Category:

RICL -- Not for Iowa Anymore

9/10/2014

A good friend of mine came up with an apt acronym for the few diehard fans of the Clean Line Energy projects.

MIMPSY: Money In My Pocket, Screw You!

The MIMPSYs are in high gear in South Dakota, eagerly salivating at all the money they will rake in if the states of Iowa and Illinois allow their people and their land to be used to build Clean Line's money-making "road to market."

For years, Clean Line has been telling Iowa's economic development types how much money will flow into Iowa if it only forces approval of its Rock Island Clean Line project.

But, it now appears that at least a third of the riches promised to Iowa in exchange for its sacrifice will flow to South Dakota instead.

Dakota Power Community Wind has been pumping itself up in the media lately, trying to raise enough capital to build a wind farm of up to 1,000MW in eastern South Dakota. This is nearly one-third of RICL's proposed 3,500MW capacity.

A recent article claims the benefits South Dakota will reap from the building of RICL:

"The economic potential for our area is tremendous and uses South Dakota's renewable resources to help solve our country's energy needs," said Beresford Mayor Jim Fedderson.

Based on a study done for a similar project, Dakota Power says the potential revenue from turbines to landowners could be between $6 million and $7 million annually. State gross production annual tax receipts could reach more than $4.5 million and the county nameplate tax revenue could equal $3 million per year. Statewide direct economic effect could be more than $200 million.

But, wait, all that money is flowing directly out of the money RICL has promised to Iowa in exchange for allowing RICL to be built as a closed highway through the state. South Dakota's windfall is coming directly from the pot of money RICL promised to Iowa! How much more of RICL's economic promise to Iowa is going to evaporate if RICL is permitted?

Pure and simple greed can turn even the finest men and women into blinded fools.

Or MIMPSYs. A handful of South Dakota landowners hosting turbines are expected to rake in $6 to $7 MILLION dollars per year if RICL is built. What are the thousands of landowners hosting the line in Iowa and Illinois expected to be paid for their contribution to the effort by hosting the line? I think I heard something like $500 annually for each tower, if the landowners accepts less than fair market value for the easement and opts for the annual payment scheme.

Why the disparity? Why are just a few landowners in South Dakota going to rake in $6-7 million annually, while the rest of the host "team" must settle for $500?

Stop. Think. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Don't let greed blind you.

2 Comments

Is Clean Line Targeting Amish Farms?

8/28/2014

1 Comment

The Amish are a peaceful people. They rarely get involved in worldly things like electric transmission permitting battles. They don't get involved in legal matters, even to protect their own financial interests.

But now Amish communities in three Missouri counties have submitted a petition containing 85 signatures to the Missouri Public Service Commission. A large group of Amish also came out to the first MO PSC public hearing earlier this month, with smaller groups at the following hearings.

According to Jennifer Gatrel of BlockGBE, "They are extremely concerned. They truly believe that power lines are dangerous. Their cousins in Wisconsin suffered tremendously when their dairy cows were negatively impacted. The line would go about a mile from their school. It is truly a matter of religious freedom."

The Amish have an interesting approach to electricity. They refuse to use the public electric grid and instead use limited amounts of electric power generated on-site. The Amish believe that reliance on others to generate and deliver power to them would tie them too closely to the world and symbolize a physical connection to it and reliance upon it.

But, Grain Belt expects the Amish to "do their part" by voluntarily hosting a transmission line they will never find useful, in order to provide for the needs of big cities in other states, who want to make their conscience a little "greener."

Can't help but wonder... Were the Amish farms targeted when siting Grain Belt Express due to their presumed unwillingness to fight back? The fact that so many of them have signed the petition is a major break in Amish precedent.

1 Comment

CFRA Needs to "Change for the Better"

8/28/2014

1 Comment

...and they can start by overcoming their presumption that massive amounts of new overhead transmission is necessary to move to a clean energy future. It's not.

But, CFRA is funded by ReAMP, whose "clean energy" money comes from deep pocketed and mysterious foundations and "Energy Funds". Environmental groups are just as shady, and just as well-funded, as the fossil fuel energy interests at which they point the finger. And the people have had enough of that nonsense!

Transmission advocacy toadie CFRA has taken the funding offered by these big green groups to act as a voice for rural landowners, and to somehow convince these landowners to accept gigantic new transmission lines across their land. It's not working. CFRA has done nothing but anger rural landowners, who feel that CFRA has strayed far from its mission to represent rural interests.

CFRA begins with the incorrect presumption that we MUST build massive amounts of new transmission across the midwest in order to have clean energy.

NOT TRUE!

CFRA has been rejected time and time again by the very rural landowners it pretends to represent. But, now they're back, telling rural landowners that they can "change transmission for the better" if they simply accept it.

NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

Earlier this month, several hearings were held across Missouri concerning a proposed transmission line that has the potential to carry Midwest wind energy to eastern markets. The Missouri Public Service Commission heard testimony from Missouri residents concerning the Grain Belt Express project, one of several new transmission projects in the region that could help boost new renewable energy projects.

These hearings are an essential part of the transmission development process, as they provide communities and landowners the opportunity to ask questions and share their concerns. Transmission is an important factor in bringing new renewable energy onto the grid, but it’s vital new transmission is developed the right way. That means that we must have landowners and community members getting involved.

Public involvement helps reveal the weak points. For example, many worry about the use of eminent domain for large-scale transmission projects. Insight from landowners points to flaws in the way that compensation for property is determined, and makes clear that there is more to property than just it’s fair market value. Developers must work hard to address these concerns, and work with communities and landowners to find a better way to develop transmission.

Public involvement in transmission development offers all involved the opportunity to think about the future. As more renewable energy is developed, we will require more and better infrastructure to connect it to the electric grid. But we also need to change the way we develop projects, making the process more fair and agreeable to landowners.

The only thing that needs changing here is the way we go about transitioning to a clean energy future. It's not going to happen overnight. And it's not going to happen on a grandiose scale. It's going to happen gradually, in the local communities, where energy can be produced at point of use.

CFRA has failed to actually LISTEN to what rural Americans are saying about energy. They want local solutions, sustainable solutions, that don't require rural America to make a sacrifice for the needs of far-flung urban areas. Urban areas are just as capable of developing their own local renewable energy sources and should be permitted to do so. Instead of wasting billions on new long-distance overhead transmission, couldn't that money be better spent on sustainable solutions, such as on-site solar or offshore wind conveniently located near the big demand centers?

CFRA has failed to learn the first lesson about the people it supposedly represents -- it's not about the money, it's about a way of life.

1 Comment

ICC Judge Issues PROPOSED Order on Rock Island Clean Line

8/20/2014

7 Comments

Last Monday, Illinois Commerce Commission ALJ Larry Jones issued his proposal for an Order of the Commission regarding RICL's request for authority to build its project in Illinois. Note that this is just a proposal, it is NOT an official Order of the Commission and has no authority unless adopted by the five member Commission.

Meanwhile, the legal debate will continue. Under Section 200.830 of the Rules, exceptions to the Proposed Order and replies thereto may be filed by the parties.

Let's just start out by stating that the Proposed Order (P.O., for short) is a beast -- 216 pages of repetitive back and forth, and lots of legal prose. If you've actually read the whole thing, congratulations! It took me most of the week to plow through it and to do the research to answer my own questions about certain parts.

First of all, we need to know what RICL asked the ICC to do.

In this proceeding, Rock Island Clean Line LLC (“Rock Island,” “RICL” or “RI”) filed the above-referenced petition with the Illinois Commerce Commission (“Commission” or “ICC”) pursuant to Sections 8-406 and 8-503 of the Public Utilities Act (“Act”), 220 ILCS 5/1-101, et seq.

Rock Island therein requests an order granting it a certificate of public convenience and necessity (“CPCN” or “Certificate”), pursuant to Section 8-406 of the Ac t, authorizing it to operate as a transmission public utility in the State of Illinois and to construct, operate and maintain an electric transmission line (“Project”); and authorizing and directing it, pursuant to Section 8-503 of the Act, to construct the proposed line.

Section 8-406 governs the following:

Whenever after a hearing the Commission determines that any new construction or the transaction of any business by a public utility will promote the public convenience and is necessary thereto, it shall have the power to issue certificates of public convenience and necessity. The Commission shall determine that proposed construction will promote the public convenience and necessity only if the utility demonstrates: (1) that the proposed construction is necessary to provide adequate, reliable, and efficient service to its customers and is the least‑cost means of satisfying the service needs of its customers or that the proposed construction will promote the development of an effectively competitive electricity market that operates efficiently, is equitable to all customers, and is the least cost means of satisfying those objectives; (2) that the utility is capable of efficiently managing and supervising the construction process and has taken sufficient action to ensure adequate and efficient construction and supervision thereof; and (3) that the utility is capable of financing the proposed construction without significant adverse financial consequences for the utility or its customers.

Here's what the P.O. determined about RICL's request under 8-406:

Having reviewed the record, the Commission finds, with regard to the first alternative showing in Section 8-406(b)(1), that Rock Island has not demonstrated that the Project is necessary to provide adequate, reliable, and efficient service to customers within the meaning of Section 8-406(b)(1).

BUT, regarding the second alternative:

In conclusion, upon consideration of the record and the determinations contained above, and subject to the conditions set forth above and elsewhere in this Order, the Commission finds that the Project will provide an opportunity for the delivery of more renewable energy into Illinois, and will promote the development of an effectively competitive electricity market that operates efficiently, including with respect to renewable energy; is equitable to all customers; and is the least cost means of satisfying those objectives, within the meaning of Section 8-406(b)(2).

The "conditions" attached to the judge's proposed conclusion are as follows:

Prior to recovering any Project costs from Illinois retail ratepayers through PJM or MISO regional cost allocation, Rock Island will obtain the permission of the Illinois Commerce Commission in a new proceeding initiated by Rock Island. For the purposes of the prior sentence, any system upgrades set forth in an interconnection agreement with PJM or MISO and the costs of which are allocated to Rock Island will be considered “Project costs.” For the avoidance of doubt, the phrase “recovering any Project costs from Illinois retail ratepayers through PJM or MISO regional cost allocation” includes the recovery of costs though PJM and MISO transmission service charges that are paid by retail electric suppliers in respect of their electric load served in Illinois.

AND

As a condition of this Order, Rock Island shall not attempt to effect the interconnection until it has fully complied with the applicable requirements of PJM and the other conditions in this Order, and has signed all interconnection agreements.

AND (This is a biggie!)

Rock Island will not install transmission facilities for the Rock Island Clean Line Project on easement property until such time as Rock Island has obtained commitments for funds in a total amount equal to or greater than the total project cost. For the purposes of this condition:

(i) “install transmission facilities” shall mean to affix permanently to the ground transmission towers or other transmission equipment, including installation of bases and footings for transmission towers, but shall not include (A) preparatory work such as surveys, soil borings, engineering and design, obtaining permits and other approvals from governmental bodies, acquisition of options and easements for right-of-way, and ordering of equipment and materials, and (B) site preparation work and procurement and installation of equipment and facilities on property owned in fee by Rock Island including the converter station sites;

(ii) “easement property” shall mean property on which Rock Island has acquired an easement to install transmission facilities;

(iii) “has obtained commitments for funds” shall mean (A) for loans and other debt commitments, that Rock Island has entered into a loan agreement(s) with a lender(s) and has received the loan funds or has the right to draw down the loan funds on a schedule that is consistent with the need for funds to complete the Project, and (B) for equity, that Rock Island or its parent company has received the funds from the equity investors or that the equity investors have entered into a commitment to provide funds on a schedule that is consistent with the need for funds to complete the Project; and

(iv) “total project cost” shall mean the total estimated remaining cost, at the time that Rock Island is prepared to begin to install transmission facilities, for the following Project activities: engineering, manufacturing and installation of converter stations; transmission line engineering; transmission towers; conductor; construction labor necessary to complete the Project; right of way acquisition costs; and other costs necessary to complete the Project. For reference, the total estimated project cost as of November 1, 2012 is $2.0 billion.

To allow the Commission to verify its compliance with this condition, Rock Island shall submit the following documents to the Director of the Financial Analysis Division and the Director of the Public Safety & Reliability Division at such time as Rock Island is prepared to begin to install transmission facilities:

a) On a confidential basis, equity and loan or other debt financing agreements and commitments entered into or obtained by Rock Island or its parent company for the purpose of funding the Rock Island Clean Line Project that, in the aggregate, provide commitments for funds for the total project cost;

b) An attestation certified by an officer of Rock Island that Rock Island has not, prior to the date of the attestation, installed transmission facilities on easement property; or a notification that such installation is scheduled to begin on a specified date;

c) A statement of the total project cost, broken out by the components listed in the definition of “total project cost,” above, and certified by an officer of Rock Island, along with a reconciliation of the total project cost in the statement to the total project cost as of November 1, 2012 of $2.0 billion; and

d) A reconciliation statement, certified by an officer of Rock Island, showing that the agreements and commitments for funds provided in (a) are equal to or greater than the total project cost provided in (c).

So, the P.O. did not find that RICL was necessary, but did find that it would promote the development of a competitive electricity market (not that the current market doesn't already do that). Therefore, the P.O. recommends that RICL be granted a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity under Section 8-406 because it satisfied the second part of (1) after the "or" (see 8-406 language above). However, the proposed finding comes with HEFTY conditions and would expire two years after being granted. Do you think RICL can get its stuff together to satisfy all the conditions AND get a permit from Iowa within two years? Tick tock! How many years has RICL been trying to make these projects work now? Has it been 5 years already?

Now let's move on to RICL's request that the ICC "authorize" or direct it to construct the line under Section 8-503. Remember that RICL told the ICC that they might not even construct the project after all if it wasn't profitable enough?

The Commission has reviewed the evidence and arguments. First of all, to the extent Rock Island is asserting that the criteria in Sections 8-406(b) and 8-503 are identical, and that a finding the Section 8-406(b) criteria have been met would automatically mean the Commission is required to grant the relief sought under Section 8-503, the Commission disagrees. Such an interpretation would render Section 8-503 superfluous.

ComEd and Staff argue that Rock Island’s request for Section 8-503 relief is premature, in that Rock Island is seeking authority that cannot be utilized given the contingencies, conditions and regulatory approvals still needed. While the Commission is by no means suggesting that RI would have to satisfy every condition, contingency or uncertainty before Section 8-503 authorization may be granted, the Commission does agree with Staff and ComEd that under the circumstances, it would be premature to grant Section 8-503 relief to Rock Island in this proceeding.

Rock Island claims Section 8-503 approval is needed now because it is one of the major regulatory approvals needed to satisfy potential lenders and investors; however, Rock Island does not explain how a Section 8-503 authorization is somehow more urgent or important in that regard than is the proceeding in Iowa, where the Project originates and the first 379 miles of the 500-mile line would be built. Even Rock Island does not estimate a decision being reached in Iowa until 2015, assuming the formal proceeding has even begun there.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request for relief pursuant to Section 8-503 of the Act is not granted at this time; this determination is without prejudice to the filing of a request for such relief in the future.

Authority under Section 8-503 is necessary to apply for eminent domain under Section 8-509, which reads:

When necessary for the construction of any alterations, additions, extensions or improvements ordered or authorized under Section 8‑503 or 12‑218 of this Act, any public utility may enter upon, take or damage private property in the manner provided for by the law of eminent domain.

But, the P.O. is NOT proposing that RICL be granted eminent domain authority at this time. RICL may re-apply for Section 8-503 at a later date. Important: RICL does NOT have eminent domain authority to condemn and take property in Illinois at this time, and this proposed order would not give it to them!

But, the P.O. also proposed that the recommended CPCN issued under Section 8-406 would allow Section 8-510 of the Code, which states:

Land surveys. For the purpose of making land surveys, any public utility that has been granted a certificate of public convenience and necessity by, or received an order under Section 8‑503 of this Act from, the Commission may, 30 days after providing written notice to the owner thereof by registered mail, enter upon the property of any owner who has refused permission for entrance upon that property, but subject to responsibility for all damages which may be inflicted thereby.

The P.O. recommended granting RICL the Certificate required to enter onto private property under Section 8-510, and reasoned:

...the issuance of the Certificate will enable Rock Island to gain access to the property to conduct surveys and related activities, which are steps characterized by Rock Island as important ones in which to engage in the near future.

The P.O. proposes that RICL be granted authority to trespass upon, enter, and damage private property, although prohibited from taking that same property by eminent domain. Yet, it's clear that RICL at this time does NOT have any dedicated funds, so how would landowners be compensated for damages incurred in the surveying process? What protections are in place for landowners in the likely event that funds are not acquired to build the project and the company goes bankrupt? At this time... none!

But, remember, this is only a PROPOSED Order, subject to more legal filings and alternative proposed language. What the Commission actually approves may be radically different.

Meanwhile, keep up to date on all the RICL news and action alerts by liking BlockRICL on facebook or visiting their website.

7 Comments

More Than 700 Missouri Landowners Show Up at Grain Belt Express Public Hearings to Protect Their Property Rights

8/14/2014

3 Comments

The Missouri PSC held its first two public hearings concerning the highly controversial Grain Belt Express on Tuesday. The company is seeking to become a public utility in Missouri with the hope of building a mega high voltage DC power line through the state that would originate in Kansas and terminate in Indiana and provide power to the east coast. The company has promised that they will build a substation that would make less than 1% of Missouri’s annual energy usage available for purchase by local utilities.

Opponents of the project were mostly Missouri landowners and farmers who are determined to block the company from receiving public utility status because it would allow them to use eminent domain to force landowners to host massive power lines on their property. The Missouri PSC will ultimately decide if the private, speculative company from Texas should be granted such power over Missouri citizens.

The PSC is holding a series of public hearings in each of the eight impacted counties. The first two of them were held August 12th, in Hannibal and Monroe City. The hearings were extremely well attended. Over 700 attendees made the drive to have their voices heard. The vast majority were in complete opposition to Grain Belt.

Group spokesperson Jennifer Gatrel commented, "We were really hoping that opponents of the project would wear green to make their opposition known. We were not disappointed. The audience was a sea of green! We were also very happy that the PSC allowed the audience to show their support with applause. It soon became very apparent to all that the project was firmly opposed. We are so grateful to the many articulate, intelligent, passionate people who showed up to make extremely compelling arguments. We find it impossible to believe that the commissioners were not deeply moved."

Some of the highlights of the hearings included Missouri State Rep. Jim Hansen making an impassioned plea for property rights and liberty. Landowner Louis Meyer drove 1,000 miles to attend the hearing and spoke for 15 minutes, laying out an implacably researched and deeply moving argument against Grain Belt. He presented a literal stack of evidence to the commission to back up his statements. Mothers got up and spoke plainly about their fear of having their kids and grandkids near the lines. Farmers like Kent Dye spoke to the technical reasons why having giant obstacles in the middle of fields makes farming much more difficult and dangerous, and lowers profits.

A recurring theme at both hearings were the unsavory tactics and broken promises made by Grain Belt. A local business owner testified to the commission that his business was falsely added as a supporter of Clean Line on list created by the company. Two gentlemen, Macy Rotenburg and former state Representative John Cauthorn, testified that they had determined that many businesses were erroneously put on the supporters list. There were also many people who testified that they were told that they would get answers to their questions, but have not. One woman submitted a recording of Grain Belt Project Director of Development Mark Lawlor making promises that he later broke.

Like a night of great theater, there were tears and laughter from the crowd. One spirted lady brought a giant extension cord to the podium. She stated that one end represented Kansas, and the other end Indiana. The cord itself represented the Midwest it would pass through. She then presented the commissioners with a night light to represent the power that Missouri may purchase from Grain Belt Express. Both the officials and the audience were tickled. As she left the podium, the judge asked her with a smile, "Do you want your nightlight back”?

Block GBE recently became aware of how little progress Grain Belt Express has made with land acquisition. In July, Grain Belt stated that, to date, it has signed easement agreements from approximately 179 landowners for approximately 61 miles in Kansas. In Missouri, it has received approximately 9 easement agreements for approximately 2 miles.

"Grain Belt is proposed to cross 370 miles of Kansas, but currently only has the land rights to 16 percent of it. I guess the reports I read that Clean Line has all the land in Kansas they need for the project couldn’t have been farther from the truth,” said Matthew Stallbaumer, whose family farm near Seneca, Kansas would be impacted.

Block GBE president Russ Pisciotta remarked, "We are thrilled! We honestly don't know how the hearings could have gone better. Thank you to all who have sacrificed so much to protect private property rights. Those who came out yesterday certainly set the bar high for the upcoming hearings, but I have no doubt they too will be a rousing success!"

To find out more about this issue and to get a schedule of the upcoming public hearings please visit BlockGBEMO here.

3 Comments

Hundreds Protest Grain Belt Express

8/13/2014

8 Comments

Yesterday marked the first two Missouri PSC public hearings on Clean Line's Grain Belt Express project. Additional hearings will be held later this week, and in early September. Get dates, times and locations here.

Missouri showed them!

Hundreds packed the two public hearings and dozens spoke out against the project.

WGEM.com: Quincy News, Weather, Sports, and Radio

I think Clean Line infused spokeswoman Cari VanAmburg with a little too much perky.

"500 megawatts of clean wind power for the state!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" You're going to be seeing this in your nightmares for years.

You believe her, don't you?

8 Comments

Sierra Club Should Stick to Hugging Trees and Stop Trying to Engineer the Power Grid

8/8/2014

10 Comments

Interesting article yesterday about the retirement of a coal-fired generation plant in Tennessee. The TVA is planning to retire its Allen plant by 2018 to comply with earlier agreements it made with the EPA and "clean air" groups. The TVA is now debating a source of replacement generation for this plant.

The TVA has proposed replacing it with a new gas-fired plant. The TVA's analysis has determined this to be the cheapest option, and TVA is obligated to select the cheapest option.

But Sierra Club doesn't like that option because, in addition to being anti-coal, Sierra Club is now anti-gas, too. Sierra Club has decided that TVA should replace Allen with the "wind" power Clean Line purports that it will ship to the TVA via a 700-mile transmission line cutting a slash through Oklahoma, Arkansas and Tennessee. Clean Line has not yet proposed a fixed price for its "wind," saying only:

“We think we can provide green power at an attractive, fixed-rate price for TVA and other utilities in the region,” Clean Line Energy Executive Jimmy Glotfelty told TVA last year. “Having a guaranteed price for 20 years is a great hedge against volatile natural gas prices.”

What good is a "guaranteed price" when it's guaranteed to be higher than other options? Why should the TVA commit to a speculative transmission line project that may never be built? It's not responsible planning to depend on a fantasy to keep the lights on. Clean Line is not part of any regional plan and is not guaranteed to be built. No authority has "ordered" it, or determined an in-service date. Clean Line has little in the way of permits to construct the project. Meanwhile, Allen must stop supplying power in 2018.

Quite aside from the dilemma of planning its resources on speculative projects at undetermined costs, the TVA has stated multiple times that a replacement for Allen must be physically located in the same area.

The existing three coal-fired units at ALF provide both real and reactive power for the Memphis area. To continue to reliably serve the area, generation resources must be located at or near ALF.

This is an engineering problem that also cannot be solved by a "clean" wind power fantasy. Loss of reactive power can cause voltage drop resulting in blackouts. Read more about reactive power and why it's necessary here.

Sierra Club doesn't want to hear any of that nasty reality. It has embarked on an expensive advertising campaign in certain parts of Tennessee, advising people to send comments to the TVA asking them to "turn, not burn." Sierra Club wants to have its clean energy hopes and dreams satisfied right now by bullying the TVA into committing to a wind power fantasy, instead of a rational reality that will ensure the lights stay on at the lowest possible cost. Because, at the end of the day, that is the TVA's mandate -- to keep the lights on. Sierra Club's resource plan for the TVA is uninformed and unworkable. How many Sierra Club electrical engineers does it take to plan for the TVA? The correct answer is none, because they don't exist!

Sierra Club is selling pure fantasy under the cover of "green is good." Environmental organizations are so hellbent on "clean energy now" that they are grabbing at straws and hoping an uneducated public will support their misguided efforts. Yes, we can transform to a cleaner energy future, but it's going to happen gradually, not all at once, and certainly not with bulldozers clearing a 3000 mile path for "clean" energy from coast to coast.

Sierra Club says it has gathered 50 comments to the TVA supporting its efforts. Only 50? How much did this ad campaign cost, and what's the cost of each comment?

The TVA will be meeting August 21 to make its decision about how it will replace the Allen plant. You can send your own comments here.

10 Comments

BLOCK GBE Missouri Calls “All Hands On Deck” for Public Hearing

8/4/2014

5 Comments

Block Grain Belt Express-Missouri is calling on its members, and all Missourians, to speak out about the Grain Belt Express transmission project at important Public Service Commission hearings slated to begin next week.

"We really cannot over-emphasize how crucial these public hearings are to preventing the precedent of an out-of-state company receiving the state’s power of eminent domain to take private property for its speculative, for-profit venture,” said Jennifer Gatrel, spokeswoman for Block GBE. “We must stand together as a community to protect our property rights!”

The first hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, August 12 at 11:00 a.m. at the Knights of Columbus Hall in Monroe City. That hearing will be closely followed by one at 6:00 p.m. the same day at the Hannibal-LaGrange University Theater Auditorium in Hannibal. Other dates include August 14 in Marceline and Moberly, September 3 in Cameron and St. Joseph, and September 4 in Hamilton and Carrollton.

Block GBE leadership advises citizens who wish to participate to arrive early to have their names added to the speakers’ list, and immediately find a seat inside the meeting room.

Mary Mauch, spokeswoman for the Block RICL Illinois citizens group fighting Clean Line’s Rock Island Clean Line project, has been speaking out about some of the tactics Clean Line used in Illinois last year to pack the public hearings with incentivized speakers and prevent affected landowners from having an opportunity to make their views heard.

“Clean Line bussed in groups of students, offered them a free dinner, dressed them in Clean Line t-shirts and handed out talking points that supported RICL. However, it was clear that the students were ill-informed about the actual purpose and details of the project” said Mauch. “The most disturbing aspect of Clean Line’s stacking of the speaker pool was that many affected landowners who had driven long distances to speak were turned away without a chance to have their voices heard,” she added.

Block GBE believes that Clean Line may be planning a similar scheme in Missouri based on emails and other documents that were divulged by the company during an earlier complaint by Missouri Landowners Alliance regarding Clean Line’s public relations practices.

Group spokesperson Jennifer Gatrel said that the emails revealed that Clean Line had been offering students pizza parties and other “swag” in exchange for gathering signatures on a petition to the PSC supporting Grain Belt Express, and that Clean Line has been planning to bus in college students to the Missouri public hearings for months.

“This is how the transmission permitting game is played,” said Keryn Newman, a nationally-recognized grassroots consultant who observed Clean Line’s efforts to mute the comments of affected landowners in Illinois last fall. “It’s about an effort to simply out-number and out-shout impacted landowners with large numbers of indifferent individuals acting at company direction while motivated by freebies or promises of a fun party with as many friends as they can bring along,” she added.

Some of Block GBE's major concerns are property rights, property devaluation, health effects, and the impediments to farming posed by the lines. Citizens interested in standing up for Missouri and showing Grain Belt Express how much they care about their communities and property rights can get more information about the public hearings at blockgbemo.com or by calling 660-232-1280.
An updated copy of the public hearing schedule can be found here.

Copies of the Clean Line emails can be viewed here.

5 Comments

Project Compass Points The Way To Failure

8/4/2014

7 Comments

Where do investor owned utilities get their silly project names? PJM gives transmission projects alpha-numeric names. Sometimes companies name their projects for the substations they connect (i.e. Susquehanna Roseland). But sometimes a company proposes a project so big, so expensive, and so outrageous that it needs its own cutsie-poo name, like some sort of fire-breathing, money-eating dragon (i.e. PATH, TrAIL, MAPP).

Behold, Project Compass!

PPL proposed this monster last week in conjunction with its 2nd quarter earnings call. Maybe it was just some elaborate distraction for investment analysts? A poorly executed joke?

At any rate, here's the motivation for this ambitious and bodacious "investment" in new transmission:

The strong year-to-date increase in ongoing earnings was driven in part by a combined $69 million from our domestic utilities, driven by returns on additional transmission investments in Pennsylvania...

Well, shoot, if you can make a little money "investing" in transmission, why not go big and make a LOT of money, right?

Also this morning, we announced a PPL Electric Utilities proposal to PJM, as part of the competitive solicitation process under FERC Order 1000. As currently proposed, the 500 kV transmission line would run about 725 miles from Western Pennsylvania into New York and New Jersey, and also south into Maryland. The project is in the preliminary planning stages. The new line would improve electric service reliability, enhance grid security and enable the development of new gas-fired power plants in the shale gas regions of Northern Pennsylvania. The proposal would create savings for millions of electric customers by delivering lower cost electricity into the region and reducing grid-congesting cost. According to preliminary estimates, the cost of the project, which is not yet included in our CapEx projections, would be between $4 billion and $6 billion. Because of the magnitude of this proposal, there is a good chance we may enter into partnerships to develop and build the project. The preliminary timeline envisions completion of the project by 2023 to 2025, assuming all necessary approvals are received and construction begins in 2017. Approvals are needed from various regulatory and regional planning entities. We'll keep you posted on any further developments.

But it doesn't sound like the analysts shared PPL's enthusiasm and confidence in Project Compass:

Daniel L. Eggers - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division
Bill, can you maybe get a little bit more into this transmission project today? I guess, kind of how the process works from announcing, looking at something to where we'll see action. What kind of dollars you have to spend upfront? And then, if you look at the challenges you guys had with Roseland and other folks have had in the past, trying to build these new Pennsylvania East type of transmission lines, how you guys think you're going to approach it to make it a higher chance of success?

William H. Spence - Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of Executive Committee
Sure. So the processes itself is one that's not been well traveled in the past, as you know. It's a relatively new process. So we'll continue to work with all the stakeholders to make sure that we do everything in our power to make sure that we get this approved on a -- as timely a basis as we can. Maybe I'll ask Greg to take you through kind of what we understand to be some of the key milestones and processes we have to do to make this a reality, so, Greg?

Gregory N. Dudkin - Principal Executive Officer, President and Director
Yes, thanks. So first off is the filings. So PJM had a window that just closed recently. So this project, Project Compass, was filed as part of that window. As far as the approvals are concerned, so this project not only is part of PJM, but also goes into the New York ISO, still need approvals from both entities. Also we'll need state approvals, as well as utility commission approvals. So for me, what increases the probability of success is just the compelling nature of this project. When you think about what's happened in the industry over the past year, the polar vortex, substation security being a big issue, coal retirements being a big issue. This project really pulls all those issues together and provides significant benefits to the consumers in the region. So I think it's the compelling nature of the benefits of this project that will help the project move forward. We are putting together an outreach plan. In fact, I've started this morning to get people that will be involved in the project, up to speed and be looking to work with others to make sure that this is a success.

Daniel L. Eggers - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division
Okay. So we should -- this will be, I guess, probably a little quiet from our perspective for -- in a period of time, while you get your ducks in a row. Is that kind of how we should think about it?

Gregory N. Dudkin - Principal Executive Officer, President and Director
Yes, I would say so. Because of all the entities we have to work with my sense is that we have a better idea about the timeline as far as approvals probably by the end of this year. But it should be fairly quiet from your perspective.

Daniel L. Eggers - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division
And then the money you guys are putting into it now, is there a route for recovery if this is not successful or is this money you guys are burying on PPL for the time being?

Gregory N. Dudkin - Principal Executive Officer, President and Director
Yes, this is something that is not recoverable. So we'll -- if it doesn't go forward, then we'll just had to eat that.

Eat. Eat. Eat.

There's nothing "compelling" about this project. It's uninspired, unrealistic overbuild in its purest form. Why should ratepayers shell out billions to "fix" a bunch of minor problems?

Neel Mitra - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc., Research Division
Question on the transmission project. It looks like the map you provided, the starting points are really kind of where the new CCGTs, that are announced for PJM in '16 and '17, are being built. Is the -- is kind of the economic reason for the project that some of those gas plants that are going to be built right on top of the shales, they just don't have enough transmission capacity to get to where they need to, to provide reliability? Or is there another real economic benefit that I'm not seeing?

William H. Spence - Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of Executive Committee
Well, there's a number of potential benefits, and I'll let Greg describe some of those. But that clearly could be one of them, but there are others as well.

Gregory N. Dudkin - Principal Executive Officer, President and Director
Got it. And so, I would say when we are -- when potential generators come to us, one of the issues is they need to obviously connect to our transmission. And in some cases, that can be very, very high cost. So part of the thinking on the economics is if we sited through the region, the cost to connect for those generators would be much less. So again with potential coal retirements, we think there's economic advantage for that on a going-forward basis. And we use pretty conservative assumptions around generation retirements. But beyond that, there are reliability benefits. Again, we talked about substation security. There are benefits that, actually, we didn't really factor in the economics. But I think there'll be a significant economic benefit there, reduced congestion. So all that, when you factor all those together, it is a significant positive economic benefit to the consumers.

Oh, right, we're supposed to spend billions to make it cheaper for new merchant generators to sell their electricity in a "competitive" market. If these new generators can't afford to compete in the market by paying their own way to existing transmission connections, then they're not profitable and competitive and shouldn't be built.

Reliability? Where's the driver for that? Or are we going to put the cart before the horse again and create the "opportunity" for transmission before creating the "reliability" issue it is intended to fix?

Substation security? How do existing substations get made safer by building new ones? Is it because we're going to increase the number of possible targets to water down interest in just a few crucial points?

Didn't factor in the economics... but I'm sure they can make something up!

Wow, pretty weak reasoning there, Greg!

Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC
A lot of my questions have been answered. But just -- and I know it's some way off in the future here, but when the transmission line is built, what do you expect it to do to the market? Is there any basis differential or any sort of impact you could sort of suggest, that sort of in the ballpark, that would happen as a result of these major projects.

William H. Spence - Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of Executive Committee
Yes, as you can imagine, because it is so far out and there's so many moving pieces, coal retirements, how many new gas pipelines may be built to move shale gas away from the constrained areas, and so forth, that we really don't have a forecast that we could point you to suggest which way prices would move as a result of this transmission project.

Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC
Okay. And no part of the project is going to be really done before 2023, is that correct?

William H. Spence - Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of Executive Committee
That's our target. So with it, the earliest would be 2023.

See question above... they didn't factor in the economics, they're going to make that part up later!

Rajeev Lalwani - Morgan Stanley, Research Division
My first question is on the transmission project that you announced. Can you provide some insight on any competing projects that PJM is also looking at?

William H. Spence - Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of Executive Committee
At the moment, we're not aware of any competing projects. This is a very unique project, that I'm very proud of the team here that came up with the concept and the forward thinking to put something of this nature in front of PJM. So we're not aware of any competing projects. And the requests that PJM have had, have been smaller projects to basically address some relatively small reliability concerns. I think there 4 or 5 of them. And this project and I response to some of those, but it goes well beyond that. Again with something that we think is very unique and compelling from a stakeholder process -- perspective.

Because, ya know, when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Obviously there is no need for a new transmission project of this magnitude, but PPL thinks they can "compel" PJM into agreeing to this massive boondoggle without any competition developing. This is exactly how PJM got into trouble on Project Mountaineer. When it's not about reliability or economics, it's greed, not need.

Angie Storozynski - Macquarie Research
Okay. And lastly on the transmission project, I know it's many years out, but just looking at how the Susquehanna-Roseland went and the 3-year delay to cross, what, a 3-mile stretch through the Delaware Water Gap even though there was an existing right of away. I mean, obviously, we don't see exactly how this proposed line goes, but should we expect similar issues with siting of the transmission line?

William H. Spence - Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of Executive Committee
Greg, do want to take one?

Gregory N. Dudkin - Principal Executive Officer, President and Director
Sure. Thanks. So certainly, when you're talking about a 725 mile line, siting is going to be a big issue. So we will work with all the stakeholders. We've had success, actually Susquehanna-Roseland is a great example. So it took us a while, but we were building through a national park. And I think it had been very successful. I think the folks there appreciate the care we took of the park, and so I think our reputation is good in that area and that's why I think we'll be successful.

Angie Storozynski - Macquarie Research
So this proposed line doesn't go through any national parks or any environmental -- that shouldn't face any environmental issues?

Gregory N. Dudkin - Principal Executive Officer, President and Director
No national parks.

No, no national parks. Their last escapade in a national park cost the ratepayers $60M in hush money to the Department of Interior.

ALL the stakeholders? Landowners and ratepayers, grab your stakes, we're heading out!

7 Comments

Exercise Caution When Considering Clean Line

8/4/2014

0 Comments

The Association of Tennessee Valley Governments (ATVG) is an advocate for TVA and the local governments that reside in the Tennessee Valley region. ATVG represents the nearly 1,000 local governments that reside within the seven-state TVA region. They represent local governments in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. There is strength in numbers. Collectively, they are over nine million people strong.

The Association of Tennessee Valley Governments has urged the Tennessee Regulatory Authority to "...exercise caution as it considers the application of Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC, for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate as a public utility with powers of eminent domain within the State of Tennessee..."

One more strike against Clean Line, and this time it's coming from seven states that Clean Line has targeted as potential customers for its Plains & Eastern Clean Line.

On August 1, the ATVG made the following resolution, to be forwarded to the United States Department of Energy, the Tennessee Regulatory Authority, the Tennessee Congressional delegation, the Governor of Tennessee, and the TVA Board of Directors:

Whereas, the Association of Tennessee Valley Governments (ATVG) represents local governments within more than 200 Tennessee Valley River Region Counties which closely monitor issues associated with the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA); and

Whereas, TVA's mission focuses on providing low cost, reliable electricity, environmental stewardship and economic development to the people of the Tennessee Valley; and

Whereas, the TVA Act of 1933 mandates that TVA provide power to its customers at the lowest feasible cost; and

Whereas, TVA is currently evaluating a proposal to purchase a large amount of wind generated electrical power from the Oklahoma panhandle from Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC, and transport It 700 miles using a single high voltage direct current transmission line that will bypass the existing network of power
lines to Memphis, Tennessee; and

Whereas, such a partnership between Clean Line and TVA would likely transport wealth outside the Tennessee Valley to the detriment of the nine million residents of the Valley; and

Whereas, TVA has stated that electricity demand in the Tennessee Valley is not expected to return to 2007 levels until 2020; and

Whereas, the nation's power grid is a complex, interconnected network of generating plants,
transmission lines and distribution facilities; and

Whereas, bypassing the grid to purchase electricity from such a long distance away increases security threats by providing additional exposure for natural or malicious events due to the extreme distance between generation and point of use without needed network redundancy; and

Whereas, wind is an intermittent power source that lacks the dispatch capability of other resources and does not eliminate the need for base load or dispatchable power plants like other more dependable resources such as nuclear, natural gas, coal and hydropower; and

Whereas, the number of property parcels and property owners that may be negatively affected by eminent domain as a result of the construction of this proposed 700 mile transition line is unknown;

now, therefore

BE IT RESOLVED by the Association of Tennessee Valley Governments (ATVG), that we strongly encourage the Tennessee Regulatory Authority to exercise caution as it considers the application of Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC, for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate as a
public utility with powers of eminent domain within the State of Tennessee until it is proven that its proposal meets TVA's obligation to provide reliable power to its customers at the lowest feasible cost.

The ATVG recognizes the security, reliability and economic drawbacks of importing unreliable wind energy hundreds of miles, considerable price considerations aside. ATVG has also heard the message of the Clean Line opposition groups loud and clear -- eminent domain for Clean Line's projects is just plain WRONG!

Bravo, ATVG! And congratulations to the thousands of hard working grassroots activists across the midwest who remain resolute on their path to victory!

0 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

RICL -- Not for Iowa Anymore

Is Clean Line Targeting Amish Farms?

CFRA Needs to "Change for the Better"

ICC Judge Issues PROPOSED Order on Rock Island Clean Line

More Than 700 Missouri Landowners Show Up at Grain Belt Express Public Hearings to Protect Their Property Rights

Hundreds Protest Grain Belt Express

Sierra Club Should Stick to Hugging Trees and Stop Trying to Engineer the Power Grid

BLOCK GBE Missouri Calls “All Hands On Deck” for Public Hearing

Project Compass Points The Way To Failure

Exercise Caution When Considering Clean Line

About the Author

About
StopPATH Blog

Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
Email me

Archives

Categories

About the Author

AboutStopPATH Blog

Archives

Categories

About
StopPATH Blog