully make public policy, or in a long slog punctuated by protests and violence reminiscent of the 1970's, is up to them.

We have a voice, and we will continue to use it.

Consumer Organizations filed reply comments on FERC's Building for the Future Through Electric Regional Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation and Generator Interconnection proceeding last week.

The Consumers pointed out

The "problem" of transmission opposition is being approached incorrectly by numerous other parties to the proceeding.  Instead of curing the reasons that foment opposition, some parties wrongly insist that opposition can be thwarted by devising new ways to force unwanted transmission on affected communities.  It's about power, not compromise or innovation.

Transmission opposition has existed as long as there has been transmission.  It's not going away if transmission builders are given more power over affected communities; in fact, that is the recipe to increase entrenched opposition.  Opposition is motivated and creative and will continue because the alternatives are simply unacceptable.  The more transmission that is proposed, the greater the opposition.

True innovation to build transmission that provides benefit without sacrifice is the only way forward.  Let's hope the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recognizes the solution that is within their grasp.

Maine citizens delivered a historic upset to invasive merchant transmission line New England Clean Energy Connect at the polls yesterday.

NECEC, a merchant spin off from Central Maine Power, is under contract to deliver 1200MW of "clean" hydropower from Quebec to Massachusetts.  The project would be paid for by Massachusetts electric consumers, if they can ever get it built, including the nearly $100M spent on political nonsense that tried in vain to stop the referendum.

This hard won grassroots victory has been in the works for several years.  The first project Massachusetts contracted with to buy hydro from Quebec was routed through New Hampshire, however that state defeated it through the regulatory process and the courts.  Next, Massachusetts stupidly set its sights on a different overhead transmission project through the pristine woods of Maine.  After all, what does Massachusetts care about the environment of any other state but its own?  It also had no money on the table.  The merchant transmission utilities were falling all over themselves to build the project because it could be wildly profitable, all paid for by Massachusetts consumers.  But only if it actually delivered power.  Power cannot be delivered from a line that is never built.  Has Massachusetts finally learned its lesson?  No other state wants to sacrifice its environment so that Massachusetts can virtue signal about "clean energy."

The NECEC project was widely opposed by the citizens of Maine who would have to live with it.  The citizens opposed the project through the regulatory process, however Maine's governor inked a deal with CMP to distribute a few trinkets to the citizens in exchange for their sacrifice and put her thumb on the scale for regulatory approval.  But the citizens persisted.  They successfully passed legislation to stop the project, but their governor vetoed it.  But the citizens persisted.  They gathered enough signatures for a referendum to stop the project in 2020.  However, CMP battled it in court and the referendum was dubbed unconstitutional before it could even be voted upon.  But the citizens persisted.  The citizens gathered enough signatures for a second referendum with different, constitutional wording and CMP was unsuccessful in stopping it from going to a vote.  CMP and its foreign-based parent company, along with Hydro Quebec, poured nearly $100M into a political campaign to defeat the referendum.  But the citizens persisted.

Yesterday, the referendum passed with a resounding 59% of the vote.  The citizens persisted and were victorious!

In the wake of their spanking from the voters, CMP once again claimed the referendum was unconstitutional.  But I gotta ask... if CMP was so certain the referendum was unconstitutional and would be set aside by a court, why did they spend nearly $100M to attempt to defeat it?  If they were so certain, they should have saved their millions for the court battle.  CMP's money is not where its mouth is today.  In fact, CMP wagered against itself with a hugely expensive campaign to defeat something they now claim is unconstitutional.  So, the battle will continue in the courts.  And the citizens will persist.  At what point will this project become too expensive for CMP?  When will they wake up and quit throwing good money after bad?  Because NECEC is a merchant transmission project, CMP will never recover the money it has spent on this project.  And it's a bundle.

CMP began construction of its project earlier this year, even when the referendum campaign was in process.  That was pretty stupid.  But the trees will eventually grow back, because the citizens persisted.

What does this mean for the transmission opposition world?  We have a new tool in our toolbox!  Appeals and legislation are no longer the end of the road for transmission opponents.  A referendum is now a possibility.  Of course, the referendum was also hugely expensive to the citizens of Maine.  However, they had a little help from some generation owners in the region who ran their own separate campaign to pass the referendum.  And we all know that in the transmission opposition world the enemy of our enemy is our friend.  This begs the question of whether other generation owners will step into other transmission battles to pull off a similar victory?  The rest of this story has yet to be written.

Meanwhile... CONGRATULATIONS to the citizens of Maine on this historic victory!  Their persistence and hard work to preserve their environment is nothing less than heroic.

And let's end with another foundational maxim of transmission opposition...

Haven't had much time for blogging lately... big, BIG, BIG project coming up!

However, this is too important not to share.

!SIGN THIS PETITION!

Please sign to keep transmission siting and permitting in state hands.  Only your state officials can accurately judge the local effects of new transmission.  Just think about some suburban policy wonk making political decisions about land use in the Midwest.  It can only amount to bad news.

As well, we must stop unneeded merchant transmission from being supported with our tax dollars when it can't find customers.  We don't need anymore "clean" lines trying to use our tax dollars to fill their filthy rich investors' pockets.

Sign now!  Share with your friends!  We've got to put a stop to this out-of-control corporate welfare before a transmission line ends up in your back yard, or the back yard of someone you love.

This story says the Illinois legislature will be called back into session for one day next Tuesday, June 15.  There are a couple better stories about it, but they're behind paywalls so we won't provide links.  One blathered on about how they think they have enough votes in the Senate to pass the bill, however, that appears maybe sort of iffy.

Your mission... peel away at least one state Senator.  Here's a list.  Of course, the Senator doesn't have to vote against the energy bill, s/he just needs to remove the language that changes the definition of "public utility".  It should be really easy for the Senator to find just by searching the document for the words "public utility," and even easier for the Senator to amend the bill to remove it before the vote on Tuesday.

Would the Illinois senate hold up this important energy bill to argue over whether Invenergy should be a public utility?  Or will they throw Invenergy under the bus in order to pass this legislation that fixes other more important energy issues?  Invenergy is an opportunistic parasite that has attached itself to fast moving and popular legislation in order to increase its corporate profits.  Invenergy is not worth the sacrifice.

Here's a little background music to play while you work.

Was it just last month that Invenergy told the Missouri legislature that it wasn't fair to change state law if it hurt their project?  Well, guess what?  Invenergy is busy trying to change state law in Illinois to help Grain Belt Express by allowing it to become a public utility so it may use eminent domain to site the project across Illinois.  Hypocrisy at its finest!

As many of you may remember, the Illinois courts vacated Grain Belt's permit (and eminent domain authority) several years ago because Grain Belt Express did not own any utility property in the state.  Because it did not own utility property, it was not a public utility, and because it wasn't a public utility it was not allowed to use eminent domain to acquire easements across private property.  Clean Line was unsuccessful in overturning this decision. 

However, Invenergy is attempting to change the law upon which the court's decision was based.  As part of an extensive new energy bill in Illinois, the following language changes have been proposed to the statute.

By changing the definition of public utility, Invenergy could be be a public utility now, if it only intends to own property later.  It merely has to apply at the ICC and receive a permit.  Our private property rights are under attack all across the Midwest by greedy merchant transmission developers who want to use your private property to make money on speculative renewable energy projects.

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker says utilities did not write this energy bill.

So, we're supposed to believe that Invenergy did not have its thumb on this rather opportune language change?  Illinois is still reeling from a recent utility scandal where ComEd exerted undue influence on the state legislature.  It sure looks to me like Illinois has simply traded one utility master for another.  Instead of the legislature being under ComEd's thumb, now it's under Invenergy's thumb.

Something sure stinks in Springfield!

Invenergy wants to take the most profitable route for GBE, and that's using eminent domain to take private property across three states.  It doesn't want to fairly negotiate with landowners without the sledgehammer of eminent domain.  Here's another news flash:  eminent domain is not necessary to build merchant transmission!  When eminent domain for overhead merchant transmission was outlawed in Iowa several years ago, a better project emerged.  SOO Green Renewable Rail is developing a merchant transmission project buried its entire length on existing railroad rights of way.  No eminent domain!  No changing state law, no sacrifice from landowners.  It's a complete no-brainer!  Maybe Invenergy should make a better project instead of using its influence to manipulate state law for its own benefit?

Fortunately, the Illinois energy bill did not pass before the legislative session ended, however, there's talk that it may come to a vote in a few days, or maybe this month, or next month, nobody is really sure and reports change day by day.  If it does come to a vote, the public utility definition change needs to be stripped out.  Let Illinois legislators know!

Does Invenergy's legislative hypocrisy stick in your craw?  Want to do something about it?  Well, you can!  It's quick and easy, and probably extremely satisfying as well!  You don't have to be an Illinois resident to contact Illinois legislators.  The bigger the voice, the more impact it has! For complete instructions on who to call or write, visit BlockRICL or send an email to [email protected].

It's a new word for the bloviating nonsense spewed by Bill Gates' Macrogrid Initiative.

Bill Gates became rich selling crappy computer technology that enslaved the vast majority.  Now he thinks he's an expert on absolutely everything and dreams of taking over the world and remaking it to his own liking.  Money doesn't equal intelligence.  The only ones buying his schtick are the ones Bill is buying to carry it out.  The ordinary man is not impressed.  In fact, the ordinary man is positively revolted by the rich and powerful dictating every aspect of his life and finances.  The ordinary man will dig in his heels and oppose Bill's brain farts simply on general principles.  Bill's energy vision is no different.

Bill gathered all the best dreamers and schemers he could buy to sell his vision of top down big energy to the new Big Government bureaucrats hungry for power and prestige.  Obviously Bill isn't interested in selling his plan to the masses.  Perhaps he thinks that his Big Government can be used to stomp on the masses and drag them into an increasingly expensive and unreliable energy future controlled by the global elite?

Sorry, we're not on board.  In fact, we're going to fight, kick and scream the whole way.  And we're going to keep speaking truth to power until we get our way.

Big Government agency U.S. Department of Energy held a "summit" last week under the auspices of its ARPA-E program.  There, our Big Government "partnered" with Big Transmission and its bastard child "The Macrogrid Initiative" to tell us what we need "as a society."

The four words no for-profit industry should ever utter:

You're not part of our "society."  You have your own "society" of filthy rich folks who want to use us as a stepping stone to even more riches.  Any elite blowhard who utters these words is displaying his own arrogance.  It is SOCIETY that decides what we need "as a society," not elite dictators.  Saying these words guarantees that society will fight you tooth and nail.

And that's exactly what's going to happen to Bill's Macrogrid Initiative.  Having a dream to build a gigantic, new electric grid is one thing; getting there is another.  There's a fork in the road, and Bill and his cabal have veered off onto the wrong path.

Two options:

1.  Innovate new energy solutions that would be accepted by society.

2.  Use old energy solutions that are highly profitable and attempt to force them on society.

One path requires more money upfront but guarantees smooth sailing on the back end.  The other requires no effort in the beginning, but will flounder endlessly when rejected by society.  You'd think Bill would be smart enough to know the difference, but perhaps his arrogance gets in the way?

The only way we as a society are going to allow an energy transition is if it does not impact the sanctity of our homes and empty our wallets.  Otherwise, get ready for eternal, entrenched opposition from society.  We're not docile sheep, in fact you're probably going to be surprised by the virulence we can muster when threatened.

Alter regulation to increase your profits and decrease society's rights?  I don't think so.  In fact, you might even get surprised by some regulatory virulence if you keep trying to stuff your arrogant ideas down that pipe.

Regulation is for benefit of society.  It's not for the purpose of increasing utility power and profits.  Regulators serve ME, not YOU.  We as a society have created a regulatory paradigm that cannot be dismantled or it will cease to exist and become nothing more than a political-corporate dictatorship that does not protect consumers.  Regulation was formed to protect consumers from corporations, not the other way around.  Are we going to need regulators to protect us from the regulators?  Or are we going to need a revolution?

It's not that great a stretch these days for the people to disconnect from the bloated energy bureaucracy and make their own energy.  What good is a kingdom with no subjects?

Game on, Bill!

It's every landowner's nightmare... a faceless government agency threatens to use the solemn power of eminent domain to take private property.  Many of us have been there before.  But what about when it's a for-profit corporation that's threatening to have the federal government take your property for their greedy "clean energy" scheme?  What if you smell some sort of swampy conspiracy between the federal government and the energy corporation to gang up on you?

Corporations only tell you what they want you to know.  They have no obligation to be transparent.  However, our government is subject to the transparency of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  While FOIAs may be commonplace for sophisticated information gatherers, like the media,* they aren't routine for landowners subject to government condemnation.

For one Arkansan, the smell wafting out of the Clean Line Energy Partners/U.S. Department of Energy honeymoon suite was too much to bear.  He determined to get to the bottom of it and find out just how much chummy collusion was going on.  And why shouldn't he?  This chummy collusion between government and industry was threatening to run a new high-voltage DC electric transmission line right through his father's farm.  His father was a hard-working veteran who had served his country honorably... and this was how his country was repaying him for his sacrifice.

So, our landowner hero, let's call him Joel,** submitted a FOIA to the U.S. DOE in May of 2014 asking for documents showing any communication between DOE & Clean Line (CLEP) regarding transmission line route maps.  This curiosity was created by DOE itself, when it admitted there were preliminary route maps being used for internal purposes that were not to be shared with the public.  The DOE managed to cough up some documents in July of 2014, although not what Joel was looking for.  But, hey, at least they tried.

And because they tried, Joel also tried.  He tried again with another FOIA in the summer of 2014, asking for more documents showing correspondence between DOE, CLEP, and the Southwestern Power Administration (a federal power marketer).  This time Joel got the hairy eyeball from DOE's FOIA contractor, eGlobalTech.  The contractor determined Joel was an "other" requester because he was a mere landowner subject to eminent domain taking by the DOE and was not entitled to have his fee waived or his request expedited.  Joel was informed that he'd have to pay a fee to receive information that required more than 2 hours of search time or totaled more than 100 pages.  Imagine that... you are being threatened that a government agency is going to condemn and take your property, and you don't even have as much right to information about that process as a reporter has to a story that doesn't even personally affect them!  But eventually, Joel did receive another pile of non-responsive fluff that didn't tell him how the government was communicating with CLEP.  They must have been sharing some walkie-talkies because they weren't sending written messages to each other.

Later on, in the Fall of 2014, Joel tried again by submitting a limited and targeted request for information.  This time he asked for any documents regarding the "Management Committee" consisting of DOE and CLEP personnel that was required to meet by a signed agreement between the two.  If there was a requirement to have quarterly meetings, surely there would be some agendas, emails, and other meeting materials.  Perhaps these meetings were where DOE and CLEP were communicating?  Joel's request was again processed by his "friend" at eGlobalTech.  This time he was advised that a fee would apply to his request.  He was quoted an exact price of $798.90.  Joel sent the DOE a check for $800 and waited several months to receive the documents.  What he received was seven pages of repetitive emails about travel and lodging and when/where to meet for breakfast in Houston.  Completely useless... and for that he paid more than $100 per page?  But wait... the story doesn't end there.  Four months later, the DOE mysteriously returned Joel's $800 check uncashed and without explanation.

Figuring that his targeted request was too narrow, and increasingly curious how DOE and CLEP were communicating now that DOE had agreed to "partner" with CLEP to use federal eminent domain to take his farm, Joel tried a wider request in 2016.  He asked for all communications between the two parties.  Apparently it did successfully capture what Joel wanted, because the DOE has STILL not completed that request, nearly 5 years later.

Joel's contact on this request was a contractor from Central Research.  First, the woman tried to substitute another party's completed FOIA for the information Joel requested.  When he didn't accept that, she quoted him a price to fulfill his request between $1249.40 and $4997.60.  Right down to the penny!  That ought to make Joel re-think things, right?  Wrong.  Despite the offer to provide other parties' FOIA responses at no cost if he would only close his request, Joel persevered by asking about payment arrangements.  The contractor said she would work up a more detailed cost estimate and get back to him to arrange payment.  But she didn't.  When Joel later inquired about the hold up, she again said she was working on it and would be in touch.  But again... crickets.

Finally in January, 2017, the contractor informed Joel that all the information he was seeking had been provided to others and therefore there would no charge for his request and that it was in process.

In May, 2017 (a year after the original request, mind you) the contractor popped back up and offered Joel another substitute for the information he requested.  She offered him an index of documents (a list of documents, not the actual documents) provided to a federal court in Arkansas as part of a lawsuit against the DOE.  Joel smartly rejected this substitute of information that was already publicly available.  Growing disgusted with DOE's contractor's foot-dragging, Joel contacted another government agency to see if he could light a fire somewhere.  Although the federal agency demurred to  having authority to force DOE to do anything, it admitted it had contacted DOE about the request and that DOE had promised to finish it and produce the information within 2 weeks.  This was May 26, 2017.

Finally, at the end of August 2017, Joel received his first "partial response" to his FOIA request containing 409 pages of non-responsive fluff that told him nothing.  After that, DOE seemed to forget about his request entirely.

In 2018, Joel submitted another FOIA request to the DOE seeking the same basic documents.  This was met with a detailed response from a different Central Research contractor who, again, tried to get Joel to accept prior FOIA productions as a substitute for his own.  This contractor also let Joel know that he was also responsible for the dropped 2016 request which was "still being processed."  When Joel again insisted on having his request fulfilled as written, the contractor once again clammed up and disappeared.

In October of 2019 (see, another year later!) a different contractor with Central Research popped up to let Joel know that he was now responsible for the 2016 request.  He said, and I quote:

He also tried to get Joel to "combine his outstanding requests under one FOIA number" and close out all the old requests that were clogging up productivity levels.  He was also requested to substitute different FOIA productions for his own request.  But why would he do this when the 2016 request was fulfilled and ready to be delivered?  He did say it was completed and under review, right?

So, Joel stuck it out, waiting anxiously for 2 months for his requested documents.  Someone really ought to do a welfare check on that reviewer... we suspect that this person may have perished at his/her desk and is still undiscovered because the "complete document set" never has shown up... to this day.

But wait... on January 26, 2021, Joel received a note from a new contractor with Wits Solutions advising him that he was now assigned to Joel's 2016 request and would be his new contact.

And what about the outstanding 2018 request?  In February of 2020, a year ago, Joel received a note from a new contractor at Central Research claiming that she was now assigned and working on that request.

Near as I can figure, Joel never received the documents he requested in 2016.  He never received the documents he requested in 2018.  Confirming these requests are still open is the raw data from DOJ's Annual Report of DOE FOIA requests.  Both of these requests, classified as "simple" requests are still outstanding with no action.  Why is it that this is acceptable?  When is DOE going to clean up its huge list of outstanding FOIA requests?  It turns out that DOE has a less than stellar record of complying with FOIA requests.  Is it DOE policy?  Or is it the result of a contractor zoo culture of "pass the buck?"  Joel's FOIAs are contractor hot potatoes... passed from one contractor to another without any resolution.

Is Joel giving up?  No.  Although the transmission project in question was cancelled in 2018 (quietly and without fanfare) and Clean Line Energy Partners went belly up a short time later, the question still remains... how did DOE and CLEP communicate when the project was active?  Joel hypothesizes that perhaps DOE has mastered the art of mental telepathy, an amazing scientific discovery!  I wish they would share this with the rest of us!

I would also like to know why DOE, in all its governmental beneficence, has not been more forthcoming with information for a landowner subject to its exercise of eminent domain over private property?  And what does this bode for the future, where politicians are cheering the use of federal eminent domain for new transmission of dubious necessity?  Is our federal government getting more transparent, or, as Joel's experience reveals, more murky?

Shame on you, DOE!

Be careful how you vote, transmission opponents.  The greedy schemers who build and own transmission want to lock in many more years of profit for themselves while strangling more localized energy supply that they can't profit from.

This article reveals the scheming going on at a recent Energy Bar Association conference, where the players expressed angst that

So, if we continue to reject huge, new greenfield transmission projects, other solutions will manifest themselves?  Perhaps more local, distributed and democratic solutions that don't enrich huge bloated investor-owned utility conglomerates?  Tell me more!!

This isn't something new.  These greedsters have been hyperventilating over it for nearly a decade now.  Way back in 2013 the lobbying organization for investor-owned utilities published a paper titled "Disruptive Challenges" that predicted a mass exodus from large, centralized power suppliers and new reliance on local, distributed resources.  And apparently the concept is still scaring them silly because it's truer than ever.  Streetcars, film cameras, and land line telephones are soon going to be joined in the dinosaur zoo by investor-owned utilities.

But can they stop it by building a whole bunch of new transmission with decades of crushing, new utility debt that would be paid by customers under current regulatory schemes?  No.  Read the report... the more the utilities build centralized infrastructure, the higher electric rates climb.  And the higher rates climb, the more attractive investments in localized power sources become.  As customers leave, others must assume their share of the debt, further increasing costs and making local investments even more attractive.  The more people leave, the more people will leave.  Like a snowball rolling down hill... until nobody is left to pay the utility debt and the transmission owner goes belly up.  It can happen.  It will happen.  Trying to stop it by building new transmission is like trying to stop a speeding bus by jumping in front of it.  Dumb!  Dumbest idea ever!

So, what's the real problem?

Big Transmission is dead.  Transmission opposition is a huge success story.  They can't get any new, big projects built... because of us.  The focus now is on devising ways to thwart us.  Ways to step on our necks while they use federal eminent domain to take our property for their unneeded, for-profit renewable energy transmission lines. 

For a hot minute, there was hope among them that states would come together to support their money-making scheme to build a bunch of new transmission to ship renewables thousands of miles.  It was only an unrealistic pipe dream.  States aren't giving away their independence to make their own energy policy decisions, like allowing renewable energy companies or the federal government to decide where their energy comes from, or whether they should become a fly-over highway for energy sales between other states.  States are becoming increasingly active participants in directing their own energy decisions.  Need renewables?  Build them instate and keep the economic development and energy dollars at home!  State are no longer passive parasites expecting someone else to provide for their energy needs from far away.   Clean Line Energy Partners spent a decade trying to sell transmission capacity for just such a scheme and ended up with no takers.  It doesn't work!

Now the greedsters have a new scheme.  Pie-in-the-sky dreams of passing new legislation making transmission siting and permitting a federal responsibility.

In a nutshell, let's anoint the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with the power to pick winners and losers in energy resource games and render the states as passive consumers?  Not a chance!  Been there, done that.

Emery has no clue what Congress intended to do, and it's not her job to interpret their "intentions."  That's a job for the courts, and a court determined that Congress only intended to give FERC backstop siting authority when a state could or would not act.  Denying a permit for new transmission is an action, therefore denials do not create FERC authority.  Over and done!

But this is an avenue that the greedy utilities now want to explore anew.  Would Congress really take transmission siting and permitting authority away from states?  Seems like a hard sell, considering that Congress is composed of state representatives.  How much lobbying and corruption would it take for state representatives to sell their states down river and get booted out of office at the next election?  The pushback from the voters on just such a scheme would be huge.  Be careful how you vote!