StopPATH WV
  • News
  • StopPATH WV Blog
  • FAQ
  • Events
  • Fundraisers
  • Make a Donation
  • Landowner Resources
  • About PATH
  • Get Involved
  • Commercials
  • Links
  • About Us
  • Contact

Bending Physics to Make Money

5/14/2017

1 Comment

 
Is there no limit to the propaganda businessmen will spew in order to profit?

Now we've got Anbaric's Ed Krapels bending physics in order to pimp merchant transmission to... who exactly?  Who is supposed to read this krap and give Ed a bunch of money?

I recently stumbled across this:

Make America (Electrically) Great Again: An Electric Infrastructure Plan For The Trump Team

Because Trump is so inclined to take his "plans" from The Huffington Post.  Right.

This krappy opinion piece is so full of rhetorical buzzwords that a friend suggested we make a drinking game out of it, and other media in the same vein.  Balkanized?  Take a shot!  Green?  Take a shot!  Resilient?  Take a shot!  Modernize?  Take a shot!  Infrastructure?  Take a shot!

Drunk on the floor.  All.The.Time.

As if glittering generalities are the basis for planning and building the greatest machine of modern times -- the electric transmission grid. 

First of all, we need to recognize where krap like this comes from... it comes from the corporations and people who stand to make a profit from grid construction.  It comes from environmental group lawyers who have no electrical engineering experience.  And the worst part?  These people know better!  They know that the grid is planned and operated by federally monitored regional transmission and reliability organizations.  Our grid is constantly expanded and modernized by experienced engineers with an eye toward reliability and price.  It's not about favoring one resource over the other, or putting money in investor pockets.  So when you read krappy articles claiming our grid is costly, rickety, and unreliable, they're just not true.  We don't look to profit-seeking, or politically-motivated entities to plan a grid that puts the most money in someone's pockets, and we shouldn't start now.  Creating a grid based on the need to meet political goals, or put money in corporate pockets, is creating a grid that's not efficient, affordable, or reliable.

Another krappy opinion piece claims that big companies are simply greenwashing when they purchase renewable energy credits and then claim to be environmentally responsible.  I agree.  But I do not agree with the suggested krappy solution of building new transmission lines so that the company can actually use the electricity associated with the RECs it purchases, as if electricity is nothing more than water in a pipe that can be directed to flow to a certain customer.  The problem is the idea of RECs in the first place, not a lack of transmission.  A REC represents the social and environmental attributes of electricity generated.  A company can buy a REC, but that REC can be physically separated from the actual electricity produced.  A generator may sell the actual electricity to another user, and then market the REC to someone else.  That creates two revenue streams for the same electron.   Essentially, it is selling something twice to two different buyers.  It's a swindle of the highest order.

Options to solve that?
1.  Stop unbundling RECs from energy.
2.  Require companies to purchase transmission on the existing system to use the actual energy they purchase.  There ain't no such thing as "cheap" environmental footprint, unless the public believes the greenwashing.

And then there's the unnecessary -- building new private transmission lines just for companies who want to purchase unbundled RECs from far away places.  If we start down that path, with each company supporting its own private transmission line, we're soon going to find wires everywhere.  The more wires and connections added, the more complicated and unreliable the grid becomes.  There's also the problem of clearing a path for private transmission lines on private property owned by others.  That's not a public use.  That's not a public utility.  Eminent domain cannot be used for such an endeavor.

No matter how many buzzwords these grid profiteers use, their ultimate goal is clear:  to enable private companies to take from the public in order to increase their profits.
Congress should create legislative authority for siting major electricity transmission lines that follows the authority it has already granted to siting major gas lines.
In other words, let's let the federal government site and permit electric transmission to create a politically favored electric grid that everyone pays for.  Fly over states and politically disconnected areas will be forced to sacrifice for the needs of the economically advantaged and politically connected.  It's just not true that everyone benefits from every transmission line dreamed up to line corporate profits.  New transmission levelizes prices between generation regions and consumption regions.  While it may lower prices in consumption regions, it raises prices in formerly constrained generation regions, and the folks in the middle get nothing.  Zilch.  Zero.  That problem cannot be solved by federal authority, the only thing federal authority may do is exacerbate it.  Our current system that leaves siting and permitting authority to states is not broken. States do a much better job recognizing local priorities and concerns, and determining benefit to the state.  Any delays come from badly conceived transmission ideas that do not provide benefits to localities, or seek to use the eminent domain power of the state for private transmission projects that do not provide public benefit. 

Here's how to fix a long state permitting process:  Stop trying to use eminent domain to force private infrastructure!  I'm pretty sure Mr. Krapels is well aware that transmission that's sited underwater and underground on land of willing hosts can sail through the transmission permitting process in record time.  Mr. Krapels also probably has customers lined up for the projects he undertakes, and doesn't rely on "build it and they will come" as a business plan.

Stop trying to "fix" what's not broken just to make private utility projects cheaper or faster.  Instead, design better transmission projects with an eye toward making them acceptable to the communities they propose to impact.  The grid operators and regulators we already have do a fine job of vetting transmission proposals and only ordering the building of what's actually needed.  We don't need a bunch of profiteers creating their own private grid through our backyards.

The problem isn't us, it's you.  All the glittering generalities in the world just can't fix that.
1 Comment

Clean Line Energy Partners is not a Public Utility

4/15/2017

0 Comments

 
The best part about traveling is coming home and catching up on your reading.  Especially when it's a lot of reading of legal briefs on transmission line cases.  Reading a whole bunch of briefs on different Clean Line projects in different states, and in different stages of the legal process, made one thing abundantly clear.  Clean Line Energy Partners is not a public utility.  None of its projects are public utilities.  Nor can they ever be public utilities.

How else to explain finding the exact same arguments before both the Illinois Supreme Court, and the Missouri Public Service Commission?  Two different projects, two very different processes.

The Illinois Farm Bureau's brief at the Illinois Supreme Court cuts right to the chase:
"What Rock Island is asking the Commission to do is grant it a CPCN so it looks like a 'public utility' for purposes of condemning private property to build its line, while at the same time it plans to offer only a token percentage of that line's capacity for 'public use'. The transmission service that Rock Island plans to provide on its transmission line does not meet the public use standard under Section 3-105 of the PUA." (R.V27, C6629).
These are the words of the ICC Staff at the close of a five day evidentiary hearing at the
Commission on Rock Island's Verified Petition. Rock Island is not a public utility, and it does not commit to serve the public. Despite the express language of the PUA, Rock Island, as a non-utility startup company, sought a CPCN from the Commission for which it is not statutorily eligible. Rock Island's public policy arguments regarding an apparent desire for an expansion to the statutory definition of''public utility" should have been, and still can be, made to the legislature.
Clean Line is trying to shoehorn a square peg into a round hole.  It only wants to be a "public utility" so that it may be granted eminent domain authority.

The same basic argument shows up in the Initial Brief of Show Me Concerned Landowners before the Missouri Public Service Commission:

Grain Belt Express is a merchant transmission company. It is proposing to build a participant funded transmission line. As such, neither the applicant nor the proposed project embody the business characteristics the Legislature authorized this Commission to regulate.

The Court recognized that when a private business enters into special contracts upon its own terms and not at a regular rate, there is not only no need for the Commission to regulate, to do so would be a violation of the constitution. The purpose of regulation is to bring the power of government to bear on a common carrier service. Private initiatives not devoted to the public use of all do not justify the comprehensive regulations dictated by the Public Service Commission Law. Stated another way, when facilities are not devoted to a public use, there is no need for the Commission. That is the situation before the Commission in this Grain Belt Express case.

Two different cases.  Two different states.  Same basic precedent.

But wait... let's add a third state!  Because that's basically what Arkansas said when presented with Clean Line's Plains & Eastern project back in 2011.
The issues presented by this case are twofold: (1) whether Clean Line fits the statutory definition of an Arkansas “public utility” and is entitled to a CCN to provide public utility service in the state; and (2) if so, whether Clean Line is entitled to exemption from certain public utility statutes. For the reasons stated more fully below, the Commission finds that Clean Line does not meet the statutory definition of a public utility at this time.  The Commission’s ruling on the first issue moots the necessityof ruling on the second.
The Commission is a creature of the General Assembly, and it performs a legislative function in regulating all public utilities. Bryant u, Arkansas Pub. Sew. Comm‘n, 46 Ark. App. 88,877 S.W.2d 594 (1994); Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Ark. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 267 Ark. 550, 593 S.W.2d 434 (1980).  The Commission’s statutory mandate extends to and includes “all matters pertaining to the regulation and operation of all ... electric lighting companies and other companies furnishing gas or electricity for light, heat, or power purposes.” Ark. Code Ann. 23-2-302.

The Commission’s decision in this case turns on the statutory definition of a “public utility” found in Ark. Code Ann,  23-1-101(9)(a) cited above. Although Clean Line’s presentation of its case was strong on policy considerations and certainly Clean Line worked hard to analogize its case to that of the SPP RTO, the Commission’s authority cannot exceed that which is delegated to it by the Arkansas General Assembly. The “public utility” definition requires “owning or operating in this state equipment or facilities for...transmitting...power to or for the public for compensation.” Ark. Code Ann. 23-1-101(9)(A).

The Parties’ legal filings and opening arguments at the December 7 hearing discussed to varying degrees what each of these key phrases means, but the Commission is not convinced the totality of the evidence satisfies this statutory threshold. Recognizing, as Clean Line pointed out, there is some circularity involved in the fact that Clean Line cannot own or operate regulated major utility facilities pursuant to Arkansas law in this state without first being declared a public utiliity, in isolation, this portion of the statute is not determinative of Clean Line’s utility status. However, read in tandem with the facts that the transmission of the power must also be “to or for the public for compensation’’ when Clean Line, to date, has no contracts for public utility service with any utility, including Arkansas utilities, and there also can be no transmission of power at this time, the Commission is not prepared to approve Clean Line’s CCN Application.
So Clean Line doesn't meet the definition of public utility in at least 3 states.  But nevertheless, Clean Line dolled itself up and presented as a public utility to numerous state regulatory agencies.  Even when a state is initially fooled by Clean Line's public utility costume, the courts have not been tricked.

I think we're on to something here...
If Clean Line Energy Partners is not a public utility, then the company can never use eminent domain to condemn land upon which to build its projects.  I think this is the simplicity we've all been searching for over the past five years to explain why CLEP is different from other transmission lines, and why it should never be granted eminent domain authority.

Sure, we've talked about the company being a private, for-profit enterprise, but so are other investor-owned utilities who build transmission.  We've talked about CLEP's failure to vet its plan at regional transmission organizations, but that in and of itself isn't necessary to build transmission.

There's absolutely nothing stopping CLEP from building its projects on voluntarily negotiated rights of way, or having voluntarily negotiated rights of way and committed customers in hand when applying for public utility status from any individual state regulatory authority.  Except CLEP can't do that.  CLEP won't do that.  CLEP has applied in various states to be granted public utility status with nothing but a business plan.  CLEP tells state regulatory commissions about its plans in the future tense.  Someday it will own utility property.  Someday it will have customers.  Someday it will negotiate rates with customers.  Someday it will get financing.  Someday it will hire employees with the expertise to build transmission lines.  Someday.  Someday.  Someday.  CLEP wants to be granted the rights of a public utility now without any of the responsibility that comes with it. 

CLEP needs the state regulatory process to grant it eminent domain authority to assemble rights of way.  But in order to be granted that authority, CLEP must be a public utility.  And it's not.
 CLEP is a merchant transmission company.  Its projects are extraneous transmission lines not needed for reliability, economic or public policy purposes.  The sole purpose of CLEP's projects are profit.  Merchant transmission projects aren't new.  There are several of them in existence.  However, those merchant transmission projects have customers.  They were proposed and built with certain customers in mind.  Clean Line is pure speculation... build it and they will come (well, maybe, but not so far).  Clean Line's business plan is unformed and unripe.  It doesn't work as proof of public utility status.

Clean Line's "merchant" business model does not comport with "public use" definitions under state law.  Negotiating rates for service with private parties does not make the service available to the public.  Neither does auctioning off small bits of service to the highest bidder at auction.  Merchant projects don't offer service to the public -- they offer service to private parties who can pay the most for service.

ComEd's brief before the Illinois Supreme Court describes how merchant projects like Clean Line fail the test of public use.
Rock Island’s plan offers the public the nondiscriminatory right to bid for transmission capacity. But it does not offer the public the nondiscriminatory right to use transmission capacity. Under well-settled authority dating back a century, Rock Island’s plan does not meet the “public use” requirement.

As a threshold matter, it is important to clarify what this means. As Rock Island’s witness makes clear in his testimony, the open season auction will be open to the public on non-discriminatory terms. In other words, any member of the public can bid. But there is a difference between being able to bid for a service through an auction and being able to actually use a service at a tariffed price. When Christie’s auctions a painting, any member of the public can bid on non-discriminatory terms; but only the winner takes the painting home.

The ICC points out that the open season will be “fair, transparent and non-discriminatory.” ICC Br. 25-26. ComEd agrees. But this simply means that the auction process will be fair, and that all bidders would have the same opportunity to bid. It does not mean that all members of the public can use the service on equal terms. Those who cannot pay the auction price are left with only the chance of receiving non-firm service and are expressly subordinated to anchor tenants and auction winners. Non-auction winners who do not, or who cannot use non-firm service, are left completely empty- handed.
A merchant transmission project with no customers does not meet the legal definition of public utility.

Show Me sums it all up in its brief:
Grain Belt Express is proposing a duplicate service to the existing, well-established transmission grid. It is seeking to provide discriminatory service to one particular customer to obtain this Commission’s approval. It is proposing as a merchant a service that is participant-funded. It wants to maintain that merchant status, free from the obligations imposed on an “electrical corporation” by the Missouri Public Service Commission Law. This unregulated utility will create many problems that the Missouri Public Service Commission Law was designed to thwart, such as destructive competition, damage to property from duplicative facilities, and the exercise of market power in a traditional monopoly service. Grain Belt is seeking the power of the state of Missouri granted by this CCN without any of the obligations imposed by the law. Show Me is concerned with one enterprise whose property is not devoted to the public service using the land (I think he meant to say "laws") of the state, particularly the eminent domain power of the state, for their own business interests. It is not just and it is not in the public interest of the state of Missouri.
Go away, Clean Line.  You're not a public utility.
0 Comments

Smells Like Broken Dreams and Bitter Lobbyist Tears

3/30/2017

6 Comments

 
I'm sure you know one... a member of the "Good Old Boys' Club."  I'm talking about a well-fed, middle-aged white guy who may actually use the phrase, "Do you know who I am?" on a regular basis.  He doesn't appear to be particularly bright or industrious, and has absolutely no self-awareness or empathy, but he's managed to claw his way into a position where he makes his living by being connected to other old white men and selling his influence to outsiders who want to make a buck.  What happens when that special, privileged world spits out its own?  Who doesn't love a little schadenfreude?

Remember the "Infrastructure List" that has been gushed over by members of the Good Old Boys' Club and their media lackeys for the past three months?  Turns out it's been kicked to the curb, along with the guys who prepared it, and a new crew of infrastructure critters has been let loose in the Washington Swamp.

No wonder Norman Anderson was having a public meltdown last month.  I think maybe he didn't appreciate being ignored by an administration he thought he had eating out of his hand.  Awww... life isn't fair, is it, Norman?  Let's sing together...
*sniff, sniff*  Could someone hand me a tissue?

The Charlotte Observer published an in-depth report covering the "Infrastructure List" and the shady way it was compiled and pushed by a group of guys who are now out of favor with the Trump administration.
When Donald Trump and Mike Pence met this month to discuss a promised $1 trillion infrastructure plan, the Cabinet Room was filled with half a dozen billionaire executives, from Tesla’s Elon Musk to Steve Roth, a New York developer and longtime friend to the president.

One person who wasn’t there? The man who worked for months to line up priority infrastructure projects for the Trump transition team.

Just a few weeks earlier, Dan Slane had been jetting around the country — on his own dime — to meet with governors, contractors, investors, labor union officials and others eager to influence Trump’s infrastructure plan. He developed a 50-project proposal filled with exactly the kind of “shovel-ready” investments the White House wanted – the kind that needed regulatory relief, not federal dollars.

But as Trump’s attention turns to infrastructure after suffering defeat on his first policy priority, the White House will not even acknowledge Slane, except to say he has “no official or unofficial role” in the administration. He says his infrastructure plan, and indeed his very connection to the president, has become the victim of a power struggle for control of this big-ticket infrastructure agenda between Peter Navarro, a Trump loyalist and economic populist who advised his campaign, and Gary Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs president who now runs the National Economic Council.
Who is Dan Slane?  A quick google search shows he's been working with Peter Navarro on a film called "Death by China."  Apparently these guys believe that trade with China is killing our economy.  Slane ought to know... apparently he moved his wood business to China to collect a 17% profit.  I guess that must have scarred his psyche (while fattening his bank account) so now Slane is anti-China.  Apparently the whole infrastructure thing stems from the fact that China has been investing in its infrastructure lately, and we gotta, you know, keep up with China.  But how does Dan Slane connect with Norman Anderson?  The Charlotte Observer reveals:
Anderson’s company had compiled a list of 100 top infrastructure projects with input from senior-level investors, engineers and developers. The list would have been offered to whichever presidential candidate had won in November, Anderson said.

A week after Trump’s unexpected win, Anderson found a white paper online that Navarro and now-Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had written for the Trump campaign. It proposed tax credits to fund infrastructure. He emailed Navarro, and offered some suggestions.

“Navarro asked Dan to talk to me the next day,” Anderson said.

Slane, who was working without a staff, asked Anderson to help him screen a list of projects Navarro wanted for the administration. Anderson in turn hired Boston Consulting Group to analyze how many direct and indirect jobs each project would create.
So, how did this list get presented to the media as a Trump administration list, and how did a project get on Slane/Anderson's list in the first place?  The Charlotte Observer explains how the Good Old Boys' Club gladhanding worked...
Playing the liaison

Leaders at the state and local level, and executives at the National Governors Association, thought they had been working with the White House, through Slane.

Paul Aucoin, executive director of the Southern Louisiana Port, said he assumed Slane was a shoo-in for a White House infrastructure job when he met him at Anderson’s offices in Washington in December.

Aucoin made the trip to DC to promote his port and try to secure federal assistance to dredge the mouth of the Mississippi River.

The meeting with Slane had been arranged for Aucoin by the public relations firm of Gary Meltz, a former aide to Democratic Rep. Eliot L. Engel of New York.

Slane introduced himself as a member of the Trump transition, and Aucoin made his pitch.

Slane promised to get the dredging project on the list he and Anderson were compiling for the transition.

“They were very receptive, they got it, they understood what I was saying, they asked all the right questions,” Aucoin said. “It wasn’t like I was talking to a wall. I was finally talking to some one who understood what I was trying to say.”

Later Slane would visit the port and meet with Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards. He reassured Edwards and Aucoin that congressional Republicans would pledge money to the project from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. That promise that has yet to be fulfilled.

Aucoin said he’s since hired a lobbying firm in Washington that was working on getting him a meeting with Gribbin.

“It was a blow for us to lose Dan,” Aucoin said.
Let me get this straight... a PR firm with connections made introductions between an entity with a need for a project and some guys who presented themselves as part of Trump's team?

So when Clean Line's Mario Hurtado said:
"When the Trump campaign was looking at infrastructure, we thought it was a good thing to mention. We're just happy to be part of the conversation."
What he really meant was that Clean Line paid a PR firm to make the introductions between Clean Line, Slane, and Anderson, in order to "mention" putting the company's Plains & Eastern Clean Line project on the infrastructure list?  Mario actually did not bump into these guys in the grocery store.  :-(  It actually cost Clean Line money to buy their way onto the Slane/Anderson list.  Guess what, Clean Line?  Looks like you've maybe been taken, and you're really not on Trump's favored list after all.  Even the union's infrastructure wish list (where all three of CLEP's eastward bound projects showed up) was a Slane/Anderson product that Trump now seemingly wants nothing to do with.
Sean McGarvey, president of North America’s Building Trades Unions, said his organization consulted with Slane on his plan. His union delivered to the White House its own list of priority infrastructure projects in February, after meeting with Trump.

“The way Dan framed it was really good because Dan took projects that had all funding but lacked permitting or some who had permitting,” McGarvey said.

“He did a lot of thoughtful work on the initial ready-to-go, out-of-the gate stuff,” he said. “The projects that Dan was talking about really don’t require a new infrastructure bill. Those are ones that exist, that are both private and public, and have the three elements you need: the financing, the engineering, and permitting. And some of them will happen this year.”
Hey, Good Old Boys' Club, are you paying attention?  Pull up a desk and put on your listening ears.  You could learn something...

Clean Line projects don't have financing!
What they have is a plan to raise financing.  Clean Line's plan requires them to contract with future customers to create a revenue stream that Clean Line can use as evidence to secure financing.  Clean Line doesn't have customers.  Clean Line doesn't have a revenue stream that can support financing.  There is nothing a Trump administration (or the Good Old Boys' Club) can do to create captive customers for Clean Line's projects.

Clean Line doesn't have complete engineering!  What they have is a plan to complete engineering once permitting is complete.  Clean Line has no revenue.  None.  It's living high on investor development cash right now.  Engineering is a construction cost that happens after a project is fully permitted and financed.  There is nothing a Trump administration (or the Good Old Boys' Club) can do to finance final engineering for the Clean Line projects.  Federal money would invalidate the project's merchant transmission status with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that allows them to negotiate rates with willing customers (see financing, above).

Clean Line doesn't have permitting completed for any of its projects!  The Plains & Eastern project is the subject of a lawsuit in federal court where the U.S. DOE's preemption of state siting authority in Arkansas has been questioned.  The statute DOE used to run over Arkansas  plainly says it does not affect any requirement of state siting laws.  Although this case has yet to be decided by the court, it's not looking good for Clean Line.  Expect that Clean Line shall have to comply with Arkansas state siting laws for its project.  The Rock Island Clean Line project application for a permit has been withdrawn in Iowa.  Its permit in Illinois has been vacated by the Appellate Court.  It has no permits whatsoever right now.  The Grain Belt Express project's permit in Illinois is on appeal, and the project still needs a permit from the Missouri Public Service Commission.  A recent Missouri Court of Appeals decision prohibits the MO PSC from issuing a permit until Clean Line has the assent of each Missouri county it traverses.  GBE does not have all the county assents it needs and is unlikely to obtain them.  All of these permitting issues are STATE permitting issues.  There is nothing a Trump administration (or the Good Old Boys' Club) can do about state laws which govern state permitting, and if the administration tries to preempt state authority to site and permit electric transmission, it's going to have a hell of a fight on its hands, from the states and from the people.

None of the Clean Line projects are getting done this year.  They're not getting done.  Not now, not ever.  Take them off your list, assuming your list is supposed to be a real list, and not just some "pay to play" Good Old Boys' Club list of bridges to nowhere.

Cry me a river of bitter tears, fellas.  Karma's a real bitch.
6 Comments

Neighbors United Celebrates Court Victory

3/30/2017

0 Comments

 
Just released by Neighbors United:
We the members of Neighbors United Against Ameren’s Powerline would like to thank everyone who supported us in our effort to prevent ATXI from building a project that had no input from the people it would affect the most – Us the citizens of Adair, Knox, Marion, Shelby and Schuyler counties. We would like to thank the county commissioners who continued to listen to their constituents concerns about the project and decided that what was in the best interest of the citizens was to affirmatively say NO!, to the project. They listened to the citizens and not the pressure from big business or the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC). We would also like to thank our attorneys Jennifer Hernandez, and Arturo “Art” Hernandez for their hard work and dedication in litigating the case through the PSC and the Appellate Court.

Yesterday, March 28, 2017, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District issued its decision in the Mark Twain Transmission Line Project. In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeals vacated the Report and Order issued by the PSC. The court ruled that a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN), which grants the utility the authority to build the transmission project, can only be issued after a utility has received permission from a county to build a power line. This decision negates the CCN that was granted by the PSC last year. That CCN had approved the line on the condition that ATXI obtain the permission to hang the lines over county roads from each of the 5 affected counties. The CCN granted overstepped the PSC’s authority, because the hearing should never have been heard unless and until the PSC received the county assents given to the utility.

This is a tremendous victory for our members and our local government. For almost three years local citizens of these 5 counties have struggled to have their voices and concerns heard. Too often big corporations, like ATXI come into our communities and talk about knowing what is in the best interests, and then bring big money to try to drown out the local citizenry. They rely on statements like “in the best interest of the state”, “lower costs”, future opportunities, etc. They forget that people, like those members of Neighbors United, who work the land, live in the community, raise families, pay taxes and vote, need to have a voice in the process as well. When the local citizens try to give their input, companies like ATXI turn around and demonize the hard working people who only want to protect their livelihood and property.

Yesterday every one of the citizens of the 5 counties involved in opposing the Mark Twain Transmission Line Project, were vindicated. Not only were the citizens of the counties directly affected finally justified, but all of the citizens of Missouri were on the right side of the law. Yesterday, the courts guaranteed that the voice of the individual citizens in this great state should be and can be heard. The courts vindicated what we, the members of Neighbors United Against Ameren’s Power Line have been saying since 2014 – big business must cooperate with local government and individuals for the good of everyone. The process of approving CCN’s and utility applications by the PSC must be accompanied by input of local government and citizens.

The input of our elected county officials is just as important as the engineers, the input of state and federal agencies, the big money, the profits, and convenience of conglomerates such as ATXI. For the past 3 years, we have fought to have our voices heard. Yesterday, the court gave a voice to the farmers, ranchers and local citizens of Neighbors United as well to all the citizens of Missouri. They ensured that local governments are not overlooked or ignored. They guaranteed local governments a place in the decision making processes that affect their constituents the most.
0 Comments

The Battle for Property Rights Still Electrifying the Prairie

3/28/2017

1 Comment

 
News release from Block GBE-Missouri:
The small savings offered to municipalities cannot overcome the tremendous burden to Missouri landowners that would come with the Grain Belt Express, says Block Grain Belt Express-Missouri, in the wake of last week’s evidentiary hearing before the Missouri Public Service Commission.

“A majority of the Commissioners denied the project in 2015 because the burden on affected agricultural businesses and landowners was so great,” said spokesperson Jennifer Gatrel. “Nothing has changed.”

Claimed savings for municipalities were concocted with irrelevant and speculative studies which supposedly showed the savings from the Grain Belt line. The actual savings were much less than claimed when examined at the hearing.

Missouri Landowners Alliance (MLA) provided unquestioned expert testimony from agricultural experts and business owners demonstrating the huge financial burden GBE would place on citizens across northern Missouri. MLA expert Don Lowenstein testified that local tax benefits claimed by GBE could not be accurately predicted beyond the first year and that actual tax benefits to localities are likely to be much less than promised by GBE and its witness. Expert appraiser Kurt Kielisch provided testimony demonstrating property value decline and other impacts to agricultural and rural residential property that would be caused by GBE. A Ralls County Commissioner also provided testimony refuting GBE’s claims of local benefit, and declaring his staunch opposition to the project.

The Missouri Public Service Commission Staff, who acts as an advisory party in the public interest, continues to maintain their position that GBE must receive approval to cross county roads from the commission of each county where the line is proposed before the PSC can approve GBE’s application. Today, the Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals issued a decision on county consent related to the recent Ameren transmission case, finding that that the PSC cannot issue a permit until after all the consents of the county commissions are obtained. The Court vacated the PSC’s decision in the Ameren case, where a conditional permit was issued before county consents were obtained. Grain Belt Express does not have county consent.

“At the hearing, I learned that GBE hugely discounted its service in its offer to Missouri municipalities in order to gain a toehold in the state, and that the normal price of GBE’s transmission service is five times the number offered to the municipalities. There are currently no takers for service to Missouri at the regular price. If GBE cannot find customers willing to absorb the loss created by the offer to the municipalities and make the project profitable, is there any guarantee that GBE will even build the station in Missouri proposed to serve municipalities?” asked group President Russ Piscotta after watching the hearings.

“We are nearly four years into this fight,” stated Jennifer Gatrel. Property rights are the backbone of farming and ranching. We keep on winning because we can't afford to lose. Somehow, someway we will always find a way to protect what we hold dear. It has been the most amazing journey of my life seeing so many diverse people come together from across the country to fight a common wrong."

Background: Grain Belt Express is a $2.7B, 700-mile high-voltage direct current transmission line purposed to move electricity from Western Kansas to Indiana and eastern markets. The speculative venture seeks profit for its investors from electricity market price differentials.
1 Comment

Slick Willie Comes to Mayberry

3/25/2017

1 Comment

 
The week-long hearing on Grain Belt Express' third application to the Missouri Public Service Commission has been completed.  It was easy to watch the festivities on the PSC's live video feed.  If you missed it, you can watch archived video here.

Many are wondering what happened when Slick Willie visited Mayberry.

That's right, I said "Slick Willie."  Get your mind out of the gutter!  "Slick Willie" is defined as
Slick Willie is a term that, upon hearing it, is understood to mean something uncomplimentary towards the person to whom it refers.  Those who are called Slick Willies are cunning and deceptive people who are superficially appealing and polished, but who are shallow and glib, and able to deftly execute convincing arguments that favors the con man and defrauds the mark.
And the self-awareness award goes to Clean Line's David Berry, for accurately describing his company as "sounding a little slick willie" when responding to questioning by the PSC Commissioners.

Slick Willie came to Mayberry this week, and the results weren't flattering.  Slick Willie doesn't play well in Mayberry.  Using Mayberrians as puppets to spew Slick Willie talking points was a miserable failure.  Mayberry just doesn't do Slick Willie.  But before we get to that, let's take a look at the Clean Line line up.

Company president Michael Skelly came across as arrogant.  He didn't seem to know much about anything, deferring all the hard questions to underlings testifying in his wake.  It must be really hard to work at a company where your fearless leader is so clueless about your business.  Skelly began every answer with the word "so."  There's been a lot written about this linguistic fad.
To my ear, that backstory "so" is merely a little geeky, but it rouses some critics to keening indignation. A BBC host says speakers use it to sound important and intellectual. A columnist at Fast Company warns that it undermines your credibility. A psychologist writes that it's a weasel word that people use to avoid giving a straight answer.
As used by Skelly at the hearing, it seemed to mean, "your question is unworthy of me, let me explain your question to you."  Or maybe it was more the avoiding a straight answer variety?  At any rate, Skelly needs to remove that word from his vocabulary immediately.  It makes him sound like an arrogant jerk.

When asked, "Did you personally fly in here to meet with utilities?" Skelly chose to argue with the questioner about the structure of the question, instead of answering it.  I didn't think it was a hard or deceptive question.  Skelly tried to pretend "personally" meant flying in on a personal jet (which he claims not to have....yet).  But Skelly couldn't remember how he got to Missouri.  He suggested maybe he took the train.  That was ridiculous.  A simple "yes" would have caused much less attention to the subject.  Trying to be slick willie when asked a direct question by a Mayberrian is a very bad plan.  And we'll get to that later, too.

And finally, on the subject of Skelly... who does your hair, man?  Did you pay a lot of money to a stylist who told you that looks good?  Save it for glitterati gatherings in Houston.  Mayberrians only use styling products to make hair stand up when arranging kewpie doll coifs on their babies prior to a professional photo shoot.  One Mayberrian commented, "His hair is ridiculous.  He's a grown man!"

Mark Lawlor.  Poor Mark, he's just not physically cut out to be a slick willie witness.  Mark has a tendency to grow a giant red dot between his eyes when trying to slick willie his way out of a direct question.  He also develops big red blotches all over his face.  And he scratches himself.  And drinks way too much water.  And sniffles into the microphone incessantly, while playing with a pen prop.  I kept waiting for him to stab himself in the eye with it and end his misery, but Mark persevered.  Although, appearing nearly doubled over on the stand while hugging himself didn't give me much confidence that he was going to make it to the end.

David Berry.  Slick willie.  One Mayberrian wonders if they keep him locked up in the basement of Zilkha Towers, hunched over his abacus, only let out to testify at regulatory hearings.  That's one unique dude!  But somehow he managed to be more personable than all the rest combined.  Too bad no one else in the hearing room was on the same astral plane as David Berry.

And now let's take a look at how Clean Line used Mayberrians to bolster their case at the hearings.

Wayne Wilcox.  Mr. Wilcox wrote all his testimony himself, and he was very generous with his elaboration of his opinions.  He stated that opposition to Grain Belt Express was taking away his rights.  Mr. Wilcox's opinions are factual, while the opposition's opinions are falsehoods.  I'm not going to elaborate anymore.  Mr. Wilcox's brief stint on the witness stand is in the archive.  I urge you to watch it.  Pop some corn to eat while you watch.  I did.  It didn't even look like he was wearing Clean Line's expert twitness shock collar.  What a pity!

Randolph County Assessor Richard Tregnago.  Nice tie!  When presented with a document that responded to one of the data requests addressed to him, Tregnago acted like he'd never seen the document before.  I think maybe he admitted that Clean Line supplied it.  He admitted that it is impossible for anyone to determine the amount of taxes GBE will pay after the first year.

MJMEUC witness John Grotzinger.  Oh, where to begin?  He denied that GBE had inserted a line into his testimony.  When faced with evidence that they did, he had to admit it.  Mr. Grotzinger wrote an email in late 2015 where his opinion of GBE wasn't exactly flattering.  I think maybe he thought that GBE was trying to buy its way into Missouri.  Mr. Grotzinger couldn't define the term "utilization rate."  Mr. Grotzinger admitted that GBE at normal pricing was more expensive than buying wind over the SPP transmission system.  An attempt to rehabilitate him was made on redirect, where he was given a more recent (higher) figure for SPP transmission rates by his attorney, and asked to plug that number into calculation of his exhibit tables.  After many long minutes of Mr. Grotzinger punching numbers into a calculator, and coming up with the number "7", the attorney did the math himself and asked Mr. Grotzinger if the attorney's math was correct.  Pathetic.  Since when do attorneys submit testimony?  It sort of looked to me like Mr. Grotzinger's testimony was done by someone else, maybe slick willie?  I dunno, but you should watch his testimony yourself to see what you think.

And, finally, the superstar award goes to MLA attorney Paul Agathan.  Clearly the best attorney in the room throughout the week.  Mr. Agathan had obviously researched each witness and their testimony.  He asked pertinent questions, and in numerous instances witnesses had to "walk back" or explain prior statements that were not proven factual.  And he did it all in a courteous, methodical fashion.  He never resorted to slick willie tactics or a disrespectful tone.  It takes my breath away to realize how much work Mr. Agathan did to prepare for this hearing, although he was the only attorney in the room not walking out with a fat pay check.  Anyone less than honest should fear Mr. Agathan.  He's a true Mayberry hero and deserves the thanks and gratitude of every Mayberrian!

So (heh), initial briefs are due in a couple weeks.  Reply briefs a couple weeks later.  Then we wait for the decision.  That gives you plenty of time to watch the archived videos for yourself.

Well done, Mayberry, well done!
1 Comment

Randy Dowdy Teach Big Lesson

3/16/2017

5 Comments

 
Randy Dowdy used to grow big corn.  But in the aftermath of a natural gas pipeline's crossing of his farm, he seems to nowadays be growing the public's attention to how landowners are routinely disrespected by the builders of new energy projects.

Dowdy's story is shocking.  It's awful.  It's infuriating.  His once extremely productive farm has been destroyed.  The company refuses to pay him for repairs.  Promises made were not promises kept.

Sadly, Randy Dowdy's story isn't unique.  Its a common story told over and over by landowners who are unfortunate enough to find themselves in the middle of a linear energy infrastructure project, whether pipeline or electric transmission line.

Lesson #1

Don't believe verbal promises from the company.
When Sabal Trail approached him, Dowdy agreed to a negotiated fee for the right-of-way and estimated crop loss because he knew if he balked, the government would help the company take it anyway. He agreed in good faith, as well. Sabal Trail promised that Dowdy’s land would be returned to its original state by early January, in time for the new planting season.

And this is where the dispute begins.

“I was assured that Sabal would adhere to Georgia Soil and Water provisions,” says Dowdy, “that they would adhere to guidelines for segregated top soil and sub soil…rebuild my terracing to insure erosion wouldn’t occur…and put everything back in pre-construction condition. They said they would do…in their words…everything it takes.”
Lesson #2

Companies will hide behind construction management plans approved by regulators.
Andrea Grover, Director of Stakeholder Communications for Sabal Trail, says the company “followed specific protocols in place for construction which include storm water, erosion and sediment control plans which all require best management practices or “BMPs.”

“Our representatives have worked with individual landowners over the course of the past 3 ½ years to address concerns as related to the project and its impact to agriculture,” Grover explains. “The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) is the lead agency which approves pipeline projects, and Sabal Trail’s work is limited to only the FERC approved areas and conditions for construction. Project inspection personnel and our contractors all have the appropriate level of certifications for storm water controls inspection in Georgia.”
Lesson #3

Landowner complaints are ignored.
While Sabal Trail management promised that Dowdy’s farm would be back in business by the first week in January, and ensured that the project right-of-way would be “restored to its previous condition and contours,” that wasn’t the case. Repairs continued into February—and, worse, were still in progress when a major late January storm hit the state.

“I had already reached out to Sabal Trail management at least five times in December to say I was seeing erosion issues,” recalls Dowdy. “They promised to fix it immediately, but they never did, so when the storm came, we were completely unprotected.”
Lesson #4

Your only remedy for a dispute over damage is through civil court, at your own expense.
Dowdy thought he had made some headway with Sabal Trail when the company, in an attempt to make peace with an unhappy landowner, offered to pay Dowdy to make additional repairs to his land.

“They asked me to put together an estimate for attempting to repair the land, including an acceptable value I placed on my wetlands, and additional future yield loss,” says Dowdy. “We made a verbal agreement and I began repairs as instructed. Sabal knew the costs and agreed to pay for the estimated costs of repair.”

“When it came time for them to pay though, they introduced a condition—in order to get my reimbursement, I would have to sign a document releasing Sabal from future long-term yield loss, wetland violations and compensation. Here I was repairing what they messed up at my own expense and then they want more.”

Dowdy says his lawyer advised him not to sign and, thus far, he has not signed nor has he received a penny of the promised reimbursement from Sabal Trail.

Next Step…Litigation?
Lesson #5

Despite having access to approved construction management plans, personnel actually completing the work have little knowledge of the plans and are apt to take shortcuts or plain ol' ignore the plans in order to get the job done easier and faster.  The people doing the actual construction work don't care about your property the way you do.
Dowdy’s laundry list of what wasn’t completed correctly by Sabal Trail is long.

“Sediment barriers were placed wrong, no hay was spread, there were no temporary terraces or berms…water was moving off my land at a 10% grade and sediment was going right into the surrounding wetlands and waterways. If Sabal had been in compliance with BMPs, I wouldn’t have been replacing 15,000 cubic yards of topsoil as I am having to do after the storm.”

Grover says Sabal Trail did return to Dowdy’s farm, and others impacted by pipeline construction, after the late January storm event, to “inspect the construction areas to ensure soil erosion devices installed according to the BMPs are working properly or repaired if necessary.”

But by then, says Dewey Lee, UGA Professor and Extension Agronomist, even though Sabal Trail installed additional BMPs after the storm damage was discovered, it was too late.

Lee who has worked with Dowdy on conditioning his farmland for a decade, says, “In the restoration that Sabal did, it appears they did not follow regulatory protocols perfectly. It appears that the crew handling the reconstruction did not have a full understanding of what their responsibilities were. This ultimately caused erosion down Randy’s waterways and across his field.”

Like Lee, irrigation specialist, Rance Harrod, knows well Dowdy’s attention to detail when it comes to his land. Dowdy and Lee’s suspicions that co-mingling of the top and sub soils in the fields was confirmed just last week after an irrigation supply line to the pivot began leaking. It was Harrod, along with Dowdy and a Sabal Trail employee, who worked on the fix.

Dowdy says as soon as Harrod began digging, it was apparent that the Sabal Trail repair crew had paid little attention to BMPs when it came to replacing the soil.

“Sabal has created tremendous soil loss and erosion resulting in offsite movement into the wetlands, no question about that. Randy’s damages are almost incalculable,” Lee adds.
Lesson #6

The regulators who approve construction management plans don't enforce them.  They expect that the company will police itself.  Company inspectors work for the company, not the landowners.  The fox cannot guard the hen house.
“I shared pictures of the problems I was seeing with the Georgia Environmental Protection Department to show them things weren’t being done to regulations, hoping that they would take it up with Sabal,” says Dowdy. “But they said they needed to see it at the time it happened…that a later complaint wasn’t enough.”

Dowdy recalls he asked the agent “well where were you when it needed to be inspected?” He says the agent told him they didn’t have enough manpower to be everywhere along a 500-mile pipeline at all times.

“The only people inspecting what Sabal was doing to my land was Sabal,” says Dowdy. “The way I see it, it was like the proverbial fox guarding the hen house.”
Energy companies and regulators talk big about construction plans that protect landowners.  Reality is often far different.

Construction management, environmental protection, and agricultural impact mitigation plans are just that... plans.  They offer no real protection for landowners.  They're just pieces of paper.  Don't be fooled.
5 Comments

Where's The Customers, Clean Line?

3/8/2017

5 Comments

 
The entire Arkansas Congressional delegation launched a new, two-pronged defense against  greedy Houston entrepreneur Clean Line Energy's federal plans for Arkansas this week.  The delegation announced that it was re-introducing its APPROVAL legislation, and sent a letter to new Energy Secretary Rick Perry asking that he take another look at the agency's participation in the Plains & Eastern Clean Line project under Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act.
Like many policies that were proposed by the Obama Administration, the DOE/Clean Line agreement is currently tied up in the courts.  DOE is involved in a lawsuit, forcing the agency to address the lingering doubts regarding the legal justification for the department’s decision.

If these concerns are ignored and the project is allowed to move forward, not only are Arkansans facing the prospect of losing their property due to a decision by the federal government, but your department risks codifying into law the practice of federal eminent domain seizures.  This dangerous precedent is antithetical to your distinguished record as a champion for states’ rights in the face of federal overreach.

Throughout your career you have been a champion of states’ rights.  This Administration has promised to give a voice back to its citizens.  This is a good way to show that commitment.

We will continue working to halt the project, not only because it violates property rights of Arkansans, but also because it violates the rights of all Americans to have their voices heard at the state and local level.  We hope you can appreciate our concerns and work with us to fight against this lingering overreach of the Obama Administration.
So much for Clean Line's desperate pretension that the new administration won't change its prospects in Washington.  Clean Line has only been kidding itself.  Looks like the real poo has hit the fan.

And what did Clean Line have to say for itself?  Prepare to be amused...
In a statement provided Monday to the media, Clean Line officials said the APPROVAL Act “creates more red tape and kills jobs by attempting to pull back approvals the project has already received.” The Clean Line statement also included a note of support from a large national union.

Clean Line Founder and President Michael Skelly said much consideration was given to the project before it was approved.

“We are very confident in the nearly decade long process undertaken by the U.S. Department of Energy in order to decide to participate in the project under Section 1222 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. This law was passed with bipartisan support, including then-Congressman John Boozman’s, and signed by President George W. Bush,” Skelly said in the statement. “The Plains & Eastern Clean Line is a pro-jobs, pro-consumer, pro-environment public energy infrastructure project that will help to create a secure energy future for the country, and we are ready to get to work.”

Red tape?  As if this project's efforts to bypass the Arkansas regulatory process and misuse an untested federal statute to force its way through the state wasn't already red tape enough.  But the real problem here seems to be the possibility that the DOE could "pull back approvals the project has already received."  That could happen.  In fact, the chances of it happening are escalating quite alarmingly.  But that's what Clean Line signed up for when it decided to attempt a merchant transmission line across multiple states.  Clean Line assumed all risk for the project.
Plains and Eastern state that they will assume all market risk associated with the development and construction of the Project and that there will be no captive customers.
Risk includes the possibility that laws and politics can and will change and "approvals" may be "pulled back."  That's the kind of risk that Clean Line signed up for.  But when real risk actually develops, Clean Line whines that it shouldn't have to face any risk.  Sorry, Clean Line, risk is your middle name.  Pull up your big boy pants and deal with it.  Risk just got real.

You've been trying to convince everyone that your project is "pro-jobs, pro-consumer, pro-environment" for months now, but it's just not working. 

How does one kill a job that doesn't exist?
“At the same time that our country is focused on creating opportunities for American workers, Arkansas Congressmen introduced a bill that will kill thousands of American jobs and, specifically, hundreds of Arkansas jobs,” said Lonnie Stephenson, International President of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). “Whether the infrastructure project be a pipeline or an electric transmission line, the IBEW strongly disapproves of politics getting in the way of American job creation.”
Hahahaha.  The unions thrive on politics!  Politics is the only reason Clean Line is using the union as its spokesmodel.  Building things we don't need in order to create make-work jobs for very specialized labor isn't a solution to America's economic woes.  The right to a temporary job for a union worker shouldn't have to be weighed against the right of an individual to own and enjoy real property.  You'd think unions would have other, more important, things to worry about these days instead of getting involved in political posturing in support of building a bridge to nowhere.  Clean Line has never even gotten close to building anything, anywhere.  The jobs don't exist.

The claim that Clean Line is "pro-consumer" is empty.  No consumers have supported the Clean Line projects.  Clean Line claims that its projects will result in lower electric rates are pure fantasy.  Clean Line doesn't exist, and neither do the "cheap, clean wind energy" generators it proposes will develop.

The pro-environment claim is also empty.  How does one preserve the environment by unsustainably plowing through three states with a gigantic, scorched earth obstruction?  And let's be real here... Clean Line has been marketing its project as an "arbitrage opportunity" to ship fossil fuel electricity between regions to take advantage of market price differentials.  There's no such thing as a "clean" line.  All electrons are the same color and transmission cannot discriminate between generation sources.  The only ones fooled by Clean Line's environmental claims are the sadly blind environmental groups, who refuse to peel back the propaganda and actually examine the project.

And there's nothing "secure" about an unneeded electric transmission line hundreds of miles long.  Clean Line does nothing to ensure grid reliability... if it did it would have been ordered by a regional transmission authority and the risk of building it would have passed to electric consumers.  But it didn't.  It's simply an extraneous bridge to nowhere designed for profit.

Now let's examine the REAL issue hiding behind Clean Line's carefully crafted smoke and mirrors...

The Plains and Eastern Clean Line has no customers!  That's right, nobody has signed a contract to use (and pay for) the transmission line.  Customers must voluntarily commit to purchase transmission capacity from Clean Line in order to create a future revenue stream.  Without a revenue stream, Clean Line cannot finance its project.  Without billions of dollars of financing, Clean Line cannot build its ginormous project.
Picture
It's all about the customers.

When is the media going to start asking the important questions, instead of simply fawning over the propaganda Clean Line feeds them?  Take Arkansas Business reporter Kyle Massey, for instance.  (Please?  Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck.)  Massey "reported" that President Trump loves infrastructure and eminent domain and therefore the Arkansas delegation "have opened an ideological battle that puts the all-Republican Arkansas congressional delegation in Washington at odds with the new infrastructure-friendly mindset of President Donald J. Trump."  Really, Kyle?  Is that what good Republican Michael Skelly told you?  That whole infrastructure thing is concocted wishful thinking designed to misdirect "reporters" like Kyle from the real issue... Where's the customers, Clean Line?  Because politics and "approvals" aside Clean Line cannot be built without customers.  Kyle also gushes that Clean Line's "construction effort" is scheduled to begin in the second half of this year.  That's 3 months away... and Clean Line has no customers... and no financing, and cannot meet the conditions DOE placed on their "approval" last year.  Without satisfying the DOE's conditions, DOE will not "participate" in the project in order to unlawfully condemn property for the part of the project it proposes to "own."  I doubt Clean Line will be building anything this year... or ever!

So what really happened this week?  Clean Line's risk just got real.  In addition to having no customers, Clean Line now risks that its "approval" by former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz will "be pulled" by new Energy Secretary Rick Perry.  It also is at risk that the law will change to require Section 1222 projects to receive the approval of a state's governor and PSC chairman, and for a federal project to be sited on federal property as much as possible.  How is Clean Line supposed to find willing customers with this much additional risk on its plate?  Doubtful.

Where's the customers, Clean Line?
5 Comments

Illinois Appellate Court Hears Grain Belt Express Arguments

3/3/2017

0 Comments

 
The appeal of the Illinois Commerce Commission's decision to grant a CPCN to Grain Belt Express under the state's "expedited" review process was heard by the Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court this week.

You can listen to the oral argument here.  The recording is only 48 minutes long -- oral arguments have time limits.  Extensive briefing on all the issues has already happened.  Oral argument is for a condensed version of important points, and a chance for the judges to ask questions of the parties regarding their arguments.

Chuck Davis, representing the Illinois Farm Bureau, presented the argument of the appellants (the parties who want the court to reverse the ICC's decision).  It was a pretty simple argument -- Grain Belt Express is not eligible to apply under the expedited process because it is not a public utility, and its attempt to do so was likened to "a square peg trying to force itself into a round hole." 

Davis pointed out the difference between two different permitting processes available in Illinois.  The expedited process used by GBE begins with the words, "A public utility may...".  GBE is not a public utility, therefore it could not apply under that process.  GBE's application admitted that it  "will be" a public utility -- in the future tense -- but not that it was -- in the present tense -- when application was made.

It's as simple as that.

And why is this important?  Because there are two different procedural routes for obtaining a permit from the ICC. The longer, traditional process is for new entrants who are not public utilities.  The expedited process is reserved for public utilities.

By using the expedited process improperly, GBE rushed inexperienced landowners through the permitting process in an amount of time "less than a baseball season."  It also automatically granted GBE a finding under a different section of statute that allows the company to proceed quicker with eminent domain takings.  Clean Line's Rock Island project was denied a finding under that section when it used the longer process to secure a CPCN for an identical project.  RICL must go back before the ICC to gain the finding that was automatically granted to GBE through the expedited process.

I sort of wish someone had asked Clean Line's attorney why the company applied under different processes for identical projects.  What made GBE different from RICL so it could use the expedited process?

The ICC's attorney made a few revelations during his tired argument that the two different processes are actually the same, before giving a preview of his future argument before the Illinois Supreme Court that really wasn't relevant to this case.  At 24:40 he said GBE is for interstate transmission of electricity through Illinois to be used by the public within the MISO and PJM wholesale electricity market regions.  He followed that up by clarifying at 30:27 that the Grain Belt Express project is an interstate transmission line for electricity "merely passing through Illinois."

Well, I'm glad that cat's been let out of the bag, after years of listening to Clean Line claim that the line would provide electricity to Illinois.

At 32:30 one of the judges asks whether GBE was a public utility prior to the ICC's findings under the expedited process.

Of course it wasn't.

Later, GBE's attorney began listing all the things the ICC found regarding the company's ability to construct and finance the project.  But the same judge interrupted him at 40:33 to query whether all those things were speculative.  There's no evidence that GBE was doing those things, only evidence that GBE could do them.  Listen very carefully as this testy exchange goes on between the judge and GBE's attorney, with the judge trying to make his point, only to be interrupted by GBE's attorney to say that "we are" hiring contractors and proceeding to continue his list of what the ICC found GBE capable of doing in the future.  The judge finally reasserts control to say that he understands what the ICC found the company capable of... but GBE doesn't have any past record of actually doing those things.  "As a company, GBE has never done it."  GBE's attorney meekly agrees... and suddenly he's done.

The judges had no questions for the appellant attorneys.

And now we wait for the court to issue a decision.

I'd say this went very well for the appellants.
0 Comments

Another County Rescinds Support of Grain Belt Express

3/3/2017

0 Comments

 
The Moberly Monitor-Index reports that the Randolph County, Missouri, Commission has rescinded its prior letter of support to allow Grain Belt Express to cross county road rights of way.  This makes Randolph the sixth county to rescind its support of the project.

Grain Belt Express approached each of the eight counties crossed by its project in 2011, long before affected landowners learned about the project.  Clean Line's Skelly has said that going to local governments for support before landowners find out about his projects is a strategic move, because the first place upset landowners go is to their local governments.  Skelly believes that if he has already gained local government support, these upset landowners will have nowhere to go with their opposition.  It really doesn't work that way.  When local voters approach local governments, the interests of some foreign corporation don't hold up, and actions taken in their favor may be rescinded.  That's what's happened in Missouri.

Randolph County has gone from supporter to neutral.
The withdrawal of official support also comes not long after John Hobbs was voted in as a commissioner for Randolph County. Hobbs has been a vocal opponent of the Grain Belt Express.

Hobbs confirmed that the commission had rescinded the letter of support but declined to comment further on the matter.

Truesdell clarified that, although the commission has rescinded its official support for the wind energy transmission line, the attitude hasn't changed. The commission assumed a neutral stance on the matter around two years ago.

"The only thing that prompted action is that our legal counsel said that, if we wanted to be truly neutral, we should draft a letter to rescind the prior document," Truesdell said.


The move was meant to solidify the neutral stance of the commission, setting aside personal views the commissioners might hold, Truesdell said.
Such as the avid support of Randolph Co. Commissioner Wayne Wilcox, who talked quite a bit about Randolph County's support of Grain Belt Express in his testimony to the PSC supporting the project.  He even submitted the county's letter of support as evidence to back up his claims.

The Moberly Monitor reports:
Randolph County Commissioner Wayne Wilcox said he was not present for the commission's vote to rescind the letter of support for the Grain Belt Express.
There is an indication that the company would need to earn the approval of individual county commissions to allow the line to cross roads within the counties before a permit is issued.

The MO PSC Staff's report stated
As was its position in Case No. EA-2015-0146, it is still Staff Counsel’s position that, not only must Grain Belt have the consent from each of the Missouri county commissions for its transmission line to cross the public roads and highways in their respective county before a Commission certificate for the line is effective, Grain Belt must have those consents before the Commission can lawfully issue the certificate, i.e., those consents are prerequisites to the certificate.
So the rescission of county support is a big deal right now.  Instead of gaining support, Grain Belt Express is losing support going into the PSC evidentiary hearings later this month.

And since I didn't see anything about Hannibal's draft power purchase agreement in surrebuttal, I guess I'm going to have to pop my corn for the cross examination of another witness, now that Bob won't get his chance at 15 minutes of fame in the witness chair.  Clean Line's counsel might have to snap their "Expert Twitness Shock Collar" on someone else. 
0 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    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
    StopPATH Blog

    StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project.  The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

    StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view.  If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty.  People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself.  If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

    Got something to say?  Submit your own opinion for publication.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories

    All
    $$$$$$
    2023 PJM Transmission
    Aep Vs Firstenergy
    Arkansas
    Best Practices
    Best Practices
    Big Winds Big Lie
    Can Of Worms
    Carolinas
    Citizen Action
    Colorado
    Corporate Propaganda
    Data Centers
    Democracy Failures
    DOE Failure
    Emf
    Eminent Domain
    Events
    Ferc Action
    FERC Incentives Part Deux
    Ferc Transmission Noi
    Firstenergy Failure
    Good Ideas
    Illinois
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Land Agents
    Legislative Action
    Marketing To Mayberry
    MARL
    Missouri
    Mtstorm Doubs Rebuild
    Mtstormdoubs Rebuild
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    Newslinks
    NIETC
    Opinion
    Path Alternatives
    Path Failures
    Path Intimidation Attempts
    Pay To Play
    Potomac Edison Investigation
    Power Company Propaganda
    Psc Failure
    Rates
    Regulatory Capture
    Skelly Fail
    The Pjm Cartel
    Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes
    Transource
    Valley Link Transmission
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.