Category:

Clean Line's Choo-Choo Runs Out of Steam

1/17/2017

"Full steam, ahead!" said the Little Engine That Thought He Could. But when confronted with all the landowners he'd previously tied to the tracks with the hope of running them over, it turned out that he couldn't. He didn't have enough steam.

"I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't get over these hurdles," said the Little Engine That Couldn't. "Wheeze, cough, sputter," went the Engine. "Where are my customers?" whined the Engine as its wheels fell off and it puffed mightily to a full stop.

"Where are my customerssssssssss..."

KUAR reports that Clean Line has filed a motion at U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas in Jonesboro, asking that the Court speed up its hearing process because the lawsuit is hindering the company's progress in finding financing for its project.

KUAR also points out:

When asked in November whether the federal lawsuit will slow the project’s intended construction start following the delivery of a HVDC converter station in Pope County, Clean Line Founder and President Michael Skelly said the transmission project is moving “full steam ahead.”

Plains & Eastern isn't steaming anywhere without financing, despite claims that its "schedule" is set for construction to begin in the second half of 2017.

That's just not happening. Clean Line has its eggs mixed up with its chickens. While it's probably true that nobody wants to finance a transmission project with a pending lawsuit hanging over its head, the bigger problem here is that Plains & Eastern has no customers. None. Without customers, the project has no projected revenue. It's just like asking for a loan when you're unemployed. Just.not.happening.

Clean Line has neatly lined up all its own business failures in a row and blamed it all on the lawsuit.

“Utilities will have to contract for energy to deliver to their customers with specific dates in mind. A delay in this matter has the potential to delay the entirety of the project as financing institutions require a high degree of certainty – meaning a low risk of legal and regulatory obstacles – prior to committing the capital to make multi-billion dollar investments required to construct the project and the wind generation that the project will enable,” Heister continued. “Because of the interconnected nature of all of the various project participants, even small schedule delays can lead to cascading impacts.”

Then why didn't Clean Line have any customers before the lawsuit was filed? The U.S. DOE agreed to "participate" in the transmission project last March. The lawsuit wasn't filed until mid-August.

Clean Line can't get financing because of the lawsuit.
Clean Line can't get customers because of the lawsuit.
Clean Line's project will be delayed because of the lawsuit.
Wind farms cannot be built because of the lawsuit.
And, worst of all, any delay in the project would push back the date “on which the public benefits from new renewable energy generation" (!!!)

What generation? I don't see any generation. Because of the lawsuit.

That lawsuit! It's the only reason Clean Line hasn't fired up the bulldozers yet!

Want to be part of the winning team? Golden Bridge, the landowner group behind the lawsuit, is still accepting new members. Check it out!

And, hey, remember that Clean Line is having this gigantic fit in front of a federal court judge because it wants a hearing to be held one month sooner than the judge has scheduled. One month. A one month scheduling delay is going to make or break this project, or so Clean Line says.

Clean Line has been trying to build this project since 2009. That's eight years. Eight. And suddenly one month is the difference between success and failure. Maybe Clean Line is planning to run out of money sometime between October and November of this year and won't be around for a November court date?

And isn't it funny... the lawsuit claims that due process was never afforded to Arkansans during the DOE's Section 1222 process. And now Clean Line wants a judge to speed up the routine hearing process as well. Talk about adding insult to injury...

And what about those "conditions precedent" in Clean Line's "Participation Agreement" with the DOE? These are the conditions Clean Line must satisfy in order for the DOE to "participate" in eminent domain land takings:

Customers. The project must present fully executed term sheets with customers.
Executed interconnection agreements with regional grid operators.
Insurance that holds the United States of America harmless for any of Clean Line's issues.
Financing. The project must have money with which to build.

So, if the Court moves the hearing date to October, will all these conditions be magically satisfied so that Mike Skelly can jump behind the wheel of his bulldozer?

Nope.

Clean Line needs to quit blaming others and own its failure. Quit embarrassing yourself.

Update: Oh, snap! The judge has denied Clean Line's motion.

2 Comments

Buried Transmission Line Gets Permit: Full Steam Ahead!

1/13/2017

2 Comments

ITC's Lake Erie Connector transmission project received its Presidential Permit from the U.S. DOE yesterday.

It's full steam ahead for the project!

Unlike other HVDC transmission projects that have been struggling to get their aerial routes approved for the past eight years, Lake Erie Connector sailed through approvals in just a couple years. Why?

The ITC Lake Erie Connector is a +/- 320 kV HVDC bi-directional transmission line, approximately 73 miles in length, that would interconnect with converter stations located in Erie, Pennsylvania and Nanticoke, Ontario.

A 345kV Alternating Current (AC) underground transmission line would connect the Erie converter station to Penelec's existing Erie West substation, while a 500kV AC line would tie the Nanticoke converter station to Hydro One’s Nanticoke substation.

The majority of the transmission line would be buried beneath Lake Erie or underground using existing roadway rights-of-way. ITC anticipates the project receiving all state, federal, and provincial permits for the ITC Lake Erie Connector by Q2 2017, commencing construction in 2017, and being in service in Q4 2020.

Let's say that again:

Will overhead transmission lines be used?

No. The current project plan envisions all of the cable being installed underwater or underground.

Underground, out of sight, along public rights of way. No significant or sustained opposition.

And a good time was had by all.

2 Comments

Clean Line Business Plan May Be Beyond Reporter's Grasp

1/13/2017

2 Comments

The Arkansas Business reporter who attempted to speak for landowners last year is back to assure everyone that the Plains & Eastern Clean Line is sure to be a favorite of the new Trump administration. Maybe it was hard to breathe in there and he got a little confused? Or maybe he just doesn't have enough information because he's been talking to the wrong people?

Kyle Massey insists:

... a GOP penchant for infrastructure projects and commerce-building is expected to favor endeavors like the Plains & Eastern Clean Line, a $2 billion plan for transmitting wind power across 12 Arkansas counties from Oklahoma to near Memphis.

Let's parse that statement. Massey says Plains & Eastern is expected to be "favored." Favored? How is that exactly? What might a GOP administration actually do to "favor" the project? Does this mean that the administration will somehow step outside the law to "permit" this project? Does it mean that a GOP administration will suddenly find a big chunk of taxpayer cash with which to build the project? Does this mean that a GOP administration will finance the $2B project with taxpayer funds?

None of that will happen. Because it can't happen. The U.S. Department of Energy has already signed a Participation Agreement, in which it agrees to "participate" in the project only under certain conditions.

1. No taxpayer or government money or loans will be used for the project.
2. The project must be fully financed before the government "participates."
3. The project must have confirmed customers for its transmission capacity before the government "participates" in eminent domain activities to secure needed right of way.

There's absolutely no way for any administration to further "favor" the Plains & Eastern project to assure that it gets built.

Plains & Eastern is a "merchant" transmission project. That means that the company takes on all the market risk for the project. If there is no market for the project, it cannot be financed and built because it has no revenue stream to pay for construction. Only potential customers can volunteer to buy capacity and create a revenue stream. It has no captive ratepayers forced to shoulder its costs and guarantee repayment of financing.

And Plains & Eastern has no customers. No utilities have volunteered to become customers. No "fortune 500 companies" have volunteered to become customers. Fortune 500 companies do not buy power and transmission directly, but are served by their local utility franchise. So no matter how much they may be clambering for renewable energy, the companies do not decide where it is procured, or how it is transmitted. The utility makes that choice. The utility has a responsibility to provide its captive ratepayers with the cheapest resource available. So, sure, big companies do carelessly throw their names onto ineffectual letters that pretty much say nothing. But they do so at their own risk... the risk that their customers may find their penchant for eminent domain to accomplish their corporate greenwashing goals repugnant and stop shopping at their stores or buying their products. While it is generally accepted that "green is good," and that greenwashed companies are favored by the public, that changes when the greenwashing encourages the eminent domain taking of customer private property. Do I want my shampoo made with green energy? Do I want my shampoo made with green energy that hinders the productivity and profitability of a chicken farmer in Arkansas? No, the "green" doesn't spread that far. Maybe Unilever is going to produce, and Walmart is going to sell, new Eminent Domain Guilt Shampoo? Lather, ruin someone's dream, rinse. Repeat the misery.

Massey's dream is buoyed along by academia.

Academic voices say the trend toward renewables may be too entrenched to be crippled by Washington. Trump “can eliminate subsidies for solar power as well as electric cars, and he may not be very supportive of renewable energy, but ultimately technology and market forces will be the determining forces,” said Rajesh Sharma, an Arkansas State University assistant professor and expert in renewable energy technology. “Clean technology is advancing every year and costs are going down.”

Actually, the subsidies for industrial wind are already on the chopping block and were reduced 20% on January 1, with additional reductions to come every year until phased out completely by 2021. Wind is going to get more expensive when tax credits evaporate, not cheaper. Economics aren't going to help Plains & Eastern. The project failed to attract customers when the tax credits were highest, and a GOP administration is likely to further dampen enthusiasm for expensive power that utilities aren't required by law to buy. Even our pal Mikey Skelly acknowledges that.

Skelly sees opposition to the Clean Power Plan as “probably a net negative” to his ambitious project...

Massey's prediction, masquerading as "news," holds no greater weight than the prognostication of someone else.

And with the help of Wayne and Garth we will now enter our own dream sequence...

President Trump: "What's this Plains & Eastern Clean Line?"
Secretary of Energy Perry: "It's a 700-mile electric transmission line that will encourage the building of thousands of new wind turbines in red states."
President Trump: "Does it have any customers?"
Secretary of Energy Perry: "No. Even the previous administration wasn't capable of 'favoring' it enough to attract customers."
President Trump: "Do the Republicans want it to be built?"
Secretary of Energy Perry: "No. As a matter of fact, the entire Republican delegation from the State of Arkansas is vehemently opposed to it because it is just so much federal overreach."
President Trump: "$@$& that! Plains & Eastern Clean Line, you're fired!"

We've all got dreams. Some are more realistic than others.

2 Comments

Clean Line Helping Communities... One Extended Stay Hotel Chain at a Time

12/31/2016

8 Comments

Clean Line Energy Partners has been busy joining Chambers of Commerce in Arkansas towns outside its Plains & Eastern Clean Line project's route.

I guess the idea is that Clean Line is going to help Hot Springs, Conway, and North Little Rock develop economically by providing opportunities for these communities to profit from the project. And here's proof!

Clean Line Energy Partners has opened an office in Arkansas!

Here's a picture of it.

That's right, Clean Line's new membership in the North Little Rock Chamber of Commerce lists its business address as 400 River Market Ave. #406, Little Rock, AR 72201.

That's Room #406 at the Homewood Suites Extended Stay Hotel in downtown Little Rock. Sounds totally legit to me! The only thing more legit would be a rented mailbox at one of those mail drop places.

Why should Clean Line rent a real brick and mortar office space in Arkansas when they can operate their "business" out of an extended stay hotel? It's not like they're going to be around long enough to need permanent housing or a permanent office. And Clean Line's rental of an extended stay hotel room is just pouring money and jobs into Arkansas! It's going to take hundreds of new employees to service Room #406! Arkansas will be a much more prosperous place because of Clean Line's temporary largesse!

So, if someone in Arkansas tells you that Clean Line Energy Partners is a fly-by-night company, be sure to tell them it's just not so. They've rented a room at an extended stay hotel that they're using as a business office. It won't be awkward at all to sell a right of way across your property to a company with office space at an extended stay hotel. Instead, it shows their ongoing, long-term commitment to the people of Arkansas!

8 Comments

"Clean" Bravado

12/23/2016

4 Comments

The collapse of Clean Line Energy Partners has begun. Although a long, screaming, fantastic flameout would tickle everyone's schadenfreude in a most delightful way, the death of Clean Line is more likely to look like this:

Now you see it, now you don't. You simply wake up one morning and it's gone. Snuck out of town in the middle of the night with its tail between its legs.

So, it looks like the company doesn't have enough "development" funds from its investors to continue running "full steam ahead" in Iowa. The company was faced with filing very expensive exhibit material at the Iowa Utility Board, while its Illinois permit for the same project has been ordered void by a court. It ended up being cheaper to withdraw its applications in Iowa. If the company chooses to refile at a future date, it will have to go through all the IUB requirements for a new application, such as landowner meetings in each county. Although time consuming, and disastrous from a public relations standpoint, withdrawing was the cheaper of the two options in Iowa.

Cheaper. Now all of a sudden Clean Line is concerned about costs? Have they burned through $200M in "development funds" already? Is the treasure chest getting a little low with no replenishment in sight? Maybe that's because Clean Line has been using its "development" funds to pay for parts of its projects that should be financed. Things like final engineering, environmental studies, purchase of rights of way, procurement of parts and labor, are all project costs, not development costs. Development costs are the costs of obtaining a permit to build. Once a permit is received, project costs begin. Except Clean Line still has its cart before its horse and is funding project costs with development money. Because it has no project financing. Because it has no customers.

Wow! How panicked are they in Houston right now? Yesterday's press release on the Iowa withdrawal screams false bravado.

Despite the Rock Island Clean Line’s schedule delays, the need to build electric infrastructure remains. Clean Line Energy continues to move full steam ahead on its other transmission projects. Currently, hundreds of people are at work to complete engineering and design, test materials, and negotiate easements to prepare for groundbreaking on the Plains & Eastern Clean Line, the country’s largest clean energy infrastructure project. The Plains & Eastern Clean Line will connect low-cost, clean energy resources in the Oklahoma Panhandle to Arkansas and states throughout the Southeast.

No, Clean Line will NOT be breaking ground on Plains & Eastern any time soon. Landowners in Arkansas and Oklahoma have refused to grant Clean Line right of way across their property. Clean Line does NOT have eminent domain authority. The most it can do is to run crying to the U.S. Department of Energy and ask that DOE begin condemnation proceedings against landowners who refuse. And guess what? The DOE has already written in stone that it will only begin condemnation proceedings against any landowners AFTER Clean Line reaches certain milestones with its project. First and foremost, Clean Line must have customers for its transmission capacity. Clean Line must have a contracted revenue stream sufficient to support financing to build its project. Clean Line has no customers. Therefore, Clean Line won't be breaking any ground until it has customers.

And on top of that, there is a lawsuit against DOE pending in federal court that claims DOE exceeded its statutory authority and trampled on the due process rights of Arkansas citizens. DOE is unlikely to move forward with this project until the matter is settled.

Clean Line is going nowhere fast. There is no "need" to build thousands of miles of "clean" lines. No transmission planner has determined a "need" for these lines, and the lines have no customers. No customers, no need!

No "clean" line!

4 Comments

Clean Line's "Code of Conduct" Doesn't Protect Landowners

12/14/2016

0 Comments

Did you see Block Grain Belt Express- MO's facebook post yesterday? It was a question/response from Clean Line regarding the company's "Code of Conduct."

As part of the hearing process at the PSC, Grain Belt Express must answer questions about its testimony submitted by other parties. Ever wonder what’s behind the smoke and mirrors you read in the newspapers? Here’s the response of Clean Line Vice President of Land, Deann Lanz to a question you may have wondered yourself over the years.
-------------------------
Who enforces Clean Line’s “Code of Conduct” for dealing with landowners, and does it protect you?

Question DL.2: With reference to page 4 line 11 of your testimony, please summarize all reported violations to date (if any) of the Code of Conduct by any employee or agent of Clean Line or Grain Belt in any of the states in which the proposed line will be located. Please include the name(s) of the individuals involved, the date of the occurrence, the location of the occurrence, and a brief summary of the conduct which violated the Code of Conduct.

Response: There have been two instances where Grain Belt Express investigated allegations of conduct outside the best practices standard. One involved a land agent visiting*************, a landowner in Chariton County, on June 12, 2014.
The other involved a phone call to *********, a landowner in Buchanan County, on April 2, 2014. In both instances the investigation found no violation of best practices. With Ms.********, the allegation was raised by a family member as opposed to Ms.******* herself. The meeting notes and report from the land agent showed no violation of the code of conduct or best practices. With Mr. ********, there was no record of the conversation taking place and Mr. ******** did not raise the issue with Grain Belt Express. The investigation showed no violation of the code of conduct or best practices.

In the first case family reported that a land agent refused to leave an elderly landowners room in a rest home. She repeatedly asked them to leave because she was ill. They refused. They told her that they would leave after she signed the easement. Family members told PSC staff about the incident and filled out a form that is now part of the public record.
In the second case, and elderly landowner was called and told "it was a done deal" and he needed to come fill out the papers. He believed them and had an appointment the next morning to sign the easement. He was told he was not allowed to bring anyone else with him. Luckily, he came to lock up after one of of our meetings and was shocked to find it was not a done deal! He submitted an affidavit about the issue to the PSC.

Block GBE representatives talked with the subject of one of these complaints last night, when he came out to the public hearing in Faucett. Hear it direct from the horse's mouth:

Who do you believe?

When Clean Line enforces its own "Code" there are no "violations." Because there really isn't any enforcement.

The "Code" seems more useful in the outhouse than in your house.

0 Comments

Landowners Step Up to Protect Property Rights in Missouri

12/10/2016

0 Comments

The Missouri Public Service Commission held four public hearings this week on Grain Belt Express' second application to build an enormous electric transmission line across Missouri that is intended to serve eastern states. Four more hearings are scheduled for next week.

Dec. 13, 2016: Cameron, 12:00 p.m.*
Cameron Community Center, 915 Ashland Avenue
Dec. 13, 2016: Faucett, 6:00 p.m.
Mid-Buchanan High School, Multipurpose Room, 3221 SE Route H
Dec. 14, 2016: Polo, 12:00 p.m.*
Community Center at Stagecoach Park, 1010 Main Street
Dec. 14, 2016: Carrollton, 6:00 p.m.
Rupe Community Center, 710 Harvest Hills Drive

Landowners have filled the public venues, like they did during GBE's first run at the PSC. Some have spoken quite eloquently about the detrimental effect the project will have on their land, their business, their heritage, and their life. It doesn't have to be fancy, just heartfelt. I encourage everyone to get up and let the Commissioners present know how this project will affect them.

Kelly Sherman of New London: "The irony of this sickens me...our sons are in the military and are willing to die for our country, but they can't come home to the very land they will inherit, it will be taken from them and devalued forever."

Larry Markley: "If this energy is so good for Missouri then why don't they sell it all here?"

Read many more landowner comments in news articles here and here.

In the second article, the pictures tell a story that the reporter failed to mention. Notice the sea of Amish hats in the foreground? That's right, these public hearings were well attended by the local Amish communities. Several Amish folks spoke against the power line. You might be thinking, "big deal," but it actually is a VERY big deal! The Amish rarely involve themselves in what they consider "resistance" and "worldly things." It is uncharacteristic for the Amish to participate in social protest, or to do anything other than "turn the other cheek" when they are threatened. The fact that they came, and spoke, should take the PSC's breath away.

As expected, Grain Belt Express stepped up their game to deliver even more clueless advocates for their project than before. The first day, they presented a bunch of students from St. Louis University. FREE FOOD AND DRINK, and at a popular St. Louis brewery no less! Do you all need me to buy you a drink in exchange for showing up and speaking your mind? (Or really, my mind, because that's more apt.) Pathetic!

So, what did these students, and their Sierra Club counterparts have to say for themselves? They told the PSC that Grain Belt Express would shut down existing coal-fired power plants in Missouri and clean up the air. Nothing could be further from the truth!! I'm betting they didn't get a copy of Grain Belt's "contract" with Missouri municipalities to go with their free beer. The "contract" also includes up to 50MW of transmission service from Missouri to Indiana, where the line is proposed to connect with PJM Interconnection, the regional grid that serves the mid-Atlantic states. What are Missouri municipalities planning to ship to Indiana? Will they be re-selling their "clean" electricity to eastern cities? Of course not! They are creating an arbitrage opportunity whereby they may sell their own dirty, stinking generation (such as Prairie State) into PJM markets when price differentials are favorable. This will create new markets for dirty Missouri generation and prolong the life of the coal-fired power plants that currently foul Missouri's air. Without a "clean" line to open new markets for them, these plants would be forced to close when competing with regional renewables. With a "clean" line, however, they can continue to belch their dirty exhaust into Missouri's air, and sell their output into expensive eastern markets for many years to come. Silly beer-powered advocates! If you'd spent more time actually researching the project, instead of simply repeating Clean Line's glitering generalities, you might actually take some action to clean up the air you breathe.

The same goes for the GBE advocates who simply accept and repeat the falsehood that GBE will save consumers money on electric rates, instead of spending just a moment to research the facts. Where did this magical "savings" come from? Did you ask? It came from here:

Preliminary calculations, assuming existing production tax credits for wind project participation in the project, could reduce costs by as much as $10M/year or $10 per megawatt hour compared to delivery of other wind projects from SPP to MISO.

That's right... it came from Clean Line's guesstimate of savings that it used to promote its transmission line to Missouri municipalities. No cost study was ever performed! There are no firm generation costs included in pricing, because Clean Line does not own or sell generation, and the wind farms in its guesstimate have not yet been built. What's wrong with that? Clean Line's guesstimate includes hypothetical pricing from wind farms that are eligible for the full production tax credit. Those farms have not been built, and the tax credit begins phase out after December 31 of this year. Even if the wind farms are eventually built, they will receive a reduced credit, and that means that their cost of generation will be increased by an amount at least equal to the foregone credit. Any actual "savings" will be much less than the quoted $10M, and then split between more than 30 cities, and millions of customers. How much could ratepayers save? Pennies, perhaps, but it could also end up costing them even more in the long run. It's so hypothetical, nobody knows!

And those Clean Line advocates from economic development and chamber of commerce offices? They believe they will be showered with tax payments and jobs. Reality will be far different, and not equal to the cost of hosting the line and a few temporary, low-wage jobs. They're in it because they think they smell a big payday.

Which leads us to the another kind of advocate -- companies who think they will be awarded contracts for supplies and labor. They support the project simply to fill their own pockets.

A landowner at one of the hearings observed that many of the Clean Line advocates left the hearing as soon as they had spoken. They have no skin in the game. Those sincerely interested in the project stayed through the entire hearing... those were the landowners.

And as far as the handful of landowners who have popped up to support GBE, isn't it funny that they all touted the same fictional "$10M savings"? It's almost as if their comments and Letters to the Editor were heavily edited by Clean Line. I wonder if that cost extra, aside from any easement payments made to date? Greed can make some folks do despicable things. At any rate, they are soundly outnumbered, hundreds to one.

So, week one of public hearings have come and gone. Score one for the landowners, who won the moment by simply showing up and being genuine! Bravo!

0 Comments

Missouri Lawmakers and Agricultural Associations Oppose Grain Belt Express -- Public Hearings Start Today!

12/7/2016

0 Comments

Numerous agricultural associations and business groups across the state have recently expressed strong opposition to Grain Belt Express, a high-voltage electric line proposed to plow through northern Missouri on its way to the east coast.

In a recent editorial, Missouri Farm Bureau president Blake Hurst said, “Grain Belt Express has promised a series of steps it says will protect landowners, bragging that landowners will receive 32 million dollars in total compensation. However, the landowner compensation anticipated from Clean Line is predicated on the use of eminent domain, which means that individual landowners will have absolutely no bargaining power. Also the idea of promising energy savings to a few, but politically-influential, municipalities so Clean Line can then trample on the rights of others, is a precedent that is distasteful if not downright frightening.”

Mike Deering of the Missouri Cattlemen's Association (MCA) said his organization stands firmly behind the protection of private property rights. “The actions to-date of Clean Line Energy are best characterized as a pervasive invasion of private property rights. MCA fully supports the efforts of Block Grain Belt Express-Missouri to protect landowner rights and opposes Grain Belt Express Clean Line's application to the MO PSC,” Deering stated.

Other agricultural groups opposed to the project include Missouri Corn Growers, Missouri Sheep Producers, and Sydenstricker Implement, one of the largest John Deere businesses in the state.

Owner Eddie Sydenstricker, whose business has been serving the Missouri agricultural community for more than 70 years, supports agriculture and landowner rights, and opposes a private-for-profit company obtaining the power of eminent domain.

“I believe Grain Belt Express' massive high-voltage DC transmission line will not only violate property rights, but will reduce property value far beyond any token compensation, spoil our rural landscape, create obstacles in fields for our agricultural producers resulting in reduced productivity and increased costs, and it will also limit future options for farms and cause the potential for adverse health risks for residents and their livestock,” said Sydenstricker.

Also expressing opposition to the project were several Missouri lawmakers, including 40th District Representative Jim Hansen.

"I hope the Public Service Commission can continue to stand with Missouri citizens and their property rights. They voted in support of Missourians the first time around and I hope they will the second time. As a strong supporter of agriculture, which is the key industry in my district, I oppose the efforts of Clean Line Energy, the Grain Belt Express project, and their efforts to obtain eminent domain. I feel it is not right to put the interests of an out-of-state company ahead of Missourians' private property rights. Going forward, I will continue to do all that I can to preserve landowner rights and ensure that the Public Service Commission does not grant Clean Line a certificate of convenience," said Hansen.

Eight Missouri county governments have formally withdrawn support of Grain Belt Express, including Caldwell, Clinton, Chariton, Monroe, Audrain, Pike, Marion and Ralls Counties.

Ralls County Commissioner Wiley Hibbard said, “The citizens of Ralls County oppose this mega power line. It is, in my opinion, just an attempt by a small group of investors to make profits from the clean energy movement. Please know that this is not the only way to get wind-generated power to Missouri or Ralls County. We are receiving wind energy now. I think that anyone who wants to take our land by force to provide wind energy to the East Coast is just providing another example of the East Coast elitists telling us we do not matter!”

The Missouri Public Service Commission has scheduled public hearings in eight counties across the state beginning next week.

Jennifer Gatrel, spokeswoman for Block GBE-Missouri urged citizens concerned about this and other attacks on private property rights to attend. “The PSC listened carefully to our concerns last time they denied this project,” she said, “It is very important that they hear our voices again.”

The public hearing schedule:

Dec. 7, 2016: Monroe City, Knights of Columbus Hall, 12:00 p.m.*
424 South Locust
Dec. 7, 2016: Hannibal, Theater Auditorium, 6:00 p.m.
Hannibal-LaGrange University, 2800 Palmyra Road
Dec. 8, 2016: Marceline, 12:00 p.m.*
Walsworth Community Center, 124 East Ritchie
Dec. 8, 2016: Moberly, 6:00 p.m.
Moberly Municipal Auditorium, 201 West Rollins
Dec. 13, 2016: Cameron, 12:00 p.m.*
Cameron Community Center, 915 Ashland Avenue
Dec. 13, 2016: Faucett, 6:00 p.m.
Mid-Buchanan High School, Multipurpose Room, 3221 SE Route H
Dec. 14, 2016: Polo, 12:00 p.m.*
Community Center at Stagecoach Park, 1010 Main Street
Dec. 14, 2016: Carrollton, 6:00 p.m.
Rupe Community Center, 710 Harvest Hills Drive

*In order to be able to move equipment to the next local public hearing that same day, 12:00 p.m. local public hearings will end no later than 4:00 p.m.

For more very important info please visit: http://blockgbemo.com/

0 Comments

Tick Tock, RICL

12/1/2016

3 Comments

Wow, time's a running short for the Rock Island Clean Line to get its Exhibit E material filed at the Iowa Utility Board. Even with Clean Line whining about the expense and time involved in collecting the information, the IUB set a deadline of January 13, 2017 for the filing of Exhibit E material for at least 4 counties, each of which shall have an approximately average number of condemnation parcels. That means no cheating by submitting the counties with the smallest number of condemnation parcels first. And then every month thereafter, Clean Line must file Exhibit E material for at least 4 more "average" counties, with all material to be filed by May 1, 2017.

So, where ya been, Clean Line? I thought the idea of all these delays was to give you opportunity to sign more voluntary easements? I'm guessing that's not going to happen, since nobody has seen Clean Line doing much of anything in Iowa. Just another waste of time. However, the clock is ticking toward the deadline for merchant projects that was made law by the Iowa legislature last session. There's no time to waste! And, speaking of the legislature, won't Clean Line have fun during the upcoming session, now that the Iowa Senate is Republican lead?

I wonder what's going to be more expensive, the Exhibit E material, or the money Clean Line is going to spend on lobbyists during the upcoming legislative session? Money-saving tip: Don't waste your money on lobbyists next year! Nobody's interested in listening to you cry about how poor you are at the IUB when you're shelling out millions for lobbyists all over the place.

And remember what the IUB suggests regarding eminent domain for utility projects:

•Avoid ED if possible (time, cost, public rel.)

Right. Those Exhibit E's take a lot of time and money to prepare, but that's nothing compared to the public relations (and political) nightmare you're about to embark upon. The taking of more than 1,000 parcels of land in Iowa by eminent domain to build your project is never going to happen. Successful utility projects typically take less than 10% of property through eminent domain, not 85%. You must have done something wrong in Iowa, Clean Line.... like arrogantly assuming you could force landowners to negotiate after the IUB rubberstamped your request for eminent domain authority. Ooops!

And what good is any of this when you don't have a permit in Illinois? You're awfully optimistic about your chances before the Illinois Supreme Court, not to mention your unrealistic timetable to which the Court is very unlikely to adhere. What does your fantasy timetable have to do with the amount of money you're spending in Iowa which may turn out to be a total waste?

And then you go and do this... you use "Theresa" to speak on your behalf in the Chicago Tribune story about your Supreme Court case. Err.... I mean Nancy, because that's apparently her real name, not the one she signed up as at the Illinois Commerce Commission public hearing in Mendota in September of 2013. Look, same woman in the Tribune story, except in that sign up line she wrote her name as "Theresa Hoover."

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Excuse me.You called Theresa Hoover who is a colleague of mine right before this gentleman spoke. Is there an opportunity for me to speak?

HEARING OFFICER: Say that
again.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: You called
Theresa Hoover.

HEARING OFFICER: Yes.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name was
supposed to be on the card instead of
Theresa's, so when you called her I
didn't step up because I didn't know it
was --

HEARING OFFICER: I have got to
go by what I started with.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: So would it
be okay if Theresa came up and spoke?

HEARING OFFICER: Pardon me?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Are you
saying Theresa would need to come up?

HEARING OFFICER: Correct.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay.

Fast Forward through one speaker...

HEARING OFFICER: Where did
that gentleman go that asked me the
question?
Is Theresa here?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: She is.

HEARING OFFICER: Where is she?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Here.

HEARING OFFICER: Theresa,
stand up, please.
Was it supposed to be his name on
there instead of yours?

THERESA HOOVER: Yes, sir, it
was.

HEARING OFFICER: Okay.

KERYN NEWMAN: Some other lady
signed that name because they were right
in front of us. Some lady that already
spoke signed Theresa's name up. I
watched her do it.
Theresa and him, neither one of them
signed their name

HEARING OFFICER: Is that true?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I did not sign my name. Theresa was supposed to sign my name.

HEARING OFFICER: Theresa, did
you sign your name?

THERESA HOOVER: No, sir,
actually someone who got here before us.
We made a long trip from Atlanta and
there was a gentleman that signed us up.

HEARING OFFICER: No, no.

Nancy, aka "Theresa" is obviously only supporting Clean Line in exchange for the tax money she thinks it will bring to her county. She doesn't look like she was having a great time tromping through the mud pretending to like Clean Line for the Tribune photographer. But what won't these local economic development employees do for a buck?

So, RICL, stop wasting your investors' money on this project and just go away. You'll never beat the clock.

Tick Tock!

3 Comments

Why Grain Belt Express is a Bad Deal for Missouri

11/29/2016

6 Comments

Public hearings on Grain Belt Express' most recent application (its third) to the Missouri Public Service Commission are set to begin next week. Another huge public turnout to oppose the plan is expected.

None of Clean Line's smoke and mirrors about project "benefits" has any basis in fact or logic.

Clean Line's proposed "income" for landowners is a huge fabrication. Any payments to landowners are a lame attempt at compensation for property taken from landowners through the courts. In exchange for payments, landowners would be trading rights-of-way across their property. Eminent domain law requires the taking entity to compensate landowners for the market value of property taken from them. It is not additional "income." Income would allow a landowner to gain something valuable while losing nothing. The truth of the matter is that Grain Belt Express is proposing to make landowners whole for property taken from them. It's a wash, not a gain. It's no different than Walmart showing up at your house and cleaning out your pantry and freezer and then giving you "market value" for the goods it has confiscated. Meanwhile, Walmart has your food and can sell it to others for a profit. There are no benefits to landowners from construction of Grain Belt Express.

Clean Line's claims of increased tax revenue for counties crossed is another disingenuous glittering generality. In essence, it is a proposal that economic development opportunity trumps your right to own and enjoy property. Everyone's house would generate more tax revenue if it was a Walmart. Economic development alone is not reason enough to trample on private property rights. This is even more true when looked at through the public utility lens that Clean Line hides behind. Public utilities have enjoyed eminent domain authority when a project is necessary to serve the public. It's a high burden that a utility must carry to demonstrate that its project is necessary to serve the public. Simply stating that if property is taken and a project built that a public need will develop, is not enough to carry this burden to take property in the first place. Especially when the "utility" is Clean Line, who has no firm customers for its transmission line. It's all based on future speculation, and that's not good enough.

Clean Line's claims of increased tax revenue also fail to calculate any detriments Grain Belt Express will bring to affected counties. Properties crossed by electric transmission lines lose value. This lowers the assessed value of affected properties and decreases property tax revenue to the county. In addition, the burden of hosting the transmission line will cost the county in increased public safety expenses, both during the invasive construction of the project and for years afterwards when the counties must purchase equipment and supplies to prepare for any transmission line disaster that may happen in the future. For example, substation fires require different types of equipment and special chemicals to fight. Counties could spend their entire "windfalls" supporting Clean Line's infrastructure in their locality.

Clean Line's claims that its Grain Belt Express project will save Missourians $10M a year in energy costs is not based on fact. Although Clean Line witnesses make this claim in testimony to the PSC, there is nothing to back it up. No analysis, no numbers. Based on documents made public months ago, the $10M claim was concocted by Clean Line when it attempted to sell its capacity to Missouri municipalities.

Preliminary calculations, assuming existing production tax credits for wind project participation in the project, could reduce costs by as much as $10M/year or $10 per megawatt hour compared to delivery of other wind projects from SPP to MISO.

Preliminary calculations? Clean Line's calculations, which have yet to be revealed to the public. "Assuming existing production tax credits" assumes too much. At the end of this year, the production tax credit will begin phase out and the subsidy for wind energy will be cut 20%. The following year it will be cut 40%. The next year it will be cut 60%, eventually disappearing altogether within 5 years. Couple this with our friend Bob from the Hannibal BPW's recent statements that he has yet to contract for any wind energy to serve the City of Hannibal. That's because the generators Clean Line says will develop to use its project haven't been constructed yet. The only thing Missouri municipal utilities have tentatively contracted for with Clean Line is transmission capacity, not energy. Energy must be purchased separately, and come from the specific geographic area close to Clean Line's proposed converter station in southwest Kansas. It's not about purchasing the cheapest wind energy available in today's market, it's about speculation with unbuilt generators to supply energy via an unbuilt transmission line. Too many variables to accurately calculate any cost savings to Missouri, since Clean Line cannot and does not sell any energy proposed to be transmitted to Missouri via its project. How was this $10M "savings" calculated when there are no energy prices to work with? Sort of looks like Clean Line simply made it up out of hypothetical numbers presented in a light most favorable to Clean Line. But, hey, at least the Missouri municipalities have the option to back out of their "contract" with Clean Line at any time in the future and purchase nothing. If cities sit around waiting for Clean Line to ship them energy from generators that don't exist, at prices that have no basis in reality, then the cities may get stuck paying much higher prices to procure energy down the road if nothing develops and they're left without enough resources to serve customers. Coulda, woulda, shoulda... by law, utilities are required to have adequate resources under contract, not base their future service on hypotheticals.

And simply parading a collection of politicians and business interests who stand to personally profit from the construction of the project isn't support based on fact and logic. It's based on money, pure and simple.

True grassroots opinion based on fact and logic cannot be bought. True grassroots opposition will drown out expensive, manufactured "support" and will carry the day at the upcoming public hearings. Won't you lend your voice?

The public hearing schedule:

Dec. 7, 2016: Monroe City
Knights of Columbus Hall, 424 South Locust
The local public hearing will begin at 12:00 p.m.*

Dec. 7, 2016: Hannibal
Theater Auditorium, Hannibal-LaGrange University, 2800 Palmyra Road
The local public hearing will begin at 6:00 p.m

Dec. 8, 2016: Marceline
Walsworth Community Center, 124 East Ritchie
The local public hearing will begin at 12:00 p.m.*

Dec. 8, 2016: Moberly
Moberly Municipal Auditorium, 201 West Rollins
The local public hearing will begin at 6:00 p.m.

Dec. 13, 2016: Cameron
Cameron Community Center, 915 Ashland Avenue
The local public hearing will begin at 12:00 p.m.*

Dec. 13, 2016: Faucett
Mid-Buchanan High School, Multipurpose Room, 3221 SE Route H
The local public hearing will begin at 6:00 p.m.

Dec. 14, 2016: Polo
Community Center at Stagecoach Park, 1010 Main Street
The local public hearing will begin at 12:00 p.m.*

Dec. 14, 2016: Carrollton
Rupe Community Center, 710 Harvest Hills Drive
The local public hearing will begin at 6:00 p.m.

*In order to be able to move equipment to the next local public hearing that same day, 12:00 p.m. local public hearings will end no later than 4:00 p.m.

For more very important info. please visit Block GBE-MO.

6 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

Clean Line's Choo-Choo Runs Out of Steam

Buried Transmission Line Gets Permit: Full Steam Ahead!

Clean Line Business Plan May Be Beyond Reporter's Grasp

Clean Line Helping Communities... One Extended Stay Hotel Chain at a Time

"Clean" Bravado

Clean Line's "Code of Conduct" Doesn't Protect Landowners

Landowners Step Up to Protect Property Rights in Missouri

Missouri Lawmakers and Agricultural Associations Oppose Grain Belt Express -- Public Hearings Start Today!

Tick Tock, RICL

Why Grain Belt Express is a Bad Deal for Missouri

About the Author

About
StopPATH Blog

Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
Email me

Archives

Categories

About the Author

AboutStopPATH Blog

Archives

Categories

About
StopPATH Blog