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!

The honeymoon is over!

Senator John Boozeman has announced an investigation:

Boozeman also reiterated his intention to pass legislation to limit the DOE's authority on Section 1222:

Senator Boozeman has pledged to take measures to stop DOE's overreach.

It's not a done deal.  Read more here!

The U.S. DOE claimed in a press release

And if you believe that ruse, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

The reality is that the DOE is planning to coerce landowners to sign survey and easement agreements under threat of condemnation and taking of their land by the Federal government.  It's all there in the "Participation Agreement" signed by the DOE and Clean Line.  Every affected landowner should take a look.  No landowners were party to the "lengthy negotiations" that took place at the DOE to "build in protections for landowners," so you may question whether anything in this agreement actually protects your interests.  DOE doesn't even know what your interests are!

Earlier this week, Clean Line stated that it wanted to "share its revenues" with landowners.

Bridge.  Brooklyn.  You know what Clean Line is willing to do?  Exactly what is in the Participation Agreement, and nothing more.  Nothing at all.  Clean Line will do the minimum required under the agreement and then turn the remainder over the the DOE for condemnation.  And there is no "share in the wealth" provisions for landowners in the Participation Agreement.

The Participation Agreement states,

And then just steps from the starting gate, Clean Line engages in a lie by telling landowners that they will "share in the revenues earned by the project," when this is not part of the Participation Agreement's "protections" for landowners.  What is coercion?

It's perfectly okay with the DOE if Clean Line lies to landowners in order to get their foot in the door, but threats of condemnation are out of line.  Remember this!

Don't be afraid of scary words like "condemnation," or "eminent domain."  The DOE doesn't want to engage in it anymore than you do.  It's costly and time consuming.  Once, a government wanted to take my land to build a gated community and high-end shops.  They offered a pittance.  I refused.  The closer and closer we got to a condemnation hearing, the higher the offers from the government became.  The offer made to my attorney, literally on the steps of the court house just before the condemnation hearing, was six times the original offer.  I'm not an attorney, and none of this is intended as legal advice.  It's just a sharing my own personal experiences, and it's been my experience that the first landowners to sign get the least amount of money.  There's always more money available and a "final offer" is often not final.  I received much more than the other landowners because I was the last one to sign, not the first one. 

Get yourself a competent, local attorney.  Beware large out-of-state "eminent domain specialists" whose payday is dependent upon you signing an agreement with the company.  You'd get better advice from an attorney who is billing you by the hour.  His payday isn't dependent upon you signing an easement agreement.

So, what's in the Participation Agreement "protecting" landowners from Clean Line's easement acquisition actions? 

First of all, Clean Line needs to "locate the landowner."  They can do so by "using a private investigator to conduct a search for such Landowner, inquiries with
relatives, neighbors or other individuals that could reasonably be likely to know the location of
such Landowner."  This is "protection?"  Sounds like intimidation to me.

Next, Clean Line is supposed to give the landowner an "initial notice and landowner materials," consisting of:

Landowners are "protected" by being offered a legal document written by Clean Line, in its own best interest, that they are encouraged to sign without legal representation of their own.  When you sell real estate in an open market, both parties are represented at settlement by their own legal counsel.  Nobody ever sells their property to a stranger who comes knocking on their door with a prepared legal document.  So, why should you?  Land agent promises mean nothing unless they are written into the signed legal document, before you sign.  Everything you will receive must be set out in the easement agreement, in writing.  You'd be much better off with an easement agreement written by your own counsel, instead of accepting Clean Line's terms.  Clean Line is writing these agreements in their own interest, not yours.  Not all desired terms of easement agreements revolve around money.  In fact, money should be the least of your worries when you are legally bound to a transmission company for decades.  Read the paper linked here to find important provisions to include in your own easement agreement. 

Although samples of many of the documents are included as attachments to the Participation Agreement, the easement agreement is not one of them.  What's in the easement agreement that can't stand public scrutiny?  Doesn't sound like a "protection" for landowners to keep the easement agreement hidden until presented to the landowner in person by Clean Line, and urging him to sign immediately, without advice of counsel.

A "payment calculation sheet" prepared by Clean Line's property value appraisers "protects" you from receiving an offer below market value.  The payment calculation sheet becomes part of your easement agreement, once you sign.  Whatever is on this paper is a legal part of your easement agreement.  Clean Line's "market values" are determined by a company located in another state that uses prior sales in your county to calculate a value for your particular property.  It's all very high level, and prior sales can be cherry picked to come up with the value the company wants to assign to your property.  No appraiser may visit your property to discover its unique features.  Clean Line, at its own discretion, may deem your parcel a "waiver parcel," meaning it will refuse to have your property individually appraised before determining a value.  Even if Clean Line offers to have your property appraised, the appraisal shall be performed by Clean Line's contracted appraiser.  This appraiser performs all Clean Line's appraisals in your area under a contract.  You are not allowed to have your own appraisal performed by an appraiser of your choosing.  Or, better yet, to have the value determined by averaging the values determined by three appraisals -- one performed by Clean Line's appraiser, one performed by the landowner's appraiser, and one performed by an appraiser agreed to by both parties.  This may be small "protection" but it is the kind of value determination required by a state PSC approval of a transmission line.  DOE's "protections" don't even go that far.  And, one more thing about appraisals... if Clean Line doesn't like the appraisal its contractor produces, it can act as follows:
(a) The Appraisal will be sent back to the original Appraiser for revisions based on the appraisal review and then resubmitted through the review process as outlined
above; or
(b) A meeting will be held between the Appraiser and Review Appraiser to gather more facts regarding the subject parcel to formalize a joint appraisal analysis.

Clean Line's contracted appraiser had better toe the "clean" line or risk having their arm twisted.  But you can trust this appraiser because it's one of DOE's "protections" for landowners!

A sample of the Payment (or Easement) Calculation Sheet is included as an appendix to the Participation Agreement.  As you can see from this sample, your total easement consideration (payment) consists of the value of your land.  There's no line item for "revenue sharing," structure payments, damages or anything else.  It's a straight up calculation of the value of your acreage.  Also take note that this is more aptly considered an Option for easement, because you're not getting your payment all at once.  You'll get 30% of the agreed value when you sign.  You'll get the balance when they show up with the bulldozer.  If that doesn't happen before December 31, 2017, then Clean Line can pay you another 10% of the agreed price to extend the contract for another year.  If the bulldozer still hasn't shown up by December 31, 2018, then Clean Line will dispense another 10%.  At this point, you'll have 50% of the agreed upon value in your pocket.  And guess what?  Clean Line can back out of this easement agreement at any time it likes by failing to pay you the additional amounts.  You can never back out of this easement agreement.  It's permanent.  And remember, any percentage of value payments made along the way are deducted from the final amount you will receive.  They are NOT in addition to the value determined. 

Although the Participation Agreement requires Clean Line to pay for:  (iii) any damage to any crops, timber, livestock, structures or improvements of the Landowner that are reasonably likely to arise as a result of the conveyance of the applicable Project Real Estate Right and the Project...
There's no line item for this on the Payment Calculation Sheet.  How is the landowner "protected" here?  Is the landowner supposed to hope that Clean Line pays whatever they request after the damages have occurred?  Or does the landowner have to go through the courts to be reimbursed if they don't agree with Clean Line's assessment of the damages?  Determine damages, and a method for fairly assessing their cost, in advance and add it to your Payment Calculation Sheet and/or easement agreement.  Don't get stuck taking a pittance from Clean Line, or spending years in court, for the damages it caused.

And now let's talk about Clean Line's "Code of Conduct" for acquisition of your real estate.  As I've written before, this "code" was plagiarized from another transmission project where land agents actually did the things set out as prohibited by the "code."  These prohibited actions are standard operating procedures for land agents.  They actually happened.  The problem with this "code," is that there is no enforcement mechanism.  There are no penalties for violation.  There are no "code police" to call when a violation occurs.  Is DOE going to enforce this "code?"  There's nothing in the Participation Agreement about enforcement of this "code" or how a landowner shall report infractions.  This "code" doesn't protect landowners.  It's only so much window dressing.  Landowners should document all contact with land agents.  Record all meetings and telephone conversations with land agents.  If a land agent is abiding by the code, they should have no problem with you recording the meeting.  If they object, however, you can decide if their intentions are genuine, and whether to meet with them at all. 

Regarding "Construction Questionnaire" or "Survey Permission" forms -- you don't have to fill these out or sign them.  Clean Line has no authority to make you do so.  You participate in these activities of your own free will in order to help Clean Line with engineering of its transmission line.  A survey could damage your property.  There is no compensation offered by the company in exchange for allowing a survey.  In fact, the "Survey Permission" and "Construction Questionnaire" forms are not included as examples in the Participation Agreement.  Who knows what's in them, or whether there is adequate protection for the landowner?  Have your own counsel review them, if you're considering signing them.

Another point in the Participation Agreement... at the landowner's request, Clean Line must "submit" to "binding arbitration" if the landowner and Clean Line cannot agree to a price.  Arbitration is a quasi-legal process intended to settle disputes through the decision of an impartial third party.  Binding arbitration means you give up your right to disagree with the decision made.  You don't have to submit to arbitration.  If you do, you give up your rights to have the form of your easement agreement and the value you receive for your land reviewed by a court.  Arbitration is a cheaper process that strips you of your due process rights.  I would much rather have my issues decided by a court, where I may appeal a verdict I didn't agree with.  Arbitration is giving up your legal rights.

In addition, the Participation Agreement stipulates:

Of course, the "script" is not included in the Participation Agreement, so nobody knows what's in it.  Ask to see a copy of the approved "script" before talking to a land agent.  And, just like the "code," there's no enforcement mechanism or penalty for failing to abide by this stipulation.

The Participation Agreement also provides a mechanism whereby Clean Line "assigns" acquiring a particular easement to DOE.  That's because Clean Line does not have the ability to condemn any property and take it by eminent domain.  Only the DOE can do this.  Don't be afraid of any threats from Clean Line that their offer is "final" and if you don't accept it they will turn your case over to DOE.  Once DOE gets your case from Clean Line, it, too, must attempt to engage and negotiate with you before condemning the property.  Only DOE can proceed with condemnation.

Do yourself a favor and read the Participation Agreement in its entirety.  It's long, but not nearly as long as "perpetuity" will be if you sign something that doesn't protect your interests.  The DOE isn't looking out for you here, they only negotiated with Clean Line to come up with this agreement.  Protect yourself.

While Clean Line Energy Partners and the U.S. Department of Energy enjoy their little honeymoon of politically-motivated transmission line goodness before the reality of legal challenges begins, things have become what I can only characterize as... quite insane.

Environmental geeks and freaks think Clean Line is just the beginning of a new politically-motivated transmission grid, where lines are added based on lobbying, back room deals, kickbacks, and the politics of the moment in Washington, DC.  Except they're toying with the world's largest machine... the engineering wonder that keeps the lights on.

The idea that gigantic transmission projects that have nothing to do with a coordinated plan can be politically forced into operation completely upends the current regulatory system in its entirety.  It discourages coordinated planning and membership in regional transmission organizations, usurps traditional state siting and permitting authority, and obviates regulatory authority.

Why waste time at RTOs or regulatory agencies, when you can use politics to get your transmission project built?  If you can dream it up, and find some investors to finance its initial development, why bother with lengthy and risky regulatory and regional planning processes?  The more lines built outside the planning process, the less likely transmission developers will be to participate in the RTO process.  If the political decisions of a federal agency, made behind closed doors without any due process, are the new norm, we're in big, big trouble.

Because this guy thinks we should be like China now, and just start building with no concern for planning, regulation, or due process.  Of course, he also thinks the sun and wind are "concentrated" in sparsely populated areas.  That's the most ridiculous bunch of malarkey I've ever heard.  The wind blows and the sun shines everywhere.  In fact, the wind blows harder and for more sustained periods offshore than it does in the Midwest.  Why don't we start building transmission to harvest that?  Because it upsets the politics in Washington, DC and other east coast cities, where the energy hogs don't want to look at any new infrastructure clogging up their sea views.

And he uses a map for a "national transmission overlay" that was originally proposed by coal-lovin' American Electric Power 10 years ago as a "wind integration" idea.  Except when AEP's map is superimposed over a map of U.S. coal deposits, it sure looks like their "wind integration" grid was intended to move coal-fired power around.  How else do you explain the complete lack of new lines "integrating wind" into the Southeast and New England.  Don't they love "wind," too?

So, yes, let's be like China and just start building an uncoordinated, politically-motivated grid and run roughshod over our people and regulatory system.  Let's get rid of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, regional transmission operators, state public service commissions, and due process for affected citizens and have our grid "managed" by politics at the DOE.  Because making a rather insane "ugly compromise" like that is supposed to be necessary to save the planet.  Screw the people who gotta live there.

Think your home is your castle?  Not anymore, if the Federal government can make money selling it to a private investor.

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Energy sold its authority to condemn land to private investors in exchange for two percent of the investors' profit from using the condemned land.

That's right... the U.S. DOE will receive 2% of the revenues collected by Clean Line at the end of each fiscal quarter, once the transmission line starts delivering electricity.  DOE says it will use its new windfall "to offset costs associated with federal hydropower infrastructure or for any other authorized purpose."  So, at best, this payola will be used to lower rates for customers of federal hydropower marketers.  At worst, it will be used "for any other authorized purpose."  Of course, this isn't defined. So ol' Beethoven could "authorize" the purchase of a private island for him and his renewable energy investor buddies.  Anything goes, right, Ernie?

I don't think that was the intent of Congress in allowing a brainless piece of lobbyist mischief to become part of the 2005 Energy Policy Act.  Section 1222 doesn't contemplate the Federal government making money off transmission projects it "participates" in or "owns."  Nor does it authorize the Secretary to determine how his boodle is spent.  Not anywhere.

Everybody is making money off the Clean Line scheme.  Clean Line's investors, Clean Line's executives (personally invested in the project), legislators Clean Line has "donated" to, vendors who want to supply goods and services, local governments being paid off at the rate of $7500/transmission mile, wind companies, landowners who lease their land for wind farm royalties, Federal hydropower ratepayers, environmental groups, unions, economic development hacks, and even the Federal government.  It's all profit and no sacrifice from these entities.  Everyone's got their finger into the money pie, and it costs them nothing. These are the supposed "public benefits."

And these are the sacrifices that must be made so that "the public" can benefit.  The landowner whose property is along the transmission line route is forced to sacrifice his private property to enable this money-fest for the benefit of others without any skin in the game.  He pays dearly.  The landowner can be found at the bottom of this greed pile on.  The landowner isn't part of any "share in the wealth" plan.  The landowner is involuntarily forced to make a sacrifice by having his property condemned by the Federal government so that others can profit from its use.  In exchange, the landowner is handed a one time pittance that attempts to compensate him for the current value of his property taken.  A landowner's potential for future profit related to his property?  The Federal government doesn't recognize that in its rush to provide for the future profits of energy speculators, union workers, suppliers, etc.

If my property was subject to such a taking, I'd add the following clause to any easement or survey permission presented to me, in addition to any "fair market value" or one-time structure payments:

The Secretary of Energy has sold you out in exchange for quarterly dividends from Clean Line Energy Partners.  Ernie would have a really hard time telling you that you're not also eligible to receive 2% of the revenues, since you're actually making an involuntary sacrifice to enable this profit-making scheme.  Fair is fair, right?