StopPATH WV
  • News
  • StopPATH WV Blog
  • FAQ
  • Events
  • Fundraisers
  • Make a Donation
  • Landowner Resources
  • About PATH
  • Get Involved
  • Commercials
  • Links
  • About Us
  • Contact

Clean Line's Ties to Dirty Windward Iowa Front Group

2/25/2014

15 Comments

 
A mysterious, new group advocating for "more ways to send Iowa's wind power out of state" appeared on TV screens all across Iowa on Monday.  The mysterious group claims it includes "wind power activists, vendors and industry leaders" and that is it "neutral" about the Rock Island Clean Line.  How could a group advocating for transmission lines in Iowa not be for RICL?
The true purpose of this group was revealed later on in the interview, however:
The Rock Island Clean Line is one for-profit company proposing to ship wind power produced in western Iowa to the outskirts of Chicago. None of that power would stay in Iowa and a number of landowners along the proposed 500-mile-long transmission line route have opposed the plan. Some owners and farmers have expressed concerns about potential damage to land from transmission tower construction and the threat of eminent domain to push a route if enough willing sellers aren’t found.

 But Lang, and Mike Prior, interim director of the Iowa Wind Energy Association, hope the new organization could serve as a “go-between” to bridge some of the disagreements between land owners and the Clean Line developers.
"Neutral," my eye!

A front group is an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned. [or denied!] The front group is perhaps the most easily recognized use of the third party propaganda technique.
So, what are Clean Line's ties to the new Windward Iowa group?

Windward Iowa's web domain was purchased October 21, 2013 by Larson Shannahan Slifka Group, aka LS2Group.
Larson Shannahan Slifka Group (LS2group) is a bipartisan public relations, public affairs, and marketing firm that guides its practices with one goal in mind: what others may do, we strive to do better. We offer clients an unparalleled commitment to excellence and take pride in our consistent delivery of successful outcomes. Our strength lies in the diversity of our team and its determination to apply creative solutions and unique perspectives to clients' needs. We see possibilities others cannot and have a track record of helping our clients reach their goals.
Right.  I'm sure other public relations companies cannot "see" the wheels coming off the front groups they set up for their clients at roll out.  But, that's neither here nor there. 

Who are LS2Group's clients?
"LS2group has a thorough understanding of our needs and responds quickly to our requests, coupled with a vast network of strong relationships with key officials."
- Cary K., Director of Development, Rock Island Clean Line
Who are LS2Group's employees?  I saw this one minding the Clean Line information table at the first Mendota public hearing.  Others have reported seeing her at other Illinois and Iowa public events.
This same LS2Group employee is also the named company contact on a recent press release about the Rock Island Clean Line project.

The claims that Windward Iowa is not advocating for Clean Line's RICL project, and has nothing to do with the company, are beyond credible belief.


Windward Iowa incorporated as a non-profit Iowa corporation on December 12, 2013.  According to its Articles of Incorporation, its purpose is:
to promote social welfare by seeking to educate and encourage landowners to become familiar with wind energy production and transmission, and expand the wind industry in the state of Iowa to further the common good and general welfare of the people of Iowa and the Midwest.
According to its Articles:
no substantial part of the activities of the corporation shall be the carrying on of propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, and the corporation shall not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or publication of statements) any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office
and must abide by the laws for a 501(c)4 corporation as determined by the Internal Revenue Service.  This also means that donations to this corporation are not tax deductible.

Donations?  Yes, that's one of the ways you can "get involved" with this group, in addition to "submitting a letter to the editor or opinion editorial; commenting online through Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn, or on an article; commenting to the Iowa Utility Board; or contacting your legislator or local government official."  Hey, wait a tick, doesn't that last one violate the Articles' prohibition on attempts to influence legislation?  That's some pretty thin ice!

I also wonder what the legal implications are of this corporation involving itself in negotiations with property owners that eventually result in eminent domain takings?

Windward Iowa's Facebook page contains numerous links to stories about RICL.

Windward Iowa's website makes sweeping statements that it does not back up, such as:

"Experts predict the U.S. will soon be in the midst of a transmission crisis. It is important to be proactive in addressing the issue and developing new infrastructure. We cannot afford to wait another 60 years for wind energy development.
The country’s electric grid is outdated and in need of attention and upgrades. Projects that bring wind energy through new avenues are part of the solution to providing clean, dependable, and renewable power."


Who are these "experts" and where have they made these statements?  Or did the public relations firm just make it up out of whole cloth?

Compare this information to the signs of a front group here:

1.  The group does not report who they are really working for, who their members are, or the source of their funding.  The idea that three individuals spontaneously decided to start an advocacy group managed by a pricey lawyer and a public relations group defies belief.

2.  There is no physical address or list of staff on the website.

3.    The group claims neutrality on some hot button issue and appears to be making general arguments about a topic only marginally related to the issue, and yet they mainly focus on a “secondary” issue (RICL).

This is all so classic.  I've had experience uncovering and reporting on transmission company front groups in the past, and my opinion is that Windward Iowa is a front group being paid for by Clean Line Energy Partners.

Because RICL and Clean Line Energy Partners are no longer viewed as an impartial and trustworthy source of information in Iowa, the company and its public relations contractor have created a supposedly "neutral" third-party entity that will continue to advocate for its project under another name.  If you wouldn't believe a word RICL says, then don't believe anything the company tells you when it is wearing its "Windward Iowa" mask.

Windward Iowa only has the same amount of credibility as RICL, and should be treated accordingly by opposition, elected officials, and the media.  It's very disappointing that none of the reporters attending the group's "launch" yesterday had the curiosity to ask where this group is getting its funding.  That's the literal "million dollar question."
15 Comments

Does TVA Not Love Clean Line Energy Partners the Right Way?

2/23/2014

10 Comments

 
They're not alone!  Although Clean Line Energy Partners keeps touting some "desperate need" for its transmission projects by unnamed "states farther east," the company has yet to produce any evidence of any future customers for its transmission projects.

In the case of its Plains & Eastern Clean Line, a
recent article tells us "TVA still has no deal to buy Clean Line's wind energy."  The article makes an important distinction that Clean Line hopes everyone will ignore:
TVA is in final negotiations to allow a proposed $2 billion transmission line carrying wind power 700 miles from Oklahoma to connect to TVA's grid near Millington.

However, it will be another issue entirely whether Texas-based Plains & Eastern Clean Line LLC can send its wind-generated electricity into the TVA system, TVA spokesman Chris Stanley said Tuesday.

TVA policy requires the federal utility, which supplies electricity to MLGW in Memphis, only buy power priced competitively with other energy sources.

No consumer prices have been disclosed by the Houston firm.

"Inter-connectivity just allows Clean Line, in this case, to connect to our grid," Stanley said. "They do not, however, have the ability to inject any power into our system."

TVA is now waiting on Clean Line to request a "transmission study," he said.

"We had to do studies and make sure we have system reliability. That's all happened and we're in final negotiations with them about what that looks like going forward,'' Stanley said.

After the interconnection study is completed, a the transmission-service study will look at sending wind power into the electric grid.
Looks like Clean Line's much ballyhooed Memorandum of Understanding with TVA isn't proof that the TVA is willing to buy power from the project after all.

Clean Line has been pulling this same scheme with all of its transmission projects by pretending that there are some potential customers in "desperate need" of power supplied by the project, or that a regional grid operator, or federal entity like the TVA, has "approved" its project or contracts to purchase the electricity.  Nothing could be further from the truth!  The interconnection studies simply determine whether or not Clean Line would compromise system reliability if they interconnected, and also determine what alterations need to be made to the system to accommodate Clean Line's interconnection.  Clean Line is responsible for the costs of the studies and any system upgrades determined to be needed in the studies.

Clean Line is in a catch-22.  They can't negotiate prices for their transmission capacity until they have completed all permitting, siting, land acquisition, engineering, contracting, etc., and know exactly how much their project will cost to build.  The cost of the project will inform the amount of the capacity charge.  The capacity charge will be added to the price of the wind (or other) generation and then a power purchase agreement will be negotiated between the generator and the utility buying the power.  The generators don't exist.  The customers don't exist.  The transmission project doesn't exist.  Clean Line is nothing more than an overly-ambitious and fantastical business plan.  I don't believe it will ever happen.

But as long as Clean Line's "patient" investors want to continue to dump money down this rat hole, entities like TVA will continue to take their money and produce "studies".... because they have to.  State utility commissions also have to entertain Clean Line's permit applications, but they don't have to approve them.  And they certainly don't have to grant such a speculative venture utility status and its attendant power of eminent domain.

The TVA is currently working on its integrated resource plan (IRP).  An IRP is a long-range plan by a utility to determine the proper mix of resources that will serve its customers reliably and economically in the future.  The IRP will determine whether TVA will purchase huge quantities of wind from Oklahoma.  TVA's IRP won't be completed until 2015.  Although one of the stakeholder participants in the process recently asked the question, "Would it be appropriate to consider a scenario around grid/transmission expansion - for example, an HVDC line is built from the Midwest making lower cost wind energy available to the TVA?" it looks like this question was batted aside by the group think of the TVA's IRP process. 

Maybe Clean Line needs to do a little reading on the Delphi Technique?

It looks like Clean Line's business plan is nothing but a house of cards, and a big wind is starting to blow.
10 Comments

Iowa, Eminent Domain and NIMBYs

2/22/2014

3 Comments

 
Clean Line Energy Partners went into panic mode when dozens of landowners stormed the Capitol in Des Moines this week.  While legislation proposed to protect landowner rights under threat of eminent domain takings for the company's Rock Island Clean Line project passed out of committee, it failed to advance because Mother Nature intervened and turned the legislature dysfunctional at a crucial time.

However, all is not lost.  As Clean Line's snarky editorial tells us, "...it could come back as an amendment tacked onto another bill that's still alive."

And what's up with the name-calling in that editorial?  NIMBY?  Is that the best Clean Line could do to lobby for its project? 
But some people don't like the project, which is why the bill came forward. Landowners who are wary of eminent domain powers are speaking up against the project. In large part it has become an issue pitting pro-business groups and legislators against people who carry the NIMBY, or Not in My Backyard, mindframe.
Name-calling is one of the cheapest propaganda devices.  By placing opponents into unacceptable groups, the propagandist attempts to remove them from the argument before their positions can be logically considered.
Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears or arouse positive prejudices with the intent that invoked fear (based on fearmongering tactics) or trust will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion, in respect to the former, or a positive opinion, with respect to the latter, about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to believe. The method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from an impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When this tactic is used instead of an argument, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an argumentum ad hominem.
Clean Line is so frightened by the righteous concerns of landowners being asked to make a sacrifice for the pecuniary aspirations of a company from Texas, that they have resorted to cheap party tricks like "NIMBY."

News Flash:  Use of the "NIMBY" name in transmission battles is passe and ineffective.  The Alliance has already overcome that stereotype quite effectively.

And why shouldn't landowners be concerned or, as the editorial puts it, "not like the project."  The project is asking them to sacrifice their property, their business, their peace of mind and their physical well-being for the needs of some phantom others in "states farther east."  Who wouldn't resist it?  Would you resist a similar attack on your own home, income and way of life?

In addition, the "project" isn't even needed for reliability or economic reasons.  It's a scheme to make a lot of money supplanting existing generation in "states farther east" that have no desire for the power in the first place. 

While the financial windfalls may be shared with a handful of politically-connected landowners in NW Iowa who voluntarily host turbines, the buck stops there.  The Alliance landowners are being forced to take a one-time "market value" payment, not share in the wealth.  Their contribution to the effort is not being fairly recognized or compensated. 

While Clean Line's lobbyists hyperventilate that the legislation will "shut down this project as well as kill jobs,” the proposed legislation merely removed the company's threat of eminent domain against landowners who refused to go along.  As the Illinois Farm Bureau said in its Illinois Commerce Commission brief:
"In addition, if granted § 8-503 relief, what Rock Island characterizes as “voluntary” easement negotiations with farmers will actually sound something like “Rock Island has been directed by the Commission to construct a transmission line on an approve[d] route, which crosses your land.” Characterizing the easement negotiations as voluntary under these facts is kind of like giving someone the option of jumping off of a cliff before you push them."
If RICL is a viable and economic project, it shouldn't have any trouble compensating landowners to their satisfaction, and would not need the threat of eminent domain.  The use of eminent domain for private gain is the issue here, not jobs or economic development.  At what point does a person's right to own and enjoy property become less than another individual's desire to confiscate that property for his or her own pecuniary goals?  If you believe this is okay, as long as it's in someone else's back yard and you're sharing in the wealth, you're heading down a very slippery slope.  Because if you think it's okay in someone else's back yard, you are also saying it's okay in your own, and some day, the chickens are going to come home to roost and then you will be the "NIMBY." 

Why is Clean Line so scared? 
Think about it.
3 Comments

Lah-De-Dah, Making the Rich Richer at Your Expense

2/14/2014

16 Comments

 
Honestly, I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried!

Thousands of small, independent farm businesses and other residents of the Midwest are being asked to suck it up and make a financial sacrifice to accept the burden of new high voltage transmission lines through their land proposed by Clean Line Energy Partners.

There is no proven need for Clean Line's projects.  They are a speculative venture that assumes "states farther east" will pay outrageous prices for wind energy exported from Kansas, Iowa, and Oklahoma.  These projects aren't needed to keep the lights on.  They are intended to supplant current generators in "states farther east" and replace them with generation imported from thousands of miles away.  This is not economic, nor reliable.

Clean Line Energy Partners is financed by
a couple of billionaires, who expect that they will make a huge return on their investment by selling capacity on new transmission lines at a huge profit.

Clean Line has identified one of its investors as Michael Zilkha of Houston, whose inherited fortune was made in the oil industry.


Who is Michael Zilkha?  I'm sure he's a perfectly nice man who just happens to live in a 20,515 sq. foot stone manse that features 17 rooms.  Built in 1999, the residence features a pool with pool house and lavish grounds including gardens and courtyards.
... but no transmission towers.  Nasty energy infrastructure is Not In Michael's Back Yard.

Our perfectly nice Mr. Zilkha also supports the arts, making Houston's society pages by "saving lives through words" by supporting poetry at the Houston Writer's Ball.
(go ahead, click through and check out all the photos of our glittery social heroes saving the world with ostentatious panache).  Well, that's very helpful for all the Midwesterners who are being asked to make financial sacrifices to enable his transmission line investment to pan out.
  Maybe he'll write you a poem about eminent domain?

I think I'd rather hang out at a barn dance.  At least the people are real.

16 Comments

Iowa Legislators Propose Legislation to Stop RICL

2/4/2014

1 Comment

 
Iowa legislators have had enough Rock Island Clean Line.  In January, legislation to limit the use of eminent domain was introduced, spurred by RICL's proposal to take nearly 400 miles of right-of-way in the state.
The target of their legislation is the Rock Island Clean Line, a $2 billion, 500-mile overhead direct current transmission line.

Rogers called private property rights “critically important to our way of life.”

“Many farmers in my district live and work on land that has been in their family for generations, and they want to allow their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren to continue to farm that land and feed the world,” Rogers said. “Our laws must adequately protect their property rights.”
One bill requires that any power line project requesting eminent domain authority must deliver at least 25% of its power to consumers in Iowa.  RICL intends to export power from northwest Iowa direct to eastern Illinois, where it will be interconnected with PJM Interconnection, the regional grid operator for mid-Atlantic eastern states.

The second bill requires legislative approval of any request to bifurcate an application for a transmission project in order to separate the determination of need from the request for eminent domain authority.  RICL tried to use bifurcation to force landowners into a weak negotiating position for rights-of-way, but was rejected by the Iowa Utilities Board.

Be sure to check the lobbyist declarations on both these bills.  Clean Line doesn't appear to be happy about them.  I suppose fair is fair though... Iowans don't seem to be very happy about RICL, either.

I wonder if our Clean Line heroes envisioned this kind of opposition when planning their get-rich-quick power line scheme back in 2011?  I've heard it said that they gleefully dismissed any possibility of trouble, expecting nothing more than "a couple of ticked off farmers."  Personally, I'd never want to tick off any farmers.  They have pitchforks.  And I like the food they grow.

And speaking of eminent domain, legislators in Missouri are livid over the Arkansas Public Service Commission's approval of a SWEPCO transmission route through 25 miles of Missouri.  Within 10 days of the APSC decision, legislators had proposed:
The bill states that “the Missouri Public Service commission shall lack jurisdiction to approve the construction of any electric facilities to be built in accordance with Arkansas Public Service Commission Order 33, Docket Number 13-041-U, authorizing Route 109 as a ‘reasonable route’ for the construction of new three hundred forty-five kilovolt electric transmission lines.”
The overbuilding of new transmission of questionable necessity as a utility or investor profit center has finally gone too far.  The people have had enough of this nonsense and their elected representatives are taking action.  This transmission craze is now making it difficult to build ANY transmission, even that which may actually be needed.  Their cash cow is down and slowly bleeding to death, and it's their own fault.  Ooops.
1 Comment

Ireland Struggles With Misguided Energy Policy & Big Wind Greed

1/27/2014

0 Comments

 
Well, deja vu, folks!

It seems that the Midwest shares a common struggle with the people of Ireland.

A recent editorial in Ireland's Independent reads like something penned in the central U.S.:
The expected growth in electricity demand has not materialised. There is now a wide and growing margin of generation capacity over demand. A new gas-fired plant was commissioned last year and another one is due to come on stream towards the end of 2014. The construction of new wind-farms continues apace. While some of the older stations are coming to the end of their useful lives, none are on their last legs. If Ireland was left to its own devices, there would be no urgency about adding more generation capacity for many years to come.

*snip*

Plans by Eirgrid to upgrade the high voltage transmission network, and in particular to build three major lines in the southeast, the west and a new North-South line, reflect both the ongoing need to renew and strengthen the network but also the perceived requirement to accommodate additional wind-power units. If the Government's wind targets are excessively ambitious, some of the grid projects might not be needed. There is also a push from wind-energy companies, including State companies, to build more capacity designed for exporting power to the UK. If these plans go ahead, there would be yet more high voltage lines, on top of Eirgrid's proposals, from the midlands to the east coast, as well as further undersea interconnection to Britain.

Energy infrastructure is both expensive and controversial. *snip* Plans for new transmission lines, extra wind-farms and onshore gas exploration are meeting widespread resistance around the country and promise to dominate the local and European Parliament elections in May.

If energy infrastructure projects make economic sense, the political system must arbitrate the health, safety and environmental concerns that will inevitably, and quite properly, be raised. It is sometimes tempting to regard the objectors as locally oriented nimbies seeking to blackmail politicians who are pursuing necessary national priorities. Indeed this is hinted at in the government line on pylons and wind-farms, which takes it as read that the various projects are necessary to meet the requirements of development. But if the economic justification for the projects is flimsy, the balance of the argument is altered. In Ireland it has not been demonstrated that the continuing push for ever-greater reliance on intermittent wind-generated electricity makes economic sense, nor is it clear that wind is the least-cost path to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
BINGO!

So, it's not a need issue, it's a GREED issue, just like it is here in the U.S.
0 Comments

Will Midwest States Become the Next West Virginia?

1/23/2014

0 Comments

 
The West Virginia water crisis has generated a whole bunch of national media attention on West Virginia's status as the east coast's dumping ground.

This isn't a new story, it's actually a very old story.  The long and short of it is that the people and environment of West Virginia have been prostituted to out-of-state business interests by their own elected officials.  The people of West Virginia have long sacrificed for the needs of others, and all they have to show for it is crushing poverty and a fouled environment.  All the money ends up in the pockets of its out-of-state overlords.  I told this story to the people of Illinois during a public hearing on the Rock Island Clean Line project last fall.

Now, Salon tells West Virginia's story to the rest of the country.

Is there a lesson to be learned here?  How easily could wind-rich Midwest states be substituted for West Virginia in this article?
The people of West Virginia had made clear demands: put land and people first.  The companies did neither, but continued on their profit-driven rampage destroying huge swaths of the West Virginia mountains – one of the world’s most beautiful landscapes – with mountaintop removal for cheaper access to coal, exposing residents to toxic air pollution in order to provide the rest of the nation with cheap energy.  The decisions made in the early 1970s are what got us here today, with hundreds of thousands of people spending days unsure when they would be able to drink their water again, with many remaining unsure as pipe flushing and other cleanup procedures have been ineffective.
Think huge industrial wind farms and miles and miles of high voltage transmission lines are harmless?

Wind farms could endanger small aircraft
Wind turbines throw ice
Wind farms can drive you crazy
Wind farms have a multitude of adverse effects

New high voltage transmission lines also have adverse effects and will take thousands of acres of the nation's most productive farm land out of production.


The people of Illinois, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri have made clear demands:  put the land and people first.  Clean Line Energy Partners have done neither, but continue on their profit-driven rampage intent on destroying huge swaths of America's farmland -- one of the world's most productive food producers -- with acres of wind farms and miles of transmission lines for cheaper access to renewable electricity, exposing residents to economic and health risks in order to provide the rest of the nation with cheap energy.  The decisions made today will be the history of tomorrow.

And if we don't learn from history, we are bound to repeat it.

0 Comments

How Clean Energy Is Killing Itself

1/22/2014

0 Comments

 
Remember when clean energy was just a cute little infant that everyone adored?  Pampered with government incentives and pats on the head by the media and celebrities, clean energy was the epitome of positive change.  Eventually, clean energy cut teeth and learned to walk, and people adored it more than ever.

Now clean energy has entered its sullen, teen aged years and suddenly it's not so cherubic anymore.  Clean energy has become demanding, shrill and arrogant, and average Americans are turning away.  The messenger is killing the message.

Last week, a collection of environmental interest groups berated President Obama for not moving fast enough on climate change to suit their environmental goals.

A chastising response from Obama advisor John Podesta ended with this sentence:
In the meantime, we will continue to welcome your advice, based on your very long  experience on how to convince the American
public of the need and opportunity to  transform dirty energy systems to ones that  are cleaner and more efficient.
Was that a tongue-in-cheek dig at the way these organizations may be driving away the American people with their militant concentration on their own management goals, instead of issues that matter to the members who keep the organization solvent?  These environmental organizations may have lost touch with the American public, and perhaps the only thing they are convincing them of lately is to cancel their memberships and turn their backs.

It's taken us hundreds of years to get to this point, and climate change isn't going to be fixed this month, this year, or maybe even this century.  Certainly not within the lifetimes of the current crop of arrogant clean energy advocates pouring out of our educational system, who seem to believe that arrogant disparagement is a useful tool to convince others to adopt their own sense of urgency in realizing their personal clean energy goals.

The false sense of urgency being pushed on the American public would require them to buy into the rhetoric that clean energy must be accomplished right now by plunging headlong into enabling big wind's big profits, and fostering social injustice by taking from one segment of society in order to make the needs of others more climate friendly.  This is not a sustainable plan and it is being soundly rejected by the American public.

"So what?", clean energy may say.  "We'll force them to adopt our clean energy plans!"

Not so fast.  The American public holds title to land needed by the big Midwest wind-a-thon, and they're not giving up easily.  It's turning into a political clash of epic proportions, and the landowners and voters have dug in their heels for a long, messy battle.  Now clean energy must find a way to part land from landowner if it intends to move forward.

Is the CFRA's report on transmission opposition "issues" going to do the trick?  Probably not.

Will a couple of Fresh Energy executives playing the part of an impartial news source help?

Communications. To achieve results, we must move the national narrative around clean energy and climate. Stories that show the economic benefits of a clean energy economy and positive, science-based discussions about clean energy, climate, and health are keys to progress. Fresh Energy has expanded our commitment to become a clean energy communications leader, as producers of the regional online news site Midwest  Energy News and in debate-changing strategic communications efforts.
Fresh Energy's Midwest Energy News "is a news site and we don’t take policy positions," according to its editor.  However, here’s Fresh Energy’s “policy” on transmission:
Wind power is a major ingredient in the transition to a clean energy economy. But to make it work, we need transmission lines that
bring electricity from windy areas to urban centers. If we do it right, wind blowing on the Great Plains will keep the lights on in
Minneapolis, Chicago, and Detroit, creating new jobs, protecting our air and water, and reducing reliance on dirty coal power.  The Midwest’s transmission grid is managed by the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), one of the largest transmission organizations in the world. Fresh Energy has been working with MISO and a network of partners to plan for 17 new multi-value transmission lines in the region, ensuring they are financed fairly and designed in a way that maximizes clean energy use and saves  customers money. A strong, regional transmission backbone reduces dependence on coal plants. Determining how transmission lines are sited and routed—and how  landowners are compensated—is a crucial step. With our technical knowledge and commitment to community livability, Fresh Energy is playing a key role in this process. As Fresh Energy and its partners continue the push for more clean energy in Minnesota and the upper Midwest,
we’re setting the stage for the next set of transmission lines
that will make or break our ability to fully harness the potential of the wind.
Take a look at what happened when Midwest Energy News published a glowing review of the CFRA report and a handful of landowners posted comments on the story. Landowners were challenged to answer the editor's argumentative questions, and had their own comments unfairly summarized and re-written by the editor.  Although he keeps determining that the discussion has "run its course," he just keeps coming back to have the last word.... 61 comments on the article and counting...

Did the Midwest Energy News editor's "conversation" with landowners help them see the light about clean energy?  Or did it just make them more determined to put a stop to what they see as short-sighted and unacceptable energy initiatives to build a coast-to-coast transmission "superhighway" to enable Enron-style energy trading?
  Or maybe they simply concluded that clean energy is a bully and a brat?

A true, sustainable, clean energy future is going to require thoughtful and empathetic leadership over the long term, and the patience to develop new technologies that provide real benefit to everyone.  Clean Energy is not yet mature.
0 Comments

Wind Wars - Talking Dollars and Sense

1/16/2014

10 Comments

 
The battle between renewables and fossil fuel generation has taught us all that it's good to be "green."  However, "green" comes in many shades.  There are also many internal battles going on inside the renewables world.  One of the most concerning is the "big wind" battle pitting onshore wind companies against offshore wind companies.

There's lots of money to be made by harnessing the wind.  It's a "free" resource, and our green-hungry society is clamoring to feel good about themselves by financially supporting it.

But all wind isn't good wind.  The idea behind "green" is that it's a sustainable resource.  A sustainable resource is one that is defined as "conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources."

Onshore wind is not sustainable.  It requires the depletion of one of our most valuable resources, the  productive farmland that feeds and sustains us. It requires taking something from those less economically advantaged and politically connected and giving it to others with the right economic and political connections. Centralized onshore wind generation is taking over our farming communities with turbines and huge new transmission lines to feed it to far flung coastal cities thousands of miles away.  There, arrogant, urban environmentalists can feast hungrily on their expensive "green" energy, believing that they are helping sustain the planet.  Nothing could be further from the truth!

Offshore wind doesn't require new transmission rights of way across privately-held land.  It doesn't require much new land-based transmission at all.  The development will take place miles offshore and be fed to the coastal cities via a few new radial lines.  However, offshore wind has been blocked by economically and politically advantaged individuals who don't want distant wind turbines mucking up their sea views.  Instead, they would rather the rest of us suck it up and make a sacrifice to provide for their needs.

Onshore wind is much further along in the development process and is therefore less pricey than its offshore cousin.  However, onshore wind has reached the saturation point where billions must now be spent developing new transmission to serve it.  This brings us to the tipping point where we must decide our own energy future.

Will we finally move forward on offshore transmission located in our own back yards, or will we choose to spend just as much foisting the burden off on others by building new transmission for onshore wind?

Let's examine the economics of both proposals.

Onshore wind claims that its new transmission projects will provide 5000+ temporary construction jobs and 500+ operations jobs.  None of these suspiciously rounded claims are backed up by source data, so we can't be sure how they were calculated to determine their veracity.
  The jobs and economic benefits claimed by onshore wind are intended to be realized by the communities where the line is located.  For the example, that would be the states of Kansas, Missouri, Illinois and Indiana.  Coastal consumers buying this wind product would be sending their energy dollars to other states and into the pockets of foreign transmission project investors.

The U.S. Department of Energy just released comparable economic data for offshore wind.
  The data for offshore wind development off the mid-Atlantic coast predicts 6000+ temporary construction jobs and more than 2,300 operations jobs.  Offshore wind will keep your energy dollars at home in the mid-Atlantic region, providing jobs and economic benefits in the communities who consume the energy produced.

Local economic benefits from imported onshore wind:  0

Local economic benefits from local offshore wind:  $$$


The
choice is yours.

10 Comments

How "Big Wind" Wants to Manage its Opposition

1/10/2014

13 Comments

 
It's no surprise that the Center for Rural Affairs supports lots of new transmission lines across the Midwest.  The CFRA wants to maximize economic development in agricultural areas.  But, are they tossing the baby out with the bathwater?

"Farming" wind by covering prime farmland with wind turbines, and then selling the product to distant urban areas, is big money.  The profit potential is huge.  However, it is not a sustainable practice.  It requires a conscious choice to designate winners and losers.  In order to pull in income for a winning farmer hosting turbines, many other farmers must lose some or all of the current value of their farm operation by allowing the wind farm owner a right-of-way through their factory to ship the wind to the desired market.  This is a non-starter and cannot be remedied through one-time "market value" payoffs or hostile takeovers of productive operations.  Just like any unwanted intrusion into your income stream, many landowners vehemently oppose being burdened by new transmission lines. 

In many instances, a farm's heritage simply isn't for sale at any price.  This presents a big, big problem for the farms and communities who want to profit by hosting turbines, and they just don't want to take "no" for an answer.

In that vein, the CFRA has attempted to find some middle ground in the debate by identifying contentious issues and recommending solutions in a new report, From the Ground up:  Addressing Key Community Concerns in Clean Energy Transmission.  Not a bad premise, however the CFRA went about it in exactly the wrong way.  Instead of communicating openly with transmission opponents and actually listening to their concerns, the CFRA based their report on news stories, and then made assumptions about the thought process and motivation of opponents they had never met. 

I've spent a lot of time over the past 5 years communicating with many of the opponents of the projects CFRA studied, as well as other projects, and I think CFRA got it so wrong that their report comes off as arrogant and out of touch with reality.  It is something to be scoffed at and rejected, and it may only ratchet up the anger, instead of ameliorating it.

CFRA begins with an incorrect premise that transmission must be built.
The nation’s most abundant wind resources reside in the remote regions of the Upper Midwest and Great Plains. Residents of these areas routinely enjoy the benefits of wind production in the form of lease payments, jobs, economic development, and tax revenue. But these same lightly populated communities demand only a small amount of electricity, making it imperative that a new generation of transmission infrastructure be put in place to move this energy from where it’s produced to where it’s needed most.
This is where the failure starts... right at the beginning.

The nation's most abundant wind resources reside offshore, on the east and west coasts and in the Great Lakes.  Coincidentally, this is also close to the population centers.  In addition, communities across the country are increasing their desire to keep their energy dollars at home, not to send them to Midwestern states, or overseas to transmission owners/developers in foreign countries who want to invest in America's infatuation with "big wind."  It's just a non-starter when there is no market for the product.

As technology improves, how we produce and use energy is changing rapidly.  The promise of energy storage changes the equation considerably.  These "lightly populated communities" will soon be able to store wind energy to be used locally. 

Booming distributed generation of small-scale, on-site renewables and more reliable micro-grids are making long distance transmission obsolete.

However, that doesn't provide a profit stream for transmission developers and investors, and local energy prices will be lower than those achievable in urban markets.  What's driving this relentless desire for new transmission is pure and simple greed.

Here's an example of just one of the things CFRA got completely wrong:
Need
Concerns over need are more difficult to address than some other stakeholder issues. The concern over need often relates back to a concern over who will ultimately benefit from the project—is a transmission project needed for this area, or is the area merely a means to connect a generating source to a distant community? Localizing benefits of a transmission line can be a difficult task, especially if the developer is not in need of any materials or services that a community can provide.
Another option to address this is to make clear the benefits of improving the aging transmission infrastructure that runs across the country. Showing how upgraded transmission can affect consumer’s rates and reliability may be a good tact for developers. Although this doesn’t necessarily improve the local economy, it does show stakeholders that they are not taking on a transmission project without any sort of reward.
Concerns over need cause an affected individual to trace the project back to its source.  Who says this is needed and what is their motivation?  Of course, the motivation is always money, and that's where the individual's belief in the project developer or planner's information ends and the opposition begins.  There is no "good tact" for developers at this point.  They have lost all credibility.

CFRA believes that even flimsier need arguments will convince entrenched opposition, but that merely makes the presumption that opponents are a bunch of easily fooled Mayberry rubes, adding insult to injury. 

My advice to transmission developers would be to toss this report in the recycling pile along with the Sunday comics.  It's strictly bush league. 

The CFRA concludes:


In order to improve the transmission system in the Midwest and across the country, it is important that developers and advocates confront the concerns of those affected.
I would recommend that any company attempting this actually find out what the true concerns are by listening the those affected, and not by reading a reporter-filtered version in the newspaper.

My advice to newly-minted transmission opponents?  There's nothing wrong or shameful about your opposition.  Other affected individuals share your thoughts and feelings.  What the transmission developer proposes is not okay, and you don't have to accept it.
13 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    About the Author

    Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.
    In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history.

    About
    StopPATH Blog

    StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project.  The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

    StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view.  If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty.  People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself.  If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

    Got something to say?  Submit your own opinion for publication.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    August 2025
    July 2025
    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories

    All
    $$$$$$
    2023 PJM Transmission
    Aep Vs Firstenergy
    Arkansas
    Best Practices
    Best Practices
    Big Winds Big Lie
    Can Of Worms
    Carolinas
    Citizen Action
    Colorado
    Corporate Propaganda
    Data Centers
    Democracy Failures
    DOE Failure
    Emf
    Eminent Domain
    Events
    Ferc Action
    FERC Incentives Part Deux
    Ferc Transmission Noi
    Firstenergy Failure
    Good Ideas
    Illinois
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Land Agents
    Legislative Action
    Marketing To Mayberry
    MARL
    Missouri
    Mtstorm Doubs Rebuild
    Mtstormdoubs Rebuild
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    Newslinks
    NIETC
    Opinion
    Path Alternatives
    Path Failures
    Path Intimidation Attempts
    Pay To Play
    Potomac Edison Investigation
    Power Company Propaganda
    Psc Failure
    Rates
    Regulatory Capture
    Skelly Fail
    The Pjm Cartel
    Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes
    Transource
    Valley Link Transmission
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.