Clean Line's Grain Belt Express received a conditional CPCN (permit) from the Illinois Commerce Commission last week.  Another random number covered on Clean Line's Bingo Board.

Clean Line's Skelly acted like it actually did something to speed up the project.

I disagree.  The ICC's CPCN expires two years from date of issue.  Although GBE requested its permit be issued with a two and one-half year expiration date, the Order did not do so.  So, it's two years.  Tick Tock, Clean Line!

Clean Line's patchwork quilt of permits is an exercise in harvesting low-hanging fruit, with the most desired pieces still way out of reach.  Despite its six years of effort to get any of its four (or it is five?) transmission projects totaling thousands of miles permitted, Clean Line still doesn't have all the permits it needs for even one of them.  They've built a crazy quilt of random permits and their timing is way off.  Permits are going to start expiring before new ones are issued, creating a game of permitting whack-a-mole.

Its Rock Island project has a two-year Illinois permit on which it only has one year left to begin construction.  Meanwhile, Rock Island is completely stalled in Iowa.  No way will it complete its Iowa permitting before the Illinois permit expires.

Its Plains and Eastern project lacks a permit in Arkansas and eminent domain authority in Oklahoma.

And its Grain Belt Express project has been flat out rejected by Missouri.  Clean Line made some noises about figuring out its options in Missouri -- either reapplying with the state or attempting a federal override.  Either way, Clean Line has no chance of clearing up its issue in Missouri within two years.

I think this is just poor strategy and management of Clean Line's permitting process.  Clean Line seems more concerned about having a piece of paper to show its investors, rather than making logical progress toward building a single project.  Maybe this handful of speculators have bitten off more than they can chew?

Anyhow... about Grain Belt's CPCN from the ICC...  Its a conditional permit, again (the Rock Island permit also came with conditions and no eminent domain authority). 

The first condition imposed by the ICC is that GBE have all its financing in place before beginning construction.  The ICC figures this will stop GBE from building the transmission line to nowhere before running out of money and expecting the government or electric ratepayers to bail it out to finish the project.  Does the ICC think this is a possibility without the condition?  That's quite telling in itself, isn't it?  A real public utility usually has more than an idea and a fantastical plan to get rich quick.  At least the ICC seems to realize Grain Belt Express has nothing behind it.

The second condition imposed by the ICC is a whole bunch of make-believe.  The ICC requires Clean Line to come back before it to receive "permission" to charge Illinois ratepayers for the project through FERC-jurisdictional regional cost allocation.  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.  Why am I laughing?  Because the ICC has no authority to accept or reject cost allocation to Illinois ratepayers.  It is a regional process under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  The most the ICC can do is file a complaint that goes like this, "But, FERC, GBE promised us that we would have jurisdiction over a cost allocation decision!"  And who is GBE to change FERC's jurisdiction?  Can't happen.  So, the ICC's logic goes like this:  If GBE tries to get cost allocation to Illinois ratepayers, then we can suspend its permit and then they can't build the project!  But... what if... GBE constructs its project and THEN receives approval for regional cost allocation?  What you gonna do then, ICC?  Cry?  Waste time and money fighting this at FERC like you did the PJM cost allocation for the Project Mountaineer projects?  That took, what... 10 years?  And cost how much?  The really frustrating part about this is that ICC has had it explained to them six ways to Sunday that they have no jurisdiction to impose this "condition."

But here's the big oops... the vote to issue the CPCN in the first place was 3-2 in favor.  Two Commissioners issued a dissent that I'm going to call "blistering" (because Clean Line likes to say that about the Missouri dissent).  The issue here is particular to Illinois law.   Section 8-406 allows for the application for and issuance of a CPCN.  Section 8-503 allows the ICC to order or authorize a company to build a certain project.  Section 8-503 is a prerequisite to eminent domain authority under Section 8-509.  The ICC may issue a CPCN under 8-406 without Section 8-503's authority that is the basis for an eminent domain grant under 8-509.  That's exactly what happened with the Rock Island project.  The project was issued an 8-406 CPCN but the Commission did not order or authorize the project to be be built under 8-503.  This gives Rock Island the ability to build its project if it can get 100% voluntary land acquisition, otherwise Rock Island has to go back before the Commission to request a determination under 8-503 before it can proceed to 8-509's eminent domain authority.  However, in 2010 the Illinois legislature added Section 8-406.1 to create an expedited process for public utilities to apply for a CPCN.  This speedy process automatically includes the 8-503 grant.  Because Clean Line didn't want to end up with another useless CPCN without 8-503 authority, it decided to use the expedited 8-406.1 process.  The fly in the ointment, however, is that only a public utility may apply under 8-406.1.  Clean Line is not a public utility in Illinois.  This issue was the subject of several motions to dismiss and an interlocutory appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court during the proceedings.  I've heard that the ICC acted quite suspiciously in denying the motions, without public discussion of any kind at the meeting where they denied the motions to dismiss.  And here it comes again, in the form of a dissent from two Commissioners.  I'd say chances of GBE's permit being overturned on appeal are pretty good. 

And what then, Clean Line, what then?  Why were you in such a hurry to get your Illinois permit for GBE when it was obvious Missouri was going to deny your application?  What strategy was that?  Just covering another square on your transmission permitting bingo board?  Yay, you!

So, the Clean Line saga grinds on.  No generators, no customers, not enough permits.  When are Clean Line's investors going to quit tossing money down this rat hole?  One of the more interesting things to come out of Illinois recently was Clean Line's filing regarding its Rock Island project regarding a change of investors.  Although Clean Line made much earlier this year of a "$50M investment" in its company by Bluescape Resources, it turns out that investment was tied up in a ball of string.  Clean Line got $12M.  Bluescape got two seats on Clean Line's Board of Directors.  The Board of Directors can order Bluescape to kick in another $5M at any time, once Oklahoma approves Bluescape's investment.  The other $33M is completely at Bluescape's option.  Bluescape wasn't foolish enough to give these wind cowboys all $50M up front.  Clean Line keeps adding investors to its stable as the ones already there don't seem to be interested in upping their investment.  Remember, if Clean Line can't get their projects built, their investors lose everything.  Every last dime.

And there Clean Line's management sits, with their permit bingo board missing crucial links and no idea whether the balls they need are even in the hopper.

Remember when the environmental community was a kind and gentle, financially struggling, underdog that Americans could look to for help against corporate energy schemes?  That wasn't so long ago, but the environmental community has done a complete 180 in the past seven years to morph into an arrogant, mean-spirited, well-funded, corporate bully.  And their halo (and popularity with the American people) has tarnished.  Along with their increased funding has come corporate and political agendas that the environmentalists must pursue in order to keep receiving their fat, donated paychecks.  No longer does their funding come from the American people through memberships and donations.  Now they're big business, living high on the hog while feeding on corporate largesse and political contributions.  Big Green has become the enemy of the American people.  Just another corporate lackey.

Some of them may be quite unaware of how they're perceived by the rest of us, but the majority must be quietly whispering in shocked tones about the way the public now perceives them as the enemy.  In its defense, the environmental community continues to deny there's an issue, and make excuses for its hypocritical choice of which energy projects to support or oppose.

For example, a recent piece in political rag Triple Pundit attempts to compare and contrast the Keystone XL pipeline with the Plains & Eastern Clean Line.  This piece fails at the starting gate:

Those are the important points that Americans care about.  The rationalization that follows to explain why those detriments are okay as long as the project has the name "Clean" in its name is nothing but fantasy.

The author is a public relations wonk and "author of books and articles on recycling and other conservation themes."  Well, recycling... that certainly qualifies her to expound on the need for electric transmission and the condemnation of private property for energy projects.  Not.

The author claims that Clean Line will provide more jobs than Keystone, and she bases that on information from... Clean Line.  Just because Clean Line says it will "source" its components from US companies doesn't mean they will be produced in the US.  The author points out that Keystone components will be produced in foreign countries and simply "sourced" in the US.  In fact, Clean Line would be fiscally imprudent to sign contracts for components with US companies now, long before any shovel hits the ground.  It's common practice to issue an RFP for project components and then evaluate the bids for price, quality and deliverability.  If she'd looked underneath the "clean" veneer, she'd realize that Clean Line's promises of US manufacturing jobs are just that... promises.  There are no signed procurement contracts for certain components at fixed prices.  And there are no guarantees of new jobs.

There's no logic in pretending a transmission project provides more "operations" jobs than Keystone.  Maybe if the author knew anything about how transmission lines are operated she'd realize that the "operators" are already employed at regional transmission authorities.  One more line in the stable isn't going to create any new jobs.  Jobs at wind farms?  Sure, the same as jobs that would fill the Keystone pipeline with its liquid gold.  No difference.

The Energy Department has not given Clean Line its "Seal of Approval," no matter what Clean Line wants to spout in the media.  A decision still has not been made.

Mention of TVA?  Why?  The TVA has not included Clean Line in its Integrated Resource Plan and has remarked that any possible use of the project is at least a decade away.  It isn't about where Clean Line connects, it's about finding buyers for the energy Clean Line transports at the connection points.  There are none.  Moreover, there are no generators to sign contracts with end users.  Who builds a road without any cars to drive on it?  We don't build public infrastructure unless there's a need for it, and only public utilities with a need to transmit power have a right to eminent domain authority.  Sure, any investor can build a shopping mall and hope shoppers show up, but we don't use eminent domain for that kind of speculative, for-profit enterprise.  And that's exactly what Clean Line is -- a "build it and they will come" idea.  Block GBE-MO said it best, "No need, no gain, no eminent domain!"

And let's talk about those mid-point converter stations.  Without buyers, they're just useless monstrosities.  And there are no buyers.  Just because Clean Line builds a converter station does not mean power flows to that location.  The converter station is a tollbooth -- if there are no buyers to pay for the juice, it doesn't pass the tollgate.  Arkansas doesn't magically "get" 500 MW of electricity unless someone pays for it.  And if there are no buyers, why invest $100M in a converter station that sits idle?  There's no guarantee that a converter station will be built in Arkansas if it's not profitable.

Perhaps the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce (a traditional utility ally that the environmental groups have disregarded as biased in the past) is looking forward to "new supplies of clean energy," but again, without buyers, they get nothing.

And then the author trots out a 5-year old "report" Clean Line presented to the TVA (who elected NOT to purchase any of its electricity).  This has about as much validity as any other lobbyist promise, I suppose, and is not worth reading.  But, this point is so off the mark it deserves mention:

Reliability is not a measure of the amount of available transmission.  Reliability is the ability to deliver power at all times.  Our current grid is managed by regional planners/operators who order new projects needed for reliability.  No regional grid planner has ordered Clean Line.  It's completely outside any regional grid planning.  It's completely unneeded for reliability purposes.  Furthermore, the most reliable electric delivery system is located as close as possible to the point of use.  Transmission lines are a link in the power supply chain that can be broken at a moment's notice.  The more power you depend on from far away, the more unreliable your system (more moving parts, more chance for problems).  As well, Clean Line is proposing an electric supply provided by intermittent renewables.  There is no reliability to a generator that cannot be counted on to run when called.  That's unreliability.

The article then goes down a political rathole to make partisan attacks on elected officials.  Nobody in the real world cares!

And finally, the author gets on her soapbox to tell the world why and how Keystone will affect the landowners and what makes it "bad."

And what makes this different than the burdens saddled on Clean Line-affected landowners?  There is no contrast here, just some blather she probably pulled out of newspaper articles about the opposition.  I wonder how many Keystone-affected landowners this recycling queen has actually spoken to?  I'm guessing none.

I've spoken to plenty of landowners affected by Clean Line's proposal, as well as regular folks concerned about energy issues.  Here's the common thread:  They're not going to put up with eminent domain for energy projects any more.  Whether its Keystone or Clean Line, the project must be built without the heavy hand of government land theft.  While use of eminent domain for energy projects was used repeatedly to build the infrastructure we have today, it's no longer acceptable.  It's a new generation, with a new way to organize and fight.  Nobody's lights are going to go off if we don't build new energy projects.  Instead, what these environmentalists propose is to build an entirely new infrastructure to replace our current system, but basing it on yesterday's unpopular ideas.  The American people don't want "clean" energy that costs them more or that usurps their right to own and enjoy property.

We're at an energy crossroads.  We can embrace new ideas and create a new, democratic and reliable energy future -- or we can simply replace our corporate masters with new "clean" corporations and continue with the status quo.  The people are rising up -- no more corporate energy control!

Only when the environmental groups come to terms with their new unpopularity will they become an impetus toward a new energy future and stop dragging the future down into the corporate past.

It's really no secret at all how TDI New England is speeding through approvals for its New England Clean Power Link project.

This amazing project completed its Environmental Impact Statement in just two years!  The Union Leader compares it to the stalled, overhead Northern Pass project, which has been trying to get its EIS completed since 2010.  That's 5 years, and no end in sight.

When transmission developers design projects to be as unobtrusive and acceptable to landowners as possible, the developer can save millions in expensive advocacy-building and opposition battling tactics, as well as years in its project timeline.

This means burial, especially on public land/water, and along existing roadways or other rights-of-way.  No eminent domain is required. 

But, but, but... a buried project is so much more expensive than an overhead project, whine the transmission developers.

And they fear adding "unnecessary" cost of burial to an O1000 competitively bid project for fear of not being awarded the project.  Let's see these guys start making logical arguments to the RTO about the amount of time and money saved by not having any opposition, not having huge land/eminent domain costs to acquire rights-of-way from private landowners, and general constructability of a buried project vs. any additional cost of burial along public rights-of-way.  I think they will pretty much balance themselves out.  The more buried projects that get built, the cheaper it will become.

Because NECPL proves that is IS possible get 'er done in a timely fashion while keeping your integrity intact.  Even for a merchant project (NECPL is a merchant project).

There's a lesson here for the transmission industry, if you can actually teach some very old dogs a new trick.  Can transmission developers shrug off their old dirty tricks that lie to communities?  Can they ever be honest with affected communities?  Can they develop some integrity?  Better ideas are right there for the taking.  This is the modern way to get needed transmission built.  Anybody who tries to tell you different is a dinosaur who needs to retire.

We have some big news from Dave and Alison in Arkansas!

First, we've heard a rumor that the final EIS may be coming out next week, so keep your eyes open.
Second, working with some friends at Arkansas Citizens Against Plains and Eastern Clean Line over the last month, we've quietly established a landowners' LLC. We kept it quiet because we didn't want Clean Line to know what we were up to until we were ready. As you probably know, landowners' LLCs have had some important victories against Clean Line in Missouri and Oklahoma, and they're working hard in Illinois and Iowa. We feel that, no matter what the DOE decides, we'll be better able to respond if we do it together. Strength in numbers!

The only way this works is if we can get enough affected and adjacent landowners to participate. That's where you come in. We'll be holding meetings across the state in November and early December with our legal representation there to answer questions. We're sending out postcards, but doing so is incredibly expensive. There's no way we can get to everyone we need to without your help. If you would like to donate to help with our mailing, please go here:

GoldenBridgeAR

We're asking you to spread the word and help us pave the way. You know us. Not everyone else does. We can't do this without you. This is the link to the website:

GoldenBridgeAR

The website details membership options (we've kept the buy-in cost very low) and includes a "pre-membership survey". The LLC is structured to keep voting memberships exclusively for affected landowners (preferred and alternates) and adjacent landowners. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

It is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT for all affected and interested parties to attend the upcoming meetings. Please do everything you can to help us maximize attendance. This is our chance to give people the opportunity to talk to an attorney for FREE. Together, we have the collective influence and power to fight this thing!

Remember when the U.S. DOE's triennial "congestion studies" under Sec. 1221 of the Energy Policy Act were a big deal?  That was before the 4th Circuit told them that a state's denial of a project was not a "failure to act" that triggered federal intervention to usurp state authority to permit a transmission project.  And that was before the 9th Circuit vacated the "corridors" the DOE designated in 2009 because of DOE's failure to consult with affected states.  What's left behind is a useless section of statute that doesn't actually DO anything except waste taxpayer money on ridiculous "congestion studies" that do nothing but compile unverified data and opinion from the internet and the industry to inform the DOE's designation of future "congestion" corridors.  Now when DOE issues one of its "reports" (three years past the deadline, or maybe it's on time and DOE just skipped the 2012 report) it's so anticlimactic that nobody knows about it.

And that's what happened with DOE's 2015 Report Concerning Designation of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors.  Big nothing.  In fact, it was so uninteresting that DOE didn't even bother to send notice to all the folks who commented on its draft that it had completed its study.  An astute commenter just happened across it.

Despite the industry's urging to continue attempting to use this tool to usurp state authority to site and permit transmission, or to simply delegate its authority to create corridors to transmission builders, the DOE decided not to designate any new corridors.  Seems they have lost their taste for it after the beat down they suffered in federal court.

So, isn't it time to do away with this waste of taxpayer money?  How much did this limp "report" cost to create?  Congress needs to reconsider this mandate in any new energy legislation.  It's a waste of time and money.

DOE's got issues.   I note that this "report" appears to be the agency's recommendation to the Secretary on the designation of new corridors.  I guess that would make it an "internal deliberation" that should be swept under the rug and hidden from the public?  Maybe that's what the lack of notice was about?  How come DOE is making this "internal deliberation" available to the public, but hiding its "internal deliberations" regarding Clean Line's application under Sec. 1222 of the Energy Policy Act?  Something really stinks at DOE.  They're operating like they are somehow above the public scrutiny and transparency that our federal agencies are bound to operate under.  It's just one big taxpayer funded, opague industry party.  And that spells trouble down the road the next time DOE finds itself in federal court over its industry-sympathisizing machinations of the Energy Policy Act.

Ut-oh, DOE!

So, let's toss Sec. 1221 on the failed legislation heap, but save room on the pile for Sec. 1222.  It's coming.

Who's a key transmission challenge in the Midwest?

You're a key transmission challenge in the Midwest!  The biggest "challenge" to building transmission in the Midwest is the people who are expected to sacrifice their businesses, their homes, their retirement, for benefit of the illusive "communities that have a strong demand for renewable power."

Electric Utility Consultants, Inc. (EUCI) is having another "educational" shindig to discuss you "challenges," and once again, you're not invited.

On November 9 and 10, EUCI will be gathering its fattened cows to the trough in Indianapolis to be "educated" about the following:

This session will address a study paid for by WIRES, "The Voice of The Electric Transmission Industry."  WIRES is made up of corporations who stand to profit from building new transmission.  Apparently we're not planning enough transmission for their balance sheets.  Awwww.....

But then there's this:

Did anyone tell EUCI that the Missouri Public Service Commission recently denied Clean Line's Grain Belt Express application for a 700-mile transmission line through the state?  Fun times!  I hope they're planning to create some space between that guy and...

KURT ALERT!  Amy Kurt, Clean Line Energy Manager for the development of the Grain Belt Express Clean Line, will be "educating" participants about "The Challenges of Renewable Energy Integration," including the sub-topic "Maintaining grid security and reliability while integrating increased penetrations of renewable energy."  I wonder when Amy got her engineering degree that qualifies her to expound on grid security?  Maybe she's been doing it online, in secret?  Or maybe Hans Detweiler taught her how to be an "engineer?"  At any rate don't let Amy sit with Adam at lunch!  "A" is for awkward!

Participants will learn about "Embracing New Communication Technologies."  Good to see that Amy isn't teaching this one, because her communication skills haven't been working too well on the people of Missouri.  Did I mention that the MO PSC denied the Grain Belt Express application Amy "managed" because its benefits didn't outweigh the harm to Missouri citizens? 

So, what "new technologies" will be embraced?

What?  No unit on using change.org to send supportive (but off-topic) comments from your Mommy and Little Sis into a regulatory process?  Well, maybe there's a role for Amy after all!

Unfortunately, the "busy public" interested in transmission isn't interested in a corporate-slanted version of web "facts."  The "busy public" gets its facts from equally busy "public" opposition groups... live and in person, via email, via social media, etc.  Hot time in the ol' tool shed tonight!  Nobody trusts the corporation to be honest, with good reason.

Don't miss Amy discussing:

Be sure to bring your own copy of the "Motion for Leave to File Complaint for Order of Prohibition" pending before the Illinois Supreme Court so you can follow along.

Sounds like a real party, doesn't it?  Unfortunately, it's going to cost you $1195, plus travel and expenses, to get inside.  But who needs to get inside to be a "challenge?"

Stop being dumb about energy, America!
The average person doesn't think twice when they flip the light switch.  The lights come on.  It's magic!  No, it's not, but the energy corporations have made you believe it is over the years.

Now the energy corporations have made you believe something else that's just not true.  All but the most flat-earth cretin believes in global warming, right?  It's politically correct to be environmentally conscious, and to "do your part" to save the earth.  The corporations have trained you to want...  CLEAN ENERGY NOW!

Under the guise of CLEAN ENERGY NOW! the energy corporations have made you a soldier in their CLEAN ENERGY NOW! army.  You've become so good at marching to the beat of their drum, that you'll support just about any energy project they propose, as long as they tell you it will bring you CLEAN ENERGY NOW!  They've even brainwashed you to serve their purposes in their campaign against "dirty" energy.  Fossil fuels are "bad" and CLEAN ENERGY NOW! is "good"!

Well, guess what?  You've been used.  Isn't it high time that you educate yourself about democratic energy and wean yourself off the media mind control of the energy corporations?  What if you had the power to produce energy for your own use?  But let's be realistic... unless you want to live with the capital costs and inconvenience of running your own power plant, you're still going to be somewhat dependent upon the common infrastructure system that the energy corporations have built.  What happens when the wind stops blowing, or the sun goes down?  The light switch magic stops, and you're once again dependent on the energy corporations.  We've yet to develop a cost-effective, reliable, renewable, democratic energy system.  That doesn't mean we can't be smart about energy though.  Indeed, it's imperative that you to be smart about your energy future.

Think having your CLEAN ENERGY NOW! provided by energy corporations is a responsible and thoughtful way to be smart about your energy future?  It's not.  There are better ways to get to a cleaner, more democratic energy future than simply moving from one corporate trough to another.

If we believe that coal, oil, and gas are bad sources of energy and work toward eliminating the corporations that cling to them, what shall replace them?  Do we want to replace them gradually with local, democratic sources of energy?  Or do we want to spend billions building new centralized energy sources for our CLEAN ENERGY NOW! corporate overlords?  The environmental community has become so goal-oriented and dependent on grant money (and where does grant money come from?  energy corporations, of course!) that it wants CLEAN ENERGY NOW! at any price.  The wants of the environmental community do not align with democratic energy, or your pocketbook.  Going all in on CLEAN ENERGY NOW! supplied by energy corporations is going to be wildly expensive, and at the end of the day, it does nothing to revolutionize the way we produce and use energy.

After fighting the traditional energy corporations for years, the environmental community has suddenly found itself in bed with a bunch of new energy corporations, CLEAN ENERGY NOW! corporations.  And these new corporations stand to make a bundle if you continue to demand CLEAN ENERGY NOW! in any form.  Many of the new energy corporations are owned by foreign interests.  They're not interested in cleaning up your air, they're interested in making money building centralized renewable energy generation and transmission for a society practically shrieking for CLEAN ENERGY NOW!

One such company is Clean Line Energy Partners.  Riding the CLEAN ENERGY NOW! wave, this company wants to build more than 2,000 miles of new energy infrastructure across the country.  In order to get there, Clean Line has been trying to keep you stupid by repeating the worst renewable energy lies.  The more times a lie is repeated, the more it's believed.  It's time you learned the truth.

No, they're not.  Clean Line is using the wrong map, one that conveniently omits offshore wind potential.  Here's a comprehensive map that shows true U.S. wind energy potential.  Notice that the strongest winds are located just offshore on both coasts and in the Great Lakes, conveniently near the biggest population centers.  We don't need 2,000 miles of new transmission to harvest these wind resources.

No, they're not.  While Clean Line has been pushing its projects for six years, not one eastern utility has signed an agreement to purchase Midwest wind power via a "Clean Line."  In fact, other areas of the country are busy developing their own renewable energy resources that can provide jobs and economic development at home.

But at what cost?  Wind power is highly subsidized, both federally and at the state level.  Wind farms may pay little in the way of taxes in your state or locality, because the state is so focused on jobs and economic development that it may make a deal to abate tax responsibility for a number of years, hand out additional state tax credits, or some other economic development scheme where the wind farm doesn't pay.  The federal production tax credit allows big tax credits - $4B per year, according to some recent press.  Who do you think pays that $4B of taxes that wind generators don't?  You do.  When electricity is sold across state borders, it becomes interstate commerce and cannot be taxed.  Exporting energy causes your local energy prices to go up through the simple principle of supply/demand.  Once you open new pipelines to ship energy to higher priced markets, that's where locally produced energy will go first.  If you want some, you're going to have to pay the same export price.  For every penny new transmission lowers east coast energy bills, it raises yours by the same amount.  New transmission levelizes energy prices between source and use.  New transmission lines lower the taxable value of real estate, meaning less local property tax revenue. Still think new transmission is a good deal for your community?  Why?

No, it won't.  Clean Line is proposing to build its transmission lines across some of our best farmland.  Farmland is already economically useful terrain.  New transmission takes prime farmland out of production and increases the cost of farming around it.  Lower yields and higher costs lead to lost agricultural jobs and revenue, and harms local economies.  Clean Line is proposing its transmission lines to cross farms that have been in production for centuries.  People live and work on these farms that have been handed down through many generations.  Much of a farmer's wealth is wrapped up in his land, so it's not a stretch to compare Clean Line's eminent domain taking of farmland to dipping their hand into your retirement fund.  How much of your retirement would you donate to CLEAN ENERGY NOW!?  The highest and best use of this land is farming. 

No, they're not.  Paying "market value" for a strip of land through a larger parcel devalues the entire parcel, not just the strip of land.  Nobody wants their land devalued... nobody.  The payments offered by CLEP are insulting.  Farmers have overwhelmingly rejected CLEP's offers.  That is proof in itself.  Clean Line's projects hurt struggling farmers, the same way having your retirement account cleaned out to provide energy and economic development to other states would hurt you.

No, it's not.  There are already plenty of transmission "highways" in use, developed through a coordinated planning process and paid for by all electric ratepayers.  If these highways are old or inefficient, then they should be upgraded by their owners.  Building a new "railroad" next to an existing one is wasteful.  Building a new "railroad" and not allowing the communities bypassed to use it is unfair.  Building new "railroads" to places that nobody wants to travel, and then hoping that some customers develop, is a folly.

No, it can't.  States have full authority to site and permit transmission within their borders.  There is no federal override.  However, an untested section of the 2005 Energy Policy Act allows the federal government to "participate" in a privately-funded transmission project sited within the set geographic reach of two federal power marketers.  When the federal government participates, it may be able to use federal eminent domain to take land for the project from unwilling sellers.  That's it.  Bundy Ranch on steroids.  There is no federal transmission permitting process.  Clean Line wants the federal government to strong arm land acquisition, and then it plans to build its projects without permits of any kind.

All transmission is privately funded!  There is no pot of "public" money used for other transmission projects.  It's all private capital!  All transmission projects are paid for by ratepayers (users).  Other transmission projects are regulated and their profits are set by regulators.  Clean Line will be unregulated  -- its profits are set by market forces.  Clean Line will charge users whatever rates it can get away with.  The sky's the limit on Clean Line's profit, no wonder it's attracted big, foreign investors who believe the incredible riskiness of Clean Line is overcome by huge returns.  While regulated transmission projects must submit their costs to public scrutiny, Clean Line can roll whatever costs it wants into the rates it charges for service.  Every penny Clean Line spends on lobbying and influence, public relations and front groups, pulled pork and bouncy houses, will end up in the rates it charges.  And who pays those rates?  Whoever buys the energy transmitted over the line, possibly you!

We have been conditioned to believe that we must demand CLEAN ENERGY NOW! without taking the time to examine why or how, thinking a fairy tale image of a couple of wind turbines gently turning in a field of golden grain.  We've been taught that this fantasy is a "good" way to control our energy future.

It's not.  It's simply a way to transfer corporate energy control from one group of owners (fossil fuel companies) to another (clean energy companies).  It enables them to collect billions keeping you captive and stupid about energy.  Renewable energy isn't necessarily sustainable energy.  Sustainable energy does no harm to others.  Clean Line's plans are unsustainable and economically harmful.  Take ownership of your energy future and seek out local, sustainable solutions.  Break the energy corporate chains, America!

I have a declaration to make.  Clean Line Energy Partners doesn't represent my interests.  I'm pretty sure they don't represent the interests of any other eastern state ratepayers or the eastern states themselves, either.  It's all just a bunch of "royal we" smoke and mirrors where Clean Line attempts to speak for others who aren't present and don't necessarily agree with them.  "Me and my imaginary friends..." has no place in a court of law.

That's pretty much the basis for Clean Line Energy's application for rehearing of the Missouri Public Service Commission's denial of the company's application for a permit for its Grain Belt Express project.

The Kansas City Star continues its excellent coverage of the Grain Belt Express debacle with its story about the request for rehearing.

Where's the proof of that?  Who elected Clean Line to speak for "Missouri's energy future?"  Who elected Clean Line to speak for "the rest of the country?"  Nobody, that's who!

The Missouri PSC does have a role in determining "Missouri's energy future," however, and the "rest of the country" has not been actively participating in the case.

Clean Line's request for rehearing is a long-winded whine about the Commission not accepting its "evidence" at face value.  Clean Line also whines that, because it is not required to participate in regional transmission planning,  the Commission's consideration of federally-sanctioned transmission planning is somehow discriminatory.  Clean Line wants the PSC to ignore regional transmission planning when considering the "need" for a transmission project dreamed up for the sole purpose of enriching private investors.  This collateral attack on regional transmission planning organizations simply cannot be supported.

But Clean Line's main argument seems to be to hide behind the Commerce Clause to claim that Missouri's denial "...interferes with the flow of interstate commerce, be it through actions that overtly discriminate against interstate commerce through differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests, or through actions that impose a burden upon interstate commerce that is excessive in relation to the putative local benefits."

Commerce Clause?  Really?  I hope Clean Line wasn't expecting anyone to actually be afraid of this, and is merely wasting time in Missouri while posturing for its lobbyists in Washington, D.C., who could claim that allowing state authority to site and permit transmission is preventing needed transmission from being built.

Clean Line is not THE ONLY way to ship electricity.  In fact, it might not even be the most efficient or economic because it has not been vetted as part of any regional planning process.  It's not like Missouri has said wind cannot be shipped across the state on existing roads, or new roads that are proven needed by regional planners.  It's that Clean Line may not build a new, private, toll road to ship electricity across the state.

Clean Line seems to believe the Commerce Clause protects any private enterprise that wants to damage a state for its own interstate commerce profits.  It's really not that simple.

So, here are a couple of things Clean Line says in its brief that demonstrate just how little Clean Line cares about the rights of people impacted by its projects:

1.  "...because the narrow local interests that the Report and Order serves do not justify the burden that it imposes upon interstate commerce."  In other words, protecting the rights of Missouri property owners and electric ratepayers are less than the "interstate commerce" goals of Clean Line.

2.  "The Commission never considered the substantial uncontested evidence on the record of renewable energy demand and RES requirements of other states, and the substantial public benefits the Project delivers to other states. It also cited to the concerns of individual Missouri landowners -- but in the application of the Tartan factors impermissibly weighed those concerns only against the potential benefit to local interest, as opposed to the broader regional and national interest -- in concluding that the evidence shows that any actual benefits to the general public” did not justify approval."  Perhaps the Commission gave little weight to Clean Line's conclusory "evidence" of what other states and the broader regional and national interests require.  The concerns of individual Missouri landowners are real and came from the landowners themselves.  The "needs" of other states or the nation at large were not presented by any of these interests, only Clean Line pretending to speak for them as the voice of the national interest.  Clean Line, get over yourself!  When the PSC gave Clean Line the opportunity to present evidence that these national interests needed its project, the only thing Clean Line could produce was crickets.  Clean Line has no "other state" or "national interest" customers who need its "interstate commerce."

3.  "The Commission’s finding that the Project would probably make Missouri-based wind projects less likely to be constructed is exactly the sort of economic protectionism that the dormant Commerce Clause prohibits. So too is the Commission’s criticism of the Company’s witness on economic benefits, who the Commission found did not address the displacement of jobs and energy production in Missouri due to the Project. Courts are highly alert to “the evils of ‘economic isolation’ and protectionism.... "  So, Clean Line believes that lost economic opportunities in Missouri are "evil" or should not be considered? Or that they must necessarily be less than the "national interest?"  If all local interests take a back seat to "national" ones, that's a pretty slippery slope!  I mean, we might as well just surrender ourselves to some world dominating corporation and let them do whatever they want.  Speaking of Evil, is the good Dr. in the house?

4.  "The Commission’s denial of the Company’s CCN Application runs afoul of this element of Commerce Clause analysis because it unduly burdens the delivery of electricity generated by wind farms in Western Kansas not just to Missouri consumers, but to key markets in Illinois and Indiana. The Commerce Clause violation is as apparent in this instance as it would be if Missouri sought to restrict passage of cattle raised on Western ranches for shipment to stockyards in the East."  Again, it's not as though the MO PSC said no electricity (cattle) could pass through the state... it simply denied a permit for Clean Line to burden Missouri residents by building a new toll road to ship only certain electricity (cattle) across the state.  Cattle is perfectly free to use existing roads in Missouri to get to other states or anywhere it likes

5.  "With the interests only of Missouri utilities and consumers in mind, the Commission made findings whose burden on interstate commerce clearly exceeds the local benefits. For example, the Commission found that Missouri had no need for the Project, and that the Project is not economically feasible, because utilities in the State could build natural gas fired plants and buy renewable energy credits.  Neither is a valid reason to deny Kansas wind producers efficient access to the market or to deny utilities and their customers the ability to benefit from the Project. And the putative local interests do not outweigh this burden."  So, the ONLY market for Kansas wind power is through Missouri?  Clean Line provides a "benefit" to utilities and customers?  Did Clean Line prove this?  I don't think so!  Clean Line doesn't have any customers!

6. "Indeed, any burden to local landowners would be small compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars of savings to Missouri and other states. The evidence shows that Grain Belt Express has agreed to compensate landowners for the fee value of their land, plus an annual payment, plus any economic damages to crops.  Even if, as a last resort, Grain Belt Express acquired an easement through a condemnation proceeding, Missouri courts would require that Grain Belt Express pay fair value."  Landowner burdens are "small"?  That sort of depends on if it's your land, doesn't it?  Who is Clean Line to determine the burden on landowners?  If the burden was ameliorated by Clean Line's compensation, why are the overwhelming majority of landowners opposing the project?  One could conclude it's because Clean Line's compensation doesn't even come close to making landowners whole. Clean Line also failed to prove the "hundreds of millions of dollars of savings to Missouri and other states."  The PSC did not find those claims credible.  How would Clean Line ever attempt to prove this claim, when it cannot set a price for electricity generated by others?  It can't even set a capacity price for its transmission line at this point!  There's simply nothing that shows evidence of "savings."

7.  “The menace of inconsistent state regulation invites analysis under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, because that clause represented the framers’ reaction to overreaching by the individual states that might jeopardize the growth of the nation— and in particular, the national infrastructure of communications and trade—as a whole.”  So, because all states don't have the exact same regulations governing siting and permitting of interstate transmission that somehow violates the Commerce Clause?  Or is this just a peek into the rationalizations of Clean Line's Washington DC lobbyists?  If every state was required to have identical laws, you might as well make transmission siting and permitting a federal process, right?  I don't think that's the intent of the Commerce Clause.

8.  "The Commission’s actions here are equally likely to paralyze the development of interstate electric transmission to deliver low-cost renewable wind power from high capacity states to states lack renewable energy resources. The Commission’s stated local interests, confined to protecting Missouri utilities and consumers, do not outweigh (and in no way justify) its demonstrated effort to isolate itself from a growing national concern over the lack of such transmission infrastructure by erecting a barrier against the movement of interstate commerce. Indeed, given the shipper-pays nature of the Project and the evidence regarding the cost impacts of the Project, there can be no detriment to Missouri consumers because they will bear no costs unless a utility determines that the benefits of purchasing energy delivered by the Project outweigh those costs. Similarly, no Missouri utility is compelled to buy power delivered by the Project if it isn’t lower than the cost of other resources."  Paralyze the development of interstate electric transmission?  Hardly!  Plenty of interstate electric transmission is proposed, approved and built through the regional planning process Clean Line chose not to participate in.  Clean Line's proposals simply aren't viable, and the fault for that is entirely Clean Line's.  What states lack renewable energy resources?  I don't think there are any states that have no renewable energy resources.  It is not up to Clean Line to determine what kind of renewable energy resources states build and use.  That must violate some clause or another somewhere... And where's the "growing national concern over the lack of such transmission infrastructure?"  I don't think Clean Line has provided any evidence of that.  It's all just a bunch of vocabulary diarrhea.  Blah, blah, blah, we're speaking for everyone else here and we are what they want.  I don't think the MO PSC was fooled by that, just like the people weren't!

9. "There can be no harm to Missouri from having another option to supply power. Any perceived detriment to landowners is mitigated by the law that provides them fair and reasonable consideration. If there is a detriment to landowners, it is drastically outweighed by the hundreds of millions of dollars of benefits provided by the Project, the thousands of jobs that it creates, and the immeasurable ways in which it would advance the national interest in clean, inexpensive, renewable wind energy."  Wow, there they go again, throwing Missourians under the bus for benefit of the "national interest" that Clean Line pretends to speak for.  Who says the "national interest" outweighs the interests of Missouri landowners?  Clean Line?  Not.their.job.  Where's the proof of the thousands of jobs and the "immeasurable ways"?  Perhaps we could actually measure the ways in which Missouri would be harmed by this project?  Actually, I think that's what the PSC did here!  Nobody believes Clean Line is their altruistic economic electricity savior.  Nobody.  Save the drama for your mama (when you ask her to sign your petition supporting your project).

10. "It is clear that the Commission’s decision in this case was not even-handed, and that its exclusive and inaccurate focus on Missouri utilities, consumers, and landowners arbitrarily resulted in an application of the Tartan factors to the Company’s CCN Application that discriminates against the Project merely because of its interstate nature."  Actually, it was very even-handed.  The Commission listened to both sides of the argument and was not swayed by Clean Line's propaganda and attempts to purchase support for its project.  Nobody discriminated against Clean Line merely because of its interstate nature... it's simply a bad idea pushed by a bunch of disrespectful rich people for dubious economic reasons.

Block GBE-MO's Jennifer Gatrel hit the nail on the head when she characterized the company's request for rehearing as disrespectful:

The only news story to leak out of the Illinois Commerce Commission's three public hearings on Clean Line's Grain Belt Express project presents an opinion that is not factual.

"Dedicated?"  Dedicated to what?  If Patty thinks Grain Belt Express is "dedicated" to clean energy, she's mistaken.  Electric transmission is "open access," and even though Clean Line asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for permission to give preference to wind generators when assigning capacity on its project, the Commission denied their proposal.  Clean Line cannot be "dedicated" to any form of energy.

Does Patty think that HVDC lines bypassing Illinois will actually move "clean energy forward" in Illinois?  Where might she have gotten that idea?

GBE spokespuppet Mark Lawlor tries to tell the reporter "In the first five years of this line being in operation it will reduce wholesale rates by $750M."  Where's the proof of that, and why would he say such a thing?

First of all, the Missouri Public Service Commission recently examined the company's claim that the project would reduce wholesale rates in Missouri and rejected it.

Let's hope the ICC does a similar evaluation.  Lawlor goes on that way because the promise of lower wholesale rates is the ONLY reason the ICC granted the company a CPCN for their Rock Island Clean Line project last year.  But the ICC did not find the project "needed," only that it might "...promote the development of an effectively competitive electricity market that operates efficiently...".

That still doesn't give Clean Line the eminent domain authority they seek in Illinois.  Maybe Patty should educate herself before making statements on TV that aren't factual.  And Lawlor should know better.

Dumping a whole bunch of "cheap" energy into a local market may have the initial effect of lowering prices through supply and demand, but Clean Line isn't selling electricity at wholesale.  Its entire business model is based on power purchase agreements between generators in Kansas and east coast utilities.  Lawlor leaves out quite a bit in his quest for the perfect (if not entirely factual) sound bite.

Big win for landowners in the story though.  Landowner Clint Richter clearly articulates the problem of using eminent domain for purposes of enriching investors speculating in "clean" energy markets:

That's what the viewers will take away from this story.  Way to go, Block-GBE Illinois!

In response to "stakeholders" following the trail of breadcrumbs that lead to 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC, FERC's Office of Energy Projects has come out with a "Suggested Best Practices for Industry Outreach Programs for Stakeholders."

*sigh*  Reads no better than any industry propaganda, beginning with its title.  Was FERC really attempting to mollify the public and prove that it's acting in the public interest with this?  FERC staff needs to take this brochure home to grandma and ask her if she thinks it was written in a conversational and informative manner.  She'll probably buy you some gigantic, ugly, 1940's-style underwear next Christmas in response.  Or knit you a suit jacket and pop into the office with cookies at random intervals to make sure you're wearing it.

FERC realizes that landowners are "stakeholders!"  Yay!  But it's all downhill from there.  While FERC recommends involving "the public" early in the process on the first page, venturing further shows recommendation that the company involve local elected officials before landowners, in order to "sell" them on the project (while making campaign contributions?).  In this way, the company can head off landowner concerns by indoctrinating the public's representatives in the "company way" so that when landowners find out about the project and turn to their local elected officials for help, there is none to be had.  Of course, this is easily turned around with enough landowner (voter) pressure, making early elected official notification sort of useless.

There's also recommendations for a whole bunch of "stakeholder" meetings, where only selected "key stakeholders" are invited to participate.  Landowners aren't invited to these, they only get to participate in public "open house" meetings, where they are presented with the project as a fait accompli.  FERC supposes involving "key stakeholders" can "result in developing partnerships with special interest groups, municipalities, and community business organizations."  Holy back room deal, Batman!  Is FERC suggesting that a company buy cozy relationships with certain community groups that can benefit from the project so that they can throw the impacted landowners under the bus for their own profit, or for the simple benefit of making sure the project is not constructed in their own back yards, but in the back yards of others who are politically powerless or not participating in this process?  Wrong approach!

This whole brochure fails because it's based on the "information deficit" model.  It presumes that the only reason people oppose projects is because they lack enough information.  It supposes that if a person is bombarded with enough "information" (propaganda) that they will acquiesce to having their lives turned upside down for benefit of others.  It doesn't work.  Never has.  Never will.  It actually increases the potential for entrenched opposition and local political battles.

FERC obviously doesn't notice that it has placed itself squarely in the corporate camp.  Maybe they didn't intend to, but this brochure reveals who FERC identifies with... and it's not landowners.  FERC presumes a proposed project must be built as proposed.  FERC could use a crash course in how and why opposition develops.  Come out of your ivory (city soot coated) tower!  There's much to be learned!

Presenting the public with a project as a fait accompli is the first crucial mistake.  Nobody likes to learn that a company, or their elected officials, or the Sierra Club, or the Chamber of Commerce, or the "good ol' boys" in their town (or even FERC... especially FERC) have been secretly developing a project that takes their property.  People's property is sacred to them.  You might as well show up with a plan to conscript our children.  You'd never do that, right?  But it's the exact same punch in the gut feeling when a landowner learns others have been conspiring to take what belongs to him.

If you really want impacted landowners to get on board with a project, you need to involve them in the decision making from the start.  Instead of saying, "we need to build this," how about saying, "we have a problem and here are several ways to solve it, but we're open to suggestion"?

Only when the public gets some ownership of the decisions made are they likely to work cooperatively toward a solution.  This is a still a democracy, right?