If this were a guide published today, it might be written by Clean Line Energy Partners.

Today, the company engineered a press release that says "TRC Supports Clean Line Energy."  Who is TRC?  Is TRC an elected official?  Is TRC a regulator?  Is TRC a transmission customer?  Is TRC's "support" of Clean Line relevant to Clean Line's regulatory approval, or even the approval of the landowners whose property the project wants to cross?

The answer is none of the above.  TRC is Clean Line's newest contractor.  In exchange for $12M, TRC says it will, "provide land acquisition services, survey permissions and overall project management for the Plains & Eastern Clean Line transmission project."  Of course TRC "supports" Clean Line.... it stands to pocket $12M for its efforts to coerce landowners to sign survey permissions and easement agreements.  Does TRC's "support" for Clean Line necessitate YOUR support?  Of course not, that's ridiculous!

Clean Line has been resoundingly rebuffed by landowners across its route.  So, what's the new plan?  Employment of propaganda devices such as testimonial, card stacking, and bandwagon.  Oh, whoop-de-doo, Clean Line!

TRC thinks you care if it makes the following statement:

Wait a minute... is TRC acquiring survey permissions and easement agreements, or is it leading a cheerleading squad?  How much arrogance does it take to believe that some company's belief in a project has relevance to your personal decisions regarding your land?

And we're just getting started here...

What?  "Educating landowners about the benefits of the project?"  What does that have to do with acquiring easements and survey permissions?  Sounds like some kind of brain-washing attempt to coerce landowners to sign on the dotted line.  Does Clean Line really believe that the only barrier to land acquisition and survey permission is "education" of landowners?  News Flash!  The landowners are already "educated," which is why they have been rejecting all Clean Line's attempts, not only at acquiring permission, but at any contact with the company at all.  The landowners got "educated" years ago by opponents of the Clean Line projects.  They know everything they need to know to tell Clean Line to go away.  Clean Line does NOT have eminent domain authority.  The most Clean Line can do is annoy landowners with their "offers."  Clean Line cannot make any legal filing to condemn and take property.  Instead, Clean Line must turn over acquisition of any property it cannot obtain to the U.S. Department of Energy.  The DOE may then reattempt permissions, but only after Clean Line has reached certain milestones with its project.  First, Clean Line must find customers for its transmission capacity.  It has not made any customers public.  It also must receive financing to construct its entire project.  It has not made any financing public.  It's going to be a long time before the DOE comes calling with more offers for landowners, and only DOE has the authority to condemn and take property through the courts.  Meanwhile, landowners can tell Clean Line and TRC to go take their Vulcan mind-meld tricks for a flying leap off the nearest cliff, mountain, hill, rock, or pebble.

What's in it for the landowner to sign permissions now?  Nothing.  Big goose egg.  Zero.  What's in it for the landowner to sign an easement agreement now?  A payment of a small percentage of the easement's value.  That's right... Clean Line wants you to sign over your property rights today in exchange for a portion of their monetary value.  You give Clean Line permission to use your property today, but they're not going to pay you in full for that permission for up to four years.  Landowners would essentially be allowing Clean Line to buy their property rights on the installment plan.  Doesn't sound like much "benefit" to the landowner. 

And let's talk about Clean Line's "self-policed" Code of Conduct.  This document is nothing but window dressing.  Since Clean Line is the only party enforcing this worthless document, it can do whatever it wants.

Behold:

All things that Clean Line and its contractors, such as TRC, cannot do.

But yet, TRC has taken to the media to support the project, and has stated that it intends to "educate landowners about the benefits of the project."  That sounds suspiciously like a violation of the Code of Conduct, doesn't it?  After all, if a landowner is already educated about the project, any statement by TRC about the project's benefits is by default argumentative.  Any statements by TRC that "[t]he 700-mile transmission line will improve the U.S. electric grid, support economic development and job growth, and make safe, reliable and lower-cost power available to consumers," are designed to make the resistant landowner ashamed or embarrassed by his or her opposition to the project and insinuate that such opposition is inappropriate.  And it's argumentative.

These people are a day late and a dollar short.  The majority of affected landowners are already "educated" about the project and have found that it doesn't provide any "benefits" for them. 

You've got to get up pretty early in the morning to fool a farmer.  Or a Mayberrian.

Clean Line Grain Belt Express spokesman Mark Lawlor, when discussing his company's recent re-application to the Missouri Public Service Commission, told KMBZ:

If that were true, then there would be no need for eminent domain authority. 

Except the application GBE filed on Thursday stated:

So, no matter how many "landowner protections" Clean Line pretends to dream up, there's only one landowner protection that actually protects the landowner.

THE RIGHT TO SAY NO.

And IT IS ABOUT THE EMINENT DOMAIN to the landowners.

In fact, the eminent domain is at the heart of the opposition to this project.

Without eminent domain, Clean Line would have to:

But Clean Line doesn't even want to attempt that without having the right to condemn to use as leverage.

None of Clean Line's "landowner protections" will protect you.

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon announced yesterday that he had negotiated "landowner protections" with a Texas-based company on behalf of Missourians affected by its for-profit transmission project.

Except none of the affected landowners participated in the Governor's negotiations with the company.  In fact, the landowners were not consulted in any way.  Nor were they even notified about these "protections," except to read it in their morning newspapers.  You'd think that if the "protections" were for benefit of landowners, that they would reflect actual landowner concerns, right?

Something stinks here...

Governor Nixon's "protections" are nothing more than smoke and mirrors.  They don't protect you.  Let's take a look:

Oh, binding arbitration?  What is that, exactly?  "If the arbitration is mandatory and binding, the parties waive their rights to access the courts and to have a judge or jury decide the case."  Binding arbitration is quicker.  Binding arbitration is cheaper.  Binding arbitration may be free from public scrutiny.  Binding arbitration is giving up your rights to have a similarly situated landowner determine your value in a public, appealable court proceeding.  Now who would have an interest in making eminent domain takings of hundreds of land parcels across Missouri quicker, cheaper and quieter?  It's not landowners.  It's Clean Line and Governor Nixon!  Protecting you?  Not so much.  These people must think you're really stupid.

As well, financial compensation may be the least of a landowner's worries when presented with an easement agreement written by Clean Line's lawyers.  Who's representing the landowner's interests in this situation?  Not Clean Line.  Not the arbitrator, he only wants to talk about land value.  It's up to the landowner to retain his own counsel to review any easement agreement.

Missouri Agriculture Protocol?  How many actual farmers were consulted to develop this "protocol," and why does the Missouri Farm Bureau still oppose the project if this "protocol" ameliorates agricultural concerns?  Buyer beware on this one!   Ya know the best way to avoid impacts to agricultural activities?  Don't build the project.

Establishment of a decommissioning fund?  How much will that be?  Since Clean Line has the idea that the scrap value of the project's physical components will be more than enough to pay for its decommissioning, this "fund" might contain nothing more than pocket change and a couple of gum wrappers.  Where's the guarantee?  Where's the oversight?  Where's the money?

Update land value assessments?  When was the last "land value assessment" performed, and where can landowners access this information?  Will landowners be able to access the information in the new assessment, or are they just supposed to take Clean Line's word for it?  A transmission company never reveals any professional assessment of what your land is worth before approaching you to sign an easement or purchase agreement.  That's because your property is represented by a range of values that comes from land sales data in your county or region.  It's all very generic and created by some company in another state that never visits your property.  Because it's a range of general value, the company will start by offering you the lowest amount in range.  As you negotiate, the offer will increase within the pre-designated range.  Get to the top of the range, and suddenly any offers need to be approved by supervisors and managers.  How IS a landowner supposed to know whether their "land value assessment" increased or decreased under Governor Nixon's "protections?"  Is he going to come to your house to help in the negotiations and "protect" you?  Of course not.

Compensation will not be reduced after approval?  Again, who is going to police that?  Are you just supposed to trust Clean Line to honor this, when their profits are directly tied to the amount of money they must pay for your easement?  This is another worthless "protection."

So, what is going on here?  Political gamesmanship.  Clean Line and the Governor have now turned this into a political process.  They hope that the Missouri Public Service Commission can be politically influenced to approve the project the second time around, since Clean Line's first attempt was rejected on its technical merits.

Public Service Commission decisions are supposed to "provide an efficient regulatory process that is responsive to all parties, and perform our duties ethically and professionally."  They are not supposed to be politically motivated.  Commissioners are supposed to be free from political influence so that they may make independent decisions based on the law.  They're supposed to be ethical.  They're supposed to have integrity.  Will the Commissioners be brave enough to remain true to their own personal code of ethics when making their decision, or will they fall before political pressure from lame duck Governor Nixon?  And what good is Nixon's political pressure, when he'll be long gone before any decision is made?  Be careful who you vote for, Missouri!  Your Governor is not protecting you.  In fact, he's giving your private property rights to an out-of-state company to use for their own profit.  With a leader like that, nobody's property in Missouri is safe.  It's all for sale to the highest bidder.

In an Order issued yesterday, the Iowa Utilities Board set a scheduling conference and intervention date for Clean Line's applications for electric transmission franchises in 16 counties.  The IUB wants to discuss "the likely time requirements for this proceeding," and presumably set a procedural schedule.  The conference is scheduled for July 11.

The IUB explains its actions are the result of recent new law in Iowa that sets a strict time standard for merchant transmission applications.

The Board recognizes that such proceedings can take significant time to conduct.  Therefore, a schedule must be set.

Clean Line can no longer hold Iowa landowners hostage by refusing to move its applications forward.  The company has failed to complete its applications by submitting what is known as "Exhibit E" material.  Instead, Clean Line has repeatedly attempted to bifurcate the permitting process to avoid submitting Exhibit E.  Exhibit E is a package of materials particular to each property upon which the applicant expects to exercise eminent domain, if granted.  Because Clean Line has been so ridiculously ineffective in obtaining easements in Iowa, Exhibit E's will be required for up to 80 - 85% of properties crossed.

Clean Line has repeatedly whined that creating Exhibit E material is too time consuming and too expensive.  Its whining has fallen on deaf ears.  Now it's time to put up or shut up.  The clock is ticking.

Could this be the end of the Rock Island Clean Line project?  Check mate!

Peppering every thought and process with quotes from Mark Twain.  Is that really a thing in Hannibal, Missouri?  Apparently so, judging by this article in the Hannibal Courier-Post.  I guess I've been derelict in my communications efforts directed toward good ol' Bob and his friends at the Hannibal Board of Public Works by not including a trite quote from Twain as a preamble to my opinion.  My bad.  I hereby remedy that failing.

Reporter Danny Henley surely knows

Because he obviously didn't look at the actual "contract" between MJMEUC and Grain Belt Express before writing his article.  He relied on Bob Stevenson's sly "memo" to simply report incorrect facts and opinion as "news."

The contract clearly states it is for transmission capacity ONLY.  Henley needs to quit reporting lies such as this:  "Hannibal was also given the chance to buy electricity for as little as 2 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh)..."  No, they weren't given the opportunity to buy electricity.  They were given the opportunity to buy transmission capacity.  That would be like buying an extension cord, Danny, not signing up for a new account with the electric company.  One provides a means to move electricity from one location to another, and the other actually supplies the electricity.  Without electricity, the extension cord is useless.  And there have been no quotes offered from electricity suppliers.  None.

Henley reports that Bob Stevenson read a "memo" he had written to the BPW at the June meeting of the Board, lamenting that Hannibal had missed out on Grain Belt Express "opportunities."

Grain Belt Express has a fence that needs whitewashing at the Missouri Public Service Commission.  Someone took away Bob's paintbrush.  Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

Bob thinks the project is "moving forward without Hannibal."  It's okay, Bob, the project isn't moving anywhere.  It can't go anywhere without eminent domain authority from the MO Public Service Commission, and that contract isn't a guarantee of success.  In fact, if you would actually read it yourself, Bob, you'd see that it's not even a firm contract, but sort of like a pre-contract, where MJMEUC can back out at any time up to 60 days before Grain Belt Express energizes its line.

Bob also expects to receive an offer from MJMEUC to join its useless pre-contract, even though he chose to wax poetic about missed opportunities at the Board's June meeting.  Of course Hannibal is not precluded from buying a paint brush and joining in the whitewashing.  It just made better theater to pretend Hannibal has missed some rare opportunity.

Hannibal should beware unsubstantiated claims that Grain Belt Express will save Hannibal (or any other municipality) money.  It's clear from GBE's "offer" to MJMEUC that the purported $10M/year savings aren't the result of any "study" by MJMEUC (as falsely reported in the press) but a summary of Clean Line's "preliminary calculations." 

It's nothing but Clean Line's made up "preliminary calculations!"  None of the figures in this "calculation" has any validity.

Despite his fretful report that other cities are scheduling council action long before they sign a contract, and urging Hannibal to do so quickly in order not to miss out on this great opportunity, Bob needs to remember that he is merely a servant of the people.

There's no danger "up to 200 MW" of transmission capacity is going to disappear like hot Krispy Kreme donuts.  There's plenty of fence for everyone to paint!

The harder Bob tries to sell GBE, like the world's worst circus sideshow barker, the more suspicious he looks to the people of Hannibal.  Here's what Twain would tell him about his failure:

Trust your ratepayers, Bob.  After you see what happens at the Public Service Commission, you're going to be thanking your lucky stars that it didn't happen to you.

Arkansas News reports that Arkansas Rep. Steve Womack's APPROVAL Act bill passed out of the House Committee on Natural Resources today and is headed to the full House of Representatives.

Clean Line is "disappointed," reports Arkansas News.

Clean Line's "disappointment" manifested itself in a whiny litany of all the doom and destruction that is going to befall, not only the State of Arkansas, but the entire country, just before it takes over the world and ends existence as we know it.

Puh-leeeze.  Killing jobs?  How can it kill jobs Clean Line has yet to create?  Significant barriers to Arkansas businesses?  What about all the farm and other small businesses that your eminent domain right-of-way takings will demolish?  That's some significant job-killing barriers right there!  And what about all those current jobs creating energy in Arkansas that will be KILLED if the state imports electricity from another state?  Are we going to pit workers at "American" electric generation facilities against workers building "American" infrastructure?  Who's got more American flags behind their podium anyhow?

There's absolutely no truth to your claim that a failure to build a "Clean" line will raise electric power costs.  That's the biggest bunch of poppycock ever!  How much more will I pay if Plains & Eastern fails?  How about if Plains & Eastern and Grain Belt Express fail?  What if Plains & Eastern, Grain Belt Express AND Rock Island Clean Line fail?  What if Michael Skelly drowns in his own spit?  How much more will I pay?

Clean Line wouldn't know what "good policy" was if it bit them on the rear end.  The only thing Clean Line knows is disappointment.

Clean Line also claims:

Oh, right.  We remember.  The infamously desperate Change dot org petition.  But guess what?  I'll see your three thousand NIMBY "supporters" duped into signing something they didn't understand that puts energy infrastructure into someone else's backyard, and raise you more than 10,000 angry landowners who have no intention of signing voluntary right-of-way agreements for a "Clean" line.  As well, we all know that your "organizations and associations" are bought and paid for, or mistakenly believe there's a pile of gold for themselves to be had by tossing their neighbors under the bus.

But, you know what?  Somehow Arkansas News simply forgot to ask for any opposing views. 

Maybe they simply ran out of time.  It can't be that Arkansas News believes that the Sierra Club speaks for the public, can it?  The only thing more revolting than Clean Line's comment is Glen Hooks' blathering.  "Fundamental fairness," Glen?  Really?  What's fair about working your whole life to achieve the American dream of owning and enjoying property, only to have the rug yanked out from under you when a for-profit enterprise decides they want to use your property for their energy infrastructure project?  An energy infrastructure project for which there is no reliability, economic, or public policy need?  One premised on simple market speculation?  That is fundamentally unfair, Glen.  Nobody really cares if anyone is "fair" to a for-profit corporation.  Corporations aren't people.  Who cares how much investor money Skelly and his buddies have wasted trying to make their business model work?  Should ordinary folks just scratching by really care that super rich, silver spoon boys like Michael Zilkha and the Ziff brothers might lose a tiny part of their vast fortunes because it's not "fair" to deprive them of the right to condemn and take property in the name of the Federal government without state approval?

It's not "blatantly unfair" to the economy of the State of Arkansas to make a Texas for-profit owned by a handful of guys richer than Croesus have to negotiate for land rights in an open market without the threat of eminent domain.  That is blatantly unfair to the good people of Arkansas, your friends and neighbors.  Get your head out of some environmental dream world and take a look around, Glen.

Soooooo.....  thanks to Rep. Womack for doing something good for the people of Arkansas.  The people that elect him.  The folks he serves.

End:Public Tantrum.  But mine was much more entertaining, I'm sure.

...errr, customer.  This morning, Clean Line Energy Partners had an imaginary customer.

So reported "Recharge News," which bills itself as "the multi-platform news service for senior professionals in solar, wind and related sectors. It balances in-depth coverage of wind and solar with relevant news from the wider global renewables industry."

Balance?  Recharge News thought this article was "balanced?"  It only tells one side of the story... Skelly's side.  Apparently the reporter did absolutely no fact checking.

"Utility Energy" doesn't exist.  There's no company named "Utility Energy," therefore it has not agreed to purchase 500 MW of power from Plains & Eastern.  Or maybe the reporter MEANT to report that "Utility Entergy has agreed to purchase...".  But that would also be untrue.  Neither Entergy nor Clean Line's imaginary friend, Utility Energy, have agreed to purchase so much as a glow stick from Plains & Eastern.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

It's pretty doubtful that Clean Line will "begin construction on Plains & Eastern next year."  It's pretty hard to construct a transmission line on land you don't own.  What Recharge News fails to report is that landowners are refusing all Clean Line's advances.

Get yourself one of these nifty signs from Golden Bridge, LLC!

And guess what?  Clean Line does NOT have eminent domain authority, nor authority to enter private property along the route.  No "studies."  No "surveys."  No land agent visits or calls.  Landowners can simply tell Clean Line and its contractors to go away.  And they are.  They certainly are.  It's not looking like Clean Line is going to have any land rights for its project by next year.  Because the only way Clean Line can get land rights from resistant owners is to ask the U.S. Department of Energy to use its authority to condemn and take their land.  And the U.S. DOE agreement stipulates that Clean Line must have firm, contracted customers, not just imaginary friends, before DOE will even consider getting involved.  And even if they do, DOE must start all over again attempting to negotiate with the landowner.  Think all this can be accomplished by next year?  Not.  It's going to take YEARS and YEARS, if it ever happens at all.

And there Skelly stands, waving his hands around and making up imaginary customers, like "Utility Energy."  He doesn't have any real customers.  And he won't have any real customers, because all the good imaginary customers will only "...commit once they see the project meeting critical milestones towards the start of construction."  But Clean Line won't be meeting any milestones until it has land rights.  And it can't get land rights until it has customers.  Chicken, egg.  Rock:Clean Line:Hard Place.

Skelly needs to quit making crap up.  And the trade press needs to stop reporting made up crap.

Imaginary friends are only cute when you're five.

Well, hey there!  Renewable energy wonks have the same "saying" as transmission opponents.  It's about time we all got on the same page!

At a FERC Techincal Conference regarding interconnection procedures last week, Dean Gosselin, NextEra Energy’s vice president of business management, said:

Right.  Projects that struggle for years to gain approval, financing, and customers aren't good projects that deserve to come to fruition.

So what in the world is Clean Line doing still trying to shove its projects through?  This company has been "developing" its projects since 2009.  That's 7 long years, and they're still no closer to fruition.  Even the Federal government won't undertake massive eminent domain condemnations for a project that has no customers, and for which no voluntary easements have been signed.

Time kills all projects, even yours, Clean Line.  You're like that slimy green stuff in the back of the vegetable drawer of project ideas -- so past its prime that it lacks physical substance and smells horrendous.  Clean Line is way past its expiration date.

To justify thousands of miles of new transmission "for renewables," NIMBYs often claim it is "for the greater good."  The NIMBYs who champion the use of eminent domain for renewable energy only support it because it is "Not In My Backyard."  They have all sorts of specious arguments to support their position, such as:

None of these arguments is effective to convince landowners to sacrifice themselves and grant easements for the "greater good" of others in far off places.

Our country was electrified through the use of eminent domain.  It was the only way to provide electric service to all who wanted it.  Now everyone has electricity, and those who want new service choose whether to pay the cost of extending electric lines to serve their property, or building their own generation onsite.  That is a simple economic argument -- would the cost of extending centralized generation to the property be more or less than building and maintaining distributed generation to serve the property.  In many parts of the world, distributed generation is the option that makes sense.

But utility eminent domain is no longer about providing individuals with reliable basic service.  It's now oftentimes used to provide lower cost electric service, or to provide a different "renewable" kind of generation required by public policies.  This is where utility eminent domain starts sliding down the slippery slope of "public use."  Can "the public" necessity for more economic or environmentally responsible electricity trump the right of the individual to own and enjoy property?  Where does the responsibility of "the public" to be responsible for their own footprint enter into the equation?

If the current electric supply for "the public" in one location is more expensive than electric supply for "the public" in another location, does that give utilities the right to take private property in order to levelize electric prices between localities?  In such a scheme, consumers enjoying cheaper electricity must sacrifice by paying more for their electricity in order that other consumers in a different region can enjoy cheaper prices.  And landowners in between these two regions must sacrifice their personal property to grant easements for new transmission lines to effect this economic benefit for one group of consumers.

The same argument can be made about transmission lines "for renewables" (as if transmission lines could segregate "clean" from "dirty" energy - it's all the same when it's transmitted).  Consumers who live in regions where renewables are cheap and plentiful enjoy lower electric prices.  When those renewables are exported to other regions where renewables have failed to properly and economically develop (notice I did not say regions where there are no renewables, because such places simply don't exist), it raises prices for consumers who previously enjoyed low prices because supply exceeded demand.  And it requires them to make a sacrifice so that consumers in other regions can enjoy the low-priced renewables they failed to develop themselves.

We get here because of electricity markets.  Electric markets are run by organizations who also control electric transmission.  Electric transmission is the only tool these organizations have to control their artificial electric markets by moving electricity around their own region, or to other regions.  Electric transmission organizations cannot order new generation to be built as a way to control their markets, lower prices, or support environmental "public policies."  Eminent domain cannot be used to force new generation, but it can be used to force new transmission.  This mismatch between the power of a "market" to force transmission, but not generation, makes no sense.

If a particular region needs renewable generation, or lower cost electricity, an unfettered market would force it to be built.  Instead, the current electric "market" forces transmission before market forces can be allowed to do their work to encourage new generation.  This isn't a true "market," it's top down force that causes unnecessary sacrifice on the part of individuals who will receive no benefit in order to provide for the needs of others.  If regions that have failed to develop their own renewable resources must pay more to develop them now, then that's the cost of environmentally-friendly consumption.  If regions with more expensive power need cheaper prices, then they should build cheaper generators, or change policies that suppress generation and drive up its cost.  Example:  The east coast cities have traditionally relied on coal-fired generators in the Ohio Valley to supply them with cheap electricity because their own environmental restrictions or costs imposed on coal-fired generators prevented them from generating economic coal-fired electricity in their own neighborhood.  The Ohio Valley destroyed its people and environment in order to ship cheap electricity east to serve the cities.  Now the cities don't want any more coal-fired power, but they have been trained to be helpless leeches, incapable of providing for their own electric needs.  Many of these NIMBYs continue to think that other regions enjoy sacrificing themselves for city needs.  They somehow think other regions enjoy some economic benefit from serving them.  One only need look at West Virginia as an example that any economic benefit from the sacrifice didn't flow to the people -- it went into the pockets of the out-of-state companies who exploited the state's natural resources for the last 100 years.

Climate change has happened gradually over hundreds of years of our industrial expansion.  It cannot be changed overnight.  The big rush to switch to renewables won't happen quickly.  And it certainly shouldn't be used as a basis to require sacrifice of personal property rights to allow new renewable energy projects.  Renewables will develop where they are welcomed by people who want to pay to use them.  Arguing that development of more expensive local renewables isn't worthwhile effectively rejects climate change arguments entirely.

And, again, we have another mismatch between generation and transmission when it comes to renewables.  The siting of renewable energy generators is an entirely voluntary process -- no eminent domain can be used to obtain land for wind farms, for instance.  In that case, renewable generation developers have to operate in a voluntary real estate market to acquire land for their projects.  These landowners are compensated at a rate that entices their voluntary participation, oftentimes receiving royalties and other long-term financial compensation for the use of their land.  But voluntarily-sited renewable generators may require new transmission lines to tap into existing transmission systems, and request the use of eminent domain to get there.  On the one hand, landowners hosting generators are well-compensated because their participation is voluntary, but on the other hand, landowners hosting the transmission lines that make generation profits happen are involuntarily forced to take one-time "market value" payments and sacrifice their property.  Everyone participating in the production of getting renewable generation to market is not compensated equally.

And here's another incongruity... when eminent domain is used to acquire land for transmission lines planned by regional organizations and cost allocated to all ratepayers in a region, the ratepayers realize the benefit of the cheaper land acquisition accomplished by eminent domain through "cost of service" transmission rates.  However, new "merchant" transmission projects proposed are not supported by cost of service rates, but by market rates.  A merchant project is financed wholly by its investors, not ratepayers.  It depends on market prices for transmission service in order to set its rates through a voluntary negotiation process.  The users of its line negotiate a price for service.  The merchant transmission owner can collect whatever rate it can negotiate in this voluntary market.  In that case, any lower land acquisition values created by eminent domain flow directly to the investors.  Eminent domain does not affect the market for transmission service -- that market remains unaffected whether land acquisition for transmission rights of way is voluntary or coerced through eminent domain.  The merchant transmission ratepayers do not realize any financial benefit from the use of eminent domain for land acquisition.  A merchant transmission project is a market-based endeavor -- it's success depends entirely on market forces.  Therefore, why isn't a merchant transmission project's land acquisition also subject to the same market forces?  A market-based merchant project should be required to negotiate land acquisition prices with voluntary landowners in the same free market in which it negotiates prices for its transmission with voluntary users.

Those who casually spout off that new transmission is "for the greater good" and therefore deserving of landowner sacrifice through the acquisition of rights of way through eminent domain aren't aren't dealing with a full deck.  It's all so much self-interested hogwash.  Who determines when transmission is "for the greater good?"  Not the folks who stand to benefit from it.  The "greater good" includes everyone.  Equally.

​

All too often our elected representatives head off to our state capitol, where they're surrounded by paid corporate lobbyists every day, and they forget all about us.

Not so in Iowa and Missouri, where legislators are working hard to protect the interests of the ones who elected them.

A bipartisan Iowa House yesterday passed HF 2448, an act relating to the construction, erection, maintenance and operation, or sale of specified electric transmission lines.  The bill:

The bill now moves on to the Iowa Senate. 

The bill's sponsor, Representative Bobby Kaufmann, said, “Every day I, in this body, am going to be loyal to the landowners rather than the pocketbooks of the Rock Island Clean Line.”

Opponents of the bill said it wasn't "fair" to Texas-based Rock Island Clean Line.

Kaufmann said Rock Island Clean Line developers have kept property owners hanging for too long.

“Whose fairness right are we going to choose: property owners or an out-of-state corporation?” Kaufmann asked.

Read more about the remarkable grassroots efforts in Iowa on the website of the Preservation of Rural Iowa Alliance.

And in Missouri, a House committee hearing was held on HB 2418, a bill modifying provisions related to eminent domain power of utilities.  The bill adds the following provisions:

4. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the power of eminent domain shall not be exercised for any electric transmission line project if any of the following apply:
(1) Such project is proposed and built outside a regulated regional transmission planning process;
(2) Such project is not eligible for recovery of costs under a regional transmission operator or independent system operator tariff for transmission service it provides;
(3) Such project is constructed entirely with private funds and users of the line pay for the transmission line;
(4) Such project primarily involves construction of a high-voltage direct current transmission line.
5. Subsection 4 of this section shall not apply to a transmission line, wire, or cable that primarily provides electricity through alternating current and is used by:
(1) Rate-regulated electric utilities, municipal electric utilities, or rural electric cooperatives; or
(2) Electric transmission owners to provide electric service, for compensation, to the public or any entity described under subdivision (1) of this subsection.

Read more about this legislation here.

Block GBE Missouri reports that the hearing went well, with six witnesses testifying in favor of the bill.

Now that's representation of the people!