This needs no explanation. Just watch.
 I keep hoping that Clean Line Energy Partners will invest in some media training for "director of development" Mark Lawlor. When this guy gets stressed out by reporters he says the dumbest things! When interviewed recently about the Illinois Supreme Court's opinion that Clean Line's RICL project is not a public utility, and how that might impact the Grain Belt Express project, Lawlor said: “Anytime you have legal clouds pending, you’re not going to spend a lot of time with that uncertainty,” said Lawlor. “We’ll see how the decisions play out before we put a lot of people to work building the project.” Legal clouds? A decision by the Illinois Supreme Court is just a "legal cloud" that could blow away any day now? Not hardly. But more interesting is Lawlor's admission that he's "not going to spend a lot of time with that uncertainty." Wack-a-mole, Waldo? No matter how many moles you whack, more are going to pop up somewhere else, you know... sort of like I've been telling you for years. So why bother spending all that money on an appeal in Missouri (not to mention your very expensive political spokespuppet, Jay Nixon), when Illinois has determined your projects cannot be public utilities until sometime down the road after they're built? Because this finally gets pretty close to the truth... it's not about simply purchasing some land. It's about Clean Line not being able to use eminent domain to condemn land for its projects in Illinois. Without eminent domain, Clean Line would have to negotiate with each and every landowner to purchase right of way. No sweat, Clean Line has been telling the public that it wasn't applying for eminent domain for years and that it planned to negotiate fairly with each and every landowner to secure right of way. So, what happens now when Clean Line has to actually do it? It's legal clouds, uncertainty, and doom and gloom for the project. That's because Clean Line wasn't being honest about eminent domain all along... what Clean Line meant was that it wanted to negotiate fairly with each and every landowners to secure right of way, but only when it was holding the sledgehammer of eminent domain behind its back. That's not fair negotiation. That's coercion. Now all of a sudden, when the sledgehammer isn't a tool, Clean Line can't negotiate at all. Clean Line only wanted to pretend to negotiate, but what it really wanted to do was threaten landowners with eminent domain condemnation if they didn't agree with Clean Line's terms and price. The Court called this one spot on! So, let's look at the last stupid thing Lawlor said...“We’ll see how the decisions play out before we put a lot of people to work building the project.” What? You were ready to "put a lot of people to work building the project" before the Illinois Supreme Court ruled? How were people going to build the Grain Belt Express without state approvals from all affected states? How were people going to build the Grain Belt Express without rights of way across the route? Without contracts? Without financing? Without money? Without customers? Sounds like you were ready to put people to work in the same way you were willing to negotiate fairly with landowners. As in... not at all. What a thoughtless and stupid thing to say! Lawlor also whines about Illinois by saying the same stupid things he said about Missouri: The ruling, Clean Line director of development Mark Lawlor said last week, would discourage renewable energy development in Illinois. Hey, guess what? Other developers aren't buying your cries of "wolf, wolf, wooooolffffff!" If no "clean lines" are ever built in Illinois, it will not affect the development of renewable energy in Illinois, because none of the Clean Line projects were ever proposed to move renewable energy produced in Illinois. No, they were just one way highways through the state for energy produced in other states, with no on or off ramps for local use. And people care even less about your investors and their signals. These filthy rich, silver spoon brats invested in your company with their eyes wide open, and besides, they'll hardly miss the millions they're going to be out when Clean Line folds. They'll probably just write it off their taxes and push the tax burden off onto working class taxpayers anyhow.
It's probably only a matter of time before the investors buy Mark his own wind farm, like they did for RICL's former development director, Hans Detweiler. Buh-bye! Rock Island Clean Line is dead. Grain Belt Express is dead. The St. Joseph News-Press published an editorial today stating: Officials with Clean Line Energy Partners are complaining about Missouri and its set of laws, as if the company didn’t know what it was getting into when it proposed stringing a high-voltage power line across the state. The editorial went on to say: ...the problem is Clean Line has not yet done enough to allay concerns of key decision-makers — in this case, county commissioners who by law have a big say in this matter. And concluded with this: Our preference is for Clean Line to continue to negotiate with the counties where it has met opposition. Short of that, both opponents and Clean Line should expect to be governed by the web of laws and regulations — both state and federal — that govern these matters. Clean Line's insistence that Missouri law must be changed to accommodate its desire to be above the law and build its project without county assent doesn't seem very popular with Missourians. And it's not just project opponents anymore. It's now the editorial board of a large newspaper, too. The sheer arrogance of these out-of-state interlopers will be their undoing. The News-Press must realize that the only thing standing between Clean Line and its success is... well... Clean Line! During recent oral argument before the Missouri PSC, Clean Line begged the PSC to issue an advisory opinion on the merits of the project, even if the PSC denied the project. Clean Line's attorney told the PSC that it needed that advisory opinion to take to the counties in order to convince them to assent to the project. CHAIRMAN HALL: Yes, I have a few. I want to start with your alternative argument that But Clean Line has used the PSC's "concurrence" on the project's merits for everything BUT going to the county commissions. The county commissions haven't heard a peep out of Clean Line in months. Now Clean Line and its environmental friends from the big cities want to use it to change Missouri law for their own benefit. And the people of Missouri perhaps think that's a step too far for a bunch of interlopers who want to use Missouri land and resources for their own gain. Clean Line is financed by deep pocketed investors from New York, Texas and the United Kingdom. None of these investors live or work anywhere near Missouri and won't have to suffer the consequences of their own actions. These investors have knowingly funneled around $200M into a very risky investment in Clean Line Energy Partners. When Clean Line goes belly up, these investors lose their entire investment in the company. I'll assume these sophisticated investors went into this transaction with their eyes wide open, so they must not have invested more than they could stand to lose. They'll probably hardly feel it. On the other hand, the damage to Missouri would now not only be a scar on its landscape and an obstacle to its productivity, but a long-lasting surrender of its authority through legislative change. I don't think Missouri is going to lay down willingly, and instead of winning the state's cooperation, Clean Line has obliviously lit a fire in Missouri's belly. Perhaps Clean Line's executives don't really care if they ever build a project or not. Perhaps their only interest at this point is to continue their own personal gravy trains as long as possible, even though they realize this train is headed for a gorge where the bridge is out. As long as the investors keep handing them cash to engage in hopeless battles, like trying to get Missouri to legislate away its own authority, the executives continue to live high on the hog. That could be the only explanation for why Clean Line even wants to engage in Missouri when the fate of this project is currently in the hands of the Illinois Court system. Did you listen to the oral arguments at the Fifth District Court of Appeals on the Illinois Commerce Commission's grant of a permit to Grain Belt Express under the wrong statute of Illinois law? If you haven't, you should. Based on questions from the justices, it isn't looking too swell for Clean Line, although the Court has yet to issue its opinion in this case. The opinion can come at any time. As well, did you watch to the oral arguments before the Illinois Supreme Court on whether the Rock Island Clean Line can ever be considered a public utility? That didn't go so well for Clean Line either. An opinion could be issued at any time. And, if RICL isn't a utility under Illinois law, then neither is GBE. The Court's opinion can yank the rug right out from under both Clean Line's Illinois projects at any time. And speaking of the Rock Island Clean Line, did you know that the Iowa Legislature legislated it's ability to use eminent domain out of existence during its last session? May 12, 2017 And then let's take a peek at Clean Line's Plains & Eastern Clean Line that wasted more than $15M getting the U.S. DOE to "participate" in its project in order to usurp the laws of Arkansas. Despite DOE's decision to "participate" in this project 18 months ago, it's no closer to actually being built. In addition to being the subject of a lawsuit in federal court, Plains & Eastern has no customers to finance the project. No revenue, no project. Plains & Eastern is stalled out, making no progress whatsoever.
Honestly, I don't think Clean Line Energy Partners is ever going to accomplish anything, except to spend its investors' money tilting at windmills and engaging in hopeless and increasingly expensive battles at the state and federal level. How much longer must the party in Houston go on? Clean Line and its big city environmentalist friends want to change Missouri law for their own benefit. Changing Missouri law doesn't benefit Missouri. The problem? A Missouri law that has been functioning for 100 years. Sec. 229-100 says TITLE XIV ROADS AND WATERWAYS Chapter 229 Provisions Relating to All Roads Missouri counties must assent to the crossing of their roads by linear infrastructure projects. Missouri counties are responsible for their roadways, so naturally they have control. Without that control, linear infrastructure projects could block, make useless, and destroy roadways that the county is financially responsible to maintain. A transmission company could cause all sorts of problems with county roads and skip off into the night, leaving repair costs to burden county taxpayers.
When the Mark Twain Transmission project was approved subject to future county assent, a Missouri court corrected by determining that county assent must come before PSC approval. Mark Twain found itself in a predicament. The counties would not give assent because the Mark Twain project proposed new rights of way over county roads. So, what did Mark Twain do? Did they have a big, sniveling tantrum and demand that Missouri change its law to allow crossing without county assent? No. Mark Twain went back to the drawing board to create a better project for which the counties could give assent. The revised Mark Twain project used existing rights of way and road crossings for its project, adding new capacity and rebuilding an old circuit. Eminent domain for new rights of way was minimized. While not everyone was happy, the revised project was improvement enough to receive the assent of impacted counties. That's right... Missouri law worked as intended to allow impacted counties to have control over the crossing of their roadways, while still allowing transmission projects to be built. The Mark Twain Transmission project is a MISO-ordered project. MISO thinks this project is important and needed. Perhaps it was important enough that compromise was the best path forward to achieving success. While MISO didn't get what it originally wanted, it did eventually get county assent to build a project that achieved its goal while also compromising to create a project that the counties could approve. This is the way the law is intended to work. Mark Twain changed its project to work within Missouri's law, instead of attempting to repeal the law in order to build its original plan. Missouri law works to protect Missouri. There's no reason to toss the baby out with the bathwater and bow to out-of-state interests who don't want to follow Missouri law. Clean Line's contention that no linear infrastructure projects can be built in Missouri with the 100-year old law in place is completely and totally wrong. Mark Twain is proof that infrastructure CAN be built in Missouri. It's testament that acceptable projects can be built. The problem here is that Clean Line does not want to revise its project to become something acceptable to Missouri counties. Clean Line has cut off all communication with Missouri counties. Clean Line is not even trying to compromise for a win-win -- where counties are happy and projects get built. Instead, Clean Line wants to have its own way, building its project and leaving counties with the tax burden of caring for the roads Clean Line destroys. This is not in the best interest of Missourians. It is only in the best interests of Clean Line, an out-of-state company with foreign investors. Just say no to Clean Line. Say no to its outside interference in Missouri's legislative process. Once Missouri cedes control of its fate to the hands of outside influence, it can never be regained. Clean Line needs to go back to the drawing board and build a better project, one that doesn't require Missouri to cede control to greedy foreign investors or urban environmental groups. One that works for Missourians. Put Missouri first! Any good grandparent knows what happens when you fill a toddler with sugary snacks and drinks... they turn into short-attention span race cars... zooming through your house at breakneck speed, harassing the cat, jumping on the bed, and dumping out every puzzle and game in the house in 30 seconds flat. That's sort of what happened with Clean Line's Mark Lawlor after the Missouri PSC denied Grain Belt's application. It took a while for Clean Line to stiffen its upper lip and say anything. The first words were Michael Skelly casting aspersions on Missouri, its institutions, its government, its people. And then he said: “We will review the order in detail to determine next steps for the project,” adds Skelly. “We are currently assessing all existing authorities available to move the Grain Belt Express project forward, including but not limited to legal appeals.” Clean Line executives said Wednesday that they were weighing their options for the Grain Belt Express power line, though they acknowledged that the “legal and regulatory conundrum” could add many months or years to the project if they decide to keep trying. Right, vague talk about appeals. Blah, blah, blah. Sort of sounds like a whipped puppy, doesn't he? *snort* *sniffle* *wahhhhhh* Have a lick or two of Clean Line's delicious lollipop and dry your tears... And remember, GBE's attorney promised the PSC that a dismissal would mean the project is dead and that a separate but ineffective favorable opinion would only be used to convince the counties to grant assent. Unfortunately, some of the PSC Commissioners took him at his word. Sometime later Wednesday afternoon Mark Lawlor got ahold of that lollipop and went on a sugar-fueled romp among the media, supposing all sorts of things he could do to move a dead and denied GBE project forward. Each comment got more outrageous until Mark's pinnacle with a Fox News station out of Illinois, where he said, "So, the Grain Belt Project will deliver enough power for over a million homes, and will do so at costs that are extremely competitive with wind energy that is clean and renewable.” No, really, that's exactly what he said, listen to the recording on the video here. What is it that Clean Line will be delivering that will be extremely competitive with clean wind power? It can't be clean wind power, so it must be dirty coal power? Gas? Nuclear? All of the above? I think the sugar was running amok by that time and Mark's brain and mouth were running in different time zones. What other stupid things did he say? “We absolutely want to do the project,” said Mark Lawlor, development director for Grain Belt Express. But he added: “Unfortunately, the message that we’re getting from Missouri is that investments of these kind might be better spent in other places.” Wow, that was pretty impressive, for a company that seems to be out of money. Lawlor's false bravado seems to have rubbed off on Clean Line president Michael Skelly the next day. Skelly says: “It’s impossible if you’re building a multi-state transmission line to get agreements from all 30 counties that you might cross,” said Michael Skelly, the president of Houston-based Clean Line, which is planning about $9 billion of power lines across the Great Plains, Midwest and the Southwest. And then he passes the lollipop to Clean Line's PR lady: Clean Line’s other options, said spokesperson Sarah Bray, include asking the PSC for a rehearing, working with the state’s legislature to revise pertinent laws or seeking U.S. Energy Department approval under Section 1222 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. The latter would authorize the department to take part in “designing, developing, constructing, operating, maintaining or owning” new transmission. That sugary lollipop the PSC handed them has done nothing but fuel delusions of grandeur that the company can't accomplish. And it's going to waste a bunch more time and money. Instead of being "toast," like it promised, the company wants to add years to its project schedule pursuing the impossible dream. And what are Clean Line's options?
None of these sound like workable options. They would add years and hundreds of millions of dollars to the project. Clean Line doesn't have years. The big wind farm building boom is waning with the federal production tax credits that will sunset in just 3 years. When the PTC goes, so goes any economic advantage for big wind. Because the PSC denied Grain Belt's application the other day, all those contracts between GBE, MJMEUC and Infinity Wind are void. The contracts were contingent upon PSC approval. All that would have to be rehashed at a later date. Pricing would change without the PTC. Any opportunity and savings attached to those contracts during the recent PSC application will have to be completely re-done. And that's the thing, unless appeal is granted (highly unlikely) Clean Line will have to prosecute a fourth application before the MO PSC with no guarantee of a favorable result. The MO PSC swings wildly from side to side.
And then let's talk about Illinois, where the Supreme Court has taken up the issue of whether or not Clean Line is a public utility that should be granted eminent domain authority. Even if Clean Line spends all this money trying to bust through Missouri's brick wall, eventually the Illinois Supreme Court is going to issue a ruling that can nullify it. All of it. It doesn't matter what Missouri thinks if the Illinois permit is vacated. Why waste a bunch of time and money in Missouri when it can all be for naught once Illinois rules? I thought Clean Line put spending money in Iowa on hold pending the Illinois outcome. But yet they want to do that exact thing in Missouri? Honestly, these guys are dumber than a box of rocks. It sounds to me like they're just spewing out a bunch of empty threats and big talk that they can't accomplish. Perhaps they'll come down off their sugar high soon? Because Clean Line is dead. Go away, Clean Line. You will never succeed. In the wake of the Missouri Public Service Commission's denial of Clean Line's Grain Belt Express project today, fingers were pointing everywhere. Clean Line's Michael Skelly blamed the PSC. “The PSC’s decision to deny approval of the project, despite the clear public benefits, sends a clear message that investors contemplating new infrastructure projects should not come to Missouri. Today’s ruling is inconsistent with good government and sound public policy and it is our hope that moving forward Missouri will work to remove barriers to building new critical infrastructure projects.” The PSC blamed the courts. Instead, the commission said it was bound by a court opinion rendered earlier this year on the Mark Twain Transmission Project. That case involved the issue of assent — or permission from counties to use right-of-ways to construct the project. Screwball environmental fringe group Renew Missouri blamed the governor. "...the decision on the Grain Belt Express today shows our new Governor’s administration isn’t serious about economic development and household budgets as promised. Just more talk with no action.” Let's pause here and put on our thinking caps, shall we?
What's the problem? Grain Belt Express did not have necessary county assents. Whose fault is that? It's Clean Line's fault, of course! None of this would have happened if Clean Line had produced county assents. And why couldn't Clean Line produce county assents? Because it treated county commissions and affected landowners like they didn't matter. Instead of offering something landowners could accept, Clean Line thought it prudent to ignore landowner concerns and request eminent domain to take their property against their will. If Clean Line had truly worked to find a way to get landowner support, the county commissions may have granted assent. But Clean Line didn't. The denial of Grain Belt Express is only Clean Line's fault.  Citizens across Missouri are celebrating today in the wake of the Public Service Commission’s (PSC) denial of Grain Belt Express’s (GBE) application to build a high-voltage transmission line across the state. The application, GBE’s third, was unanimously denied at a PSC meeting this morning. The Commissioners stated that they are constrained by a recent court opinion that requires local county assent before the PSC can grant a permit.
Block GBE-Missouri President Russ Pisciotta stated, “This is a huge victory for the impacted property owners and property rights. We are so thankful to all that made this possible.” Key to the landowners’ victory is the steadfast opposition to the project by County Commissions. A transmission project must receive the assent of the commission of each county crossed prior to approval by the PSC. In Ralls County, where support of the project was rescinded, Presiding Commissioner Wiley Hibbard says he will continue to stand with his constituents. “I am very pleased that the local control of county commissioners was upheld by the PSC. Local officials have much better insight on how these projects will affect their counties. Please know Ralls County is not against green energy, in fact our Ralls Co. Electric Co-op has over 500 megawatts of wind energy currently available. Anyone interested in taking advantage of this clean energy opportunity without taking our land by force is welcome in Ralls County,” said Hibbard. Caldwell County Presiding Commissioner Bud Motsinger said he has tried to reflect the opinions of voting constituents. “I am very pleased that the PSC has listened to the public comments and public opinion. It is very important for local citizens to express opinions on issues that concern them and their county. This is an example of community involvement protecting the future of Caldwell County,” said Motsinger. Block GBE-Missouri believes that offshore wind is a viable option for the east coast, without disrupting and clear cutting thousands of acres halfway across the country in the Midwest. Offshore wind is a reliable and consistent supply because it blows during peak times, when terrestrial wind often cannot produce. Block GBE believes distributed and locally sourced renewables provide economic development to the area that will use the energy produced, and keeps energy dollars at home, where they provide local jobs and tax benefits. Block member Jennifer Gatrel stated, “It was never about whether or not the energy was renewable, but about disruption and loss of production for the many family farms, as well as reduced property values and permanent hazards for landowners in GBE’s path. Use of eminent domain to coerce cooperation, and poor compensation, did little to convince landowners to sacrifice their wellbeing for the benefit of consumers in Missouri cities and other states far away.” During oral arguments on the issue earlier this month, GBE’s attorney shared with the Commission that if the project was dismissed, it was dead. “Farmers are long term thinkers. We plan in decades, not years. We will fight this as long as it takes. Property rights are worth protecting,” said Block GBE spokeswoman Jennifer Gatrel. BACKGROUND: Grain Belt Express was a 780-mile high-voltage direct current transmission proposed to run from Kansas to Indiana to move wind energy from the Great Plains to the East Coast. It's one or the other. Let's contemplate this... When I asked Todd Burns what his company's return on equity was, he appeared confused. He didn't know what a return on equity was. It was only after I explained what it was that he finally remembered that Transource's return on equity for this project is "10 to 11 percent" something like that. FACT: Transource has applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a 10.9% ROE. The matter is currently in settlement discussions, with an administrative hearing possible if a settlement is not reached. I met a handful of the Transource guys and gals the other night. Most attempted to be personable and avoid direct lies while trying to answer my increasingly hard questions. And then I worked my way up to Todd Burns. He also had trouble admitting that Transource has received an incentive from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that allows the company to file to recover all its sunk costs from ratepayers in the event that PJM decides to abandon this project. So, do the lawyers and bean counters at "Transource" (really utility giant AEP, because Transource has no employees of its own) not share basic information, such as return on equity and who pays if the project is abandoned, with Todd Burns? Todd needs to hustle home to Columbus with great alacrity and find out about all this stuff! Otherwise, he looks rather stupid to a public who does know about it. Or maybe he looks like a liar who was pretending to be uninformed so he could avoid the question? As if that could happen. Todd Burns also seemed to be confused about a lot of other facts during an interview with the Waynesboro Herald Record. Despite that, the reporter managed to write a great, balanced article. The Herald Record has the best coverage of this issue that I've seen (other media take note!) What was it that Burns said? Burns said some of the negative feedback is based on misinformation about the project. “There’s a lot of confusion and a lot of things being said that aren’t accurate,” Burns said. I blame you, Todd. I think most of the "misinformation" is coming from you. Please, allow me to demonstrate... “Burying lines causes problems,” Burns said. “If a line fails and it’s underground, it can’t be located and fixed immediately. That’s what happened recently on the Outer Banks. It is NOT "ten times more costly" to underground lines. In fact, it's only twice as costly, roughly. AEP has been claiming undergrounding is "ten times more costly" for years, along with a whole bunch of other excuses for taking the cheaper and easier option of aerial lines. And the technology does exist to determine where a fault is on an underground line. And you probably can mark an underground line to prevent all by the biggest idiots from pile driving onto it. I'm not buying the environmental disturbance thing, either. I've seen what transmission companies do to rights of way when building overhead lines. So, let's update these excuses, because they sort of sound like a lie to me. As well, who cares how much it costs to underground lines? If the landowners require undergrounding, then that is the cost of fixing this "bottleneck." Are you saying that unless you can build this cheaply that all the savings for the DC-Baltimore elite will evaporate? A more expensive project doesn't clear a cost-benefit analysis? Then, obviously, this project isn't worth doing. It is not incumbent upon Pennsylvania and Maryland landowners to sacrifice by allowing the cheapest project you can build in order to move cheaper power to the city. If you want them to sacrifice for the cities, then the landowners need to have input into how the final project looks on their property. And by having input, I mean actually making the determination -- I don't mean having an opportunity to toss comments down a black hole at Transource where they are completely ignored. The only way a landowner can have effective input is when eminent domain is not an option. Anything else is coercion, not negotiation. Which brings us to... “I’ve heard people are concerned about land use and whether they will be able to use their properties,” Burns said. “People will still be able to work under the power lines, although obviously there would be a limit on building underneath them. The land is still useable.” If you want to see how landowners can still work under high voltage transmission lines, carefully watch the AEP videos on this page. Nuisance shocks, EMF, and big brother monitoring your activities on your own land? What's not to like? But wait, there's more... like aerial spraying of the right of way with chemicals to keep growth down, or power line workers coming on your property for maintenance or repairs and leaving gates open, driving large equipment through your fields, and disturbing the soil. The truth is that you will have picked up a parasitic tenant on your land... in perpetuity. "Compensation" for property taken may be less than you'd expect. After all it is a value created by an out of state company, that will never even lay eyes on your place, from market studies of similar land sales of property in your county. It is Transource's idea of the value of your property, not yours. As well, you may only be paid for the property in the right of way, when the right of way itself devalues the rest of the parcel. Payments for damages will be argued over in court for years... at your expense, if you don't accept what the company wants to give you. I'm pretty sure Transource land agents will use the threat of eminent domain 100% of the time in order to coerce the landowner to sign on the dotted line. That isn't negotiation, that's coercion. Burns said he is confident the Independence Energy Connection will save customers money not just in the greater metropolitan areas south of here, but locally. “The driver is to give customers in this area access to lower costs,” he said. He said it is too early to estimate what the cost savings might be, or whether local, independent energy companies will pass the savings on to customers. “They may have other initiatives that will affect your bill,” Burns said. Perhaps Burns needs to talk to his underlings, who have readily admitted that the lion's share of the savings is for customers in the DC/Baltimore area. And PJM agrees with that. That's why 80.52% of the cost of this project will be paid for by DC, Baltimore and Northern Virginia Customers.  Those who receive the benefits (in this instance cheaper power) pay the costs. That's how PJM works. Any savings for the project area (benefits) are not commensurate with the cost to the community and the individual landowners. Their costs are much greater than any benefit they may receive. And I hate to let Burns know, but one of his underlings actually confirmed that market efficiency projects perform a leveling of costs across the region. If power is cheaper in the cities, the cost of it must rise somewhere else. All that cheap power "bottlenecked" in PA and MD and unable to reach the cities? Those are the prices that are going to go up once the "bottleneck" is removed. And then Burns admits he has no hard evidence of how (or even if) this project will lower local electric bills. Then he supposes that local electric companies may keep any savings that develop for themselves. Of course... always thinking ahead, that Todd, to explain now why bills will never go down after this project is built. Todd is not telling the truth about project benefit. But he may not be the only one with a penchant for prevarication. Transource spokeswoman Abby Foster made up a whole bunch of satisfied and happy landowners out of thin air. Despite the many negative comments exchanged from person to person around the packed community center, Transource officials said there was also positive feedback. Why are there no quotes from these people? Why didn't the reporter talk to any of them? Is that because they don't exist? These must be the mysterious folks who have requested monopoles, because those people are just as elusive. What it seems more like is that Transource is making up a mythical landowner who is pleased because Transource is altering its plans to suit Mr. Mythical. A company that presented its public image as "take it or leave it" would be seen as unfavorable by the public. One that pretends it is bending to the will of the people may curry more favor. But when there are no happy people in reality, it's all an illusion. Nobody wants this transmission line on their property. And as far as that “everyone here benefits from something being on someone’s property” line, puh-leeze. I heard that from one of the Transource people at the open house. It was the tagline of the night. And it sucks. It doesn't work on the public, just so you know, Transource. Other companies have tried it before you. It is met with anger and confusion. It has no relevance for affected landowners. Just because we use eminent domain and rights of way to take property for public use does not mean that everyone should gladly sacrifice for the selfish needs of others. And that's what this is... rural sacrifice for urban benefit. This project isn't needed to keep the lights on. It's only "need," according to PJM, is to make power cheaper in the cities to the south. Those cities like to keep their pretty skylines lit up all night long. There's no reason at all to keep an office tower lit inside all night. Maybe if the cities quit wasting so much electricity, they wouldn't need to call older, more expensive plants to generate during peak load a few days out of the year. And then we wouldn't "need" gigantic transmission towers in Pennsylvania. Let's wrap up with this... “We’ll look at a route that strikes the best balance,” Burns said, mentioning recreational activities, historic value and land use concerns. “You rarely come up with one that’s gonna satisfy all those things. Ultimately, it will be at the state level to decide where it goes.” It is up to the state to decide WHETHER it goes, not just where. Opposition to this project is huge and gathering mass every minute. Loud, forthright opposition kills transmission projects. Todd Burns is going to need to get himself educated quickly! Or else quit lying. He's not very good at it.
Legal transcripts contain an index. The transcript of last week's Missouri Public Service Commission Oral Argument in the Grain Belt Express case includes the word "nightmare."  There was a bit of debate regarding exactly what constitutes Grain Belt Express's worst nightmare. PSC Chairman Hall thought issuing a non-appealable favorable finding (but not a permit) for GBE to use as leverage for assent of county commissions would create GBE's "worst nightmare" of hanging in limbo forever. However, GBE's attorney was quick to correct him. He said dismissal of the application was GBE's "worst nightmare," because dismissal means the project is dead. Chairman Hall started to disagree, then changed his mind. I still think a dead project is better than a limbo project, at least it has finality and stops costing the investors money that maybe they don't want to invest anymore. Chairman Hall thought GBE's idea that a "favorable finding" by the PSC would convince the counties to give assent to the project "naive."
The transcript also contains derivatives of the word "baffle." As in I mean, I completely understand Mr. Zobrist's argument. I'm baffled by yours. So said Chairman Hall regarding MJMEUC's argument that the ATXI decision supports the issuance of a conditional permit for GBE. I'm thinking that the hearing did not go well for GBE. Chairman Hall did not seem to be buying the arguments that the ATXI decision wasn't relevant to the GBE case. In order to declare the ATXI decision inapposite, GBE would have had to distinguish itself from ATXI, and it completely failed to do so. Instead it put forth arguments that were "naive" and "baffling" that urged the Commission to defy the courts and issue a CCN with language that tells the court their ATXI decision was wrong. If the Missouri Supreme Court declined to do so, it's not the place of the PSC to attempt to re-interpret the law. The law is clear, and the courts have spoken. Done. And speaking of specious arguments, the attorney for the Sierra Club and other parties really stepped in it. He told the Commission, We've also raised the possibility of a county veto being in violation of federal law, and this is based solely on my general knowledge, but it seems that local interference with interstate commerce and electricity would violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Federal Power Act gives FERC authority over interstate transmission lines. The state still has authority to regulate the siting of interstate transmission lines, but they're otherwise preempted. This guy's "general knowledge" is flat out wrong. The Federal Power Act only gives FERC authority over interstate transmission RATES. It does not give them permitting or siting authority. FERC cannot approve transmission projects. The states have complete jurisdiction over the siting and permitting of interstate transmission lines and are not "preempted" from acting. With this kind of stellar legal analysis, can we believe anything this guy says? The Sierra Club needs to mind its own business and stop trying to interfere in state transmission permitting cases. They only succeed in making themselves irrelevant.
So now it's up to the Missouri PSC to decide what to do with this case. The ATXI decision does preclude the issuance of a CCN for GBE. Any attempt to go around it, as suggested by GBE and its sycophants, will most likely be struck down by the courts. GBE's attorney has to recognize this. He seemed nearly hysterical in his anger and frustration when it appeared that he failed to convince the Commissioners to go along with his "path forward." Remember, the nightmare isn't keeping this case in limbo, but in dismissing it. While logical thinking says that limbo is the worst thing that could happen, for some reason GBE is looking forward to it. It's almost as if GBE is already hanging in limbo, unable to unlock enough cash to continue operations unless it receives some sort of "favorable" opinion from the MO PSC. It doesn't seem to matter if the favorable opinion hangs the project in legal limbo, or results in a future court vacating the favorable opinion. It's all about having that piece of paper right now. The Missouri Public Service Commission holds the key to the Clean Line money vault. Without it, the project is dead... and likely the other Clean Line projects as well. In the wilds of Mayberry, an animal so injured it cannot recover is put out of its misery. It's a kindness to end its suffering. GBE is suffering. It cannot be saved. It's time... Building five ginormous transmission projects totaling thousands of miles of new merchant lines was a pipe dream. Utility experts said it couldn't be done. They were right, it can't. Teetering on the brink of failure after spending more than $200M of investor cash on his impossible dream, Clean Line Energy Partners CEO Michael Skelly now suggests that the federal government bail out his investors. The Trump administration could help by pushing for an infrastructure package that would see the government “buying down a portion of the capacity” on big transmission projects so they can enter construction more quickly, or perhaps through an investment tax credit, Skelly suggests. Skelly has finally given voice to his frustration in an interview with Recharge News.  Skelly suggests that the federal government should buy capacity on his transmission project in order to get it over some imaginary hump that will allow him to start construction. The federal government isn't in the business of buying unnecessary transmission capacity in order to prop up commercial projects that cannot stand on their own two feet. While federal power marketers do occasionally purchase needed transmission capacity, they are not forced to do so merely to support the building of bridges to nowhere. And if the federal government legislated the purchase of transmission capacity by its federal power marketers, it would be creating captive customers to shoulder the risk of this speculative transmission idea that cannot get off the ground on its own merits. As a merchant transmission project, Clean Line has pledged to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that its investors will shoulder all the risk for its projects and that it does not have a captive ratepayer stream of funding. Merchant projects succeed or fail based on their economics. If a merchant project is useful, customers will voluntarily purchase its capacity, and the project will come to fruition. If there are no customers, a merchant project cannot succeed. Suggesting that the federal government pour taxpayer money into Skelly's projects would create an artificial "need" and economic basis for the project. Participation by a government customer would not be voluntary. That's not how merchant transmission works.  Clean Line has no customers. Despite Skelly's claim: Plains & Eastern is “pretty much fully developed at this point”, Skelly says. “We’re now in the commercialisation phase, matching chippers – that is wind developers – with utilities in the southeast.” He turns around in his next breath and suggests that the federal government be forced into being a customer through legislation or executive mandate. Obviously, Skelly's efforts to match his chippers with customers isn't working. It's been 18 months since the U.S. DOE got involved in his project in an attempt to usurp state authority and claim federal eminent domain authority to site the Plains & Eastern Clean Line, and Skelly still doesn't have a customer. When the DOE agreed to participate in the project in March, 2016, Skelly claimed that he would have his customer agreements sewn up in a matter of weeks, but that has not panned out. Skelly's other taxpayer bailout idea is federal investment tax credits. This would give a direct tax credit to project investors, which they could use as cash to pay down their own corporate tax debt. Let's see... ultra rich 1% Democrats who invested in a renewable energy scheme supported by a Democratic White House want the current Congress to bail them out with tax credits.  A tax credit is taxpayer-funded cash for its owner. By eliminating its own corporate tax debt, the investor would have more cash to invest in Clean Line Energy Partners. Essentially, it's free government money for Clean Line that the investors wouldn't spend otherwise. It's a way to prop up Clean Line's failing business model with taxpayer funds. Clean Line's investors pay less taxes? You pay more to make up the difference. Where does the federal government get its money? Out of your pocket. Every.last.dollar. There's no such thing as "free" government money. So Clean Line has been posturing to the Trump Administration for months now, suggesting it is a prime candidate for the President's great, great Infrastructure Plan. Trump has posited that private investors can belly up to the bar and fund billions in new infrastructure projects in exchange for ownership that creates a revenue stream, or tax credits that allow publicly-owned projects to be built.  Except Clean Line isn't a publicly-owned project. Clean Line's rich investors will own the project and the revenue stream, and charge the public a fee to use it. There's no benefit for the public. It's nothing short of taxpayer-financed private industry, and it cannot be included in an infrastructure package designed to get infrastructure like roads and public works projects built. And furthermore, Skelly wants the federal government to be the "private sector investor" who gets his project over the finish line! I'm pretty certain that's not what Trump had in mind. Once certain that his transmission projects would be marketable under a Democratic administration, Skelly now fantasizes about a Republican-led taxpayer bailout to prop up his failing company. “It’s still a bit early to tell exactly what the administration will do to stimulate more infrastructure investment,” Skelly says. “But in terms of the things they’re talking about, with private-sector-led projects, it forms a pretty nice Venn diagram with transmission.” What kind of a guy uses the words "Venn diagram" to prop up his unsuccessful ideas in the media?  Is Skelly's dream even logical, or is the stress getting to him? Why would the federal government fund an infrastructure project that's supposed to be "led by private investors?"
The idea that our current Congress will pour buckets of taxpayer dollars into a wind energy transmission project that has no customers in order to bail it out of its current financial crisis is insane. |
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
|
RSS Feed